RESTRICTED  
  
G/MA/M/71  
 
27 May 2020 
(20-3859) Page: 1/37 
Committee on Market Access  Original: English  
 
MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE  ON MARKET ACCESS  
11 NOVEMBER  2019  
CHAIRPERSON: MR FERNANDO ESCOBAR PACHECO (BOLIVIA)  
The Committee adopted  the agenda as reproduced in document  WTO/AIR/MA/1 1, with the inclusion 
of the following item under Other Business: " Kingdom of Saudi Arabia – Digital Stamp Tax – 
Statement by Switzerland" . An annotated agenda was circulated in document  JOB/MA/14 1 and 
JOB/MA/141/ Corr.1 . 
 
1   ELECTION OF VICE -CHAIRPERSON  ................................ ................................ ..............  3 
2   INTRODUCTION OF HARMONIZED SYSTEM CH ANGES TO SCHEDULES OF 
CONCES SIONS  – STATUS REPORT  ................................ ................................ ....................  3 
− HS1996 (L/6905 and WT/L/756)  ................................ ................................ ...................  3 
− HS2002 ( WT/L/605 and WT/L/807)  ................................ ................................ ...............  3 
− HS2007 ( WT/L/673 and WT/L/830)  ................................ ................................ ...............  3 
− HS2012 ( WT/L/831)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 3 
− HS2017 (WT/L/995)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 3 
3   EXTENSION OF THE  HS-RELATED WAIVERS  ................................ ................................ . 4 
4   THE HARMONIZED S YSTEM AND THE WORK O F THE WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  4 
5   OPERATION OF THE  INTEGRATED DATABASE  (IDB) AND THE CONSO LIDATED  
TARIFF SCHEDULES (CT S) DATABASE  ................................ ................................ ..............  6 
− STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 2019 IDB DECISION (G/MA/367)  ............................  6 
− LIST OF MEMBERS' OFFICIAL WEBSITES WITH TARIFF INFORMATION AND IMPORT  
 STATISTICS (G/MA/IDB/W/13)  ................................ ................................ .....................  7 
− STATUS OF IDB NOTIFICATIONS (G/MA/IDB/2/REV.50)  ................................ ...................  7 
− FEEDBACK ON THE WTO'S PUBLICATIONS AND ONLINE TO OLS TO DISSEMINATE   
 TARIFF AND IMPORT DATA (G/MA/W/144)  ................................ ................................ ..... 8 
− STATUS OF THE CTS DATABASE  ................................ ................................ ...................  9 
− PRESENTATION BY THE INTERNATIONAL GRAINS COUNCIL  ................................ ...........  11 
6   NOTIFICATIONS PU RSUANT TO THE DECISI ON ON NOTIFICATION P ROCEDURES  
FOR QUANTITATIVE RES TRICTIONS (G/L/59/RE V.1, JOB/MA/101/REV. 1) .................  12 
A. NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 12 
B. REPORT FROM T HE SECRETARIAT (G/MA/QR/8)  ................................ ..........................  18 
7   ENHANCING TRANSP ARENCY IN APPLIED TA RIFFS – COMMUNICATIO N BY THE 
RUSSIAN FEDERATION ( JOB/MA/138)  ................................ ................................ ..........  20 
8   ANGOLA – IMPORT RES TRICTING PRACTICES – STATEMENT BY THE UN ITED  
STATES  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  22 G/MA/M/71  
 
- 2 - 
 
  9   CHINA - CUSTOMS DUTIES ON CERTAIN IN TEGRATED CIRCUIT S – STATEMENT  
BY THE EUROPEAN UNIO N AND CHINESE TAIPEI  ................................ ..........................  23 
10   CROATIA – REGUL ATION OF IMPORT AND SALE OF CERTAIN OIL PRODUCTS – 
STATEMENT BY THE RUSSIA N FEDERATION  ................................ ................................ .... 24 
11   ENLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION T O INCLUDE CROATIA –  
NEGOTIATIONS UNDER A RTICLE XXIV:6 OF THE GATT 1 994 – STATEMENT BY T HE 
RUSSIAN FEDERATION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 25 
12   EUROPEAN UNION – RENEGOTIATION OF T ARIFF RATE QUOTAS UN DER 
ARTI CLE XXVIII OF THE GA TT 1994 – STATEMENT BY THE RUSSIAN FEDER ATION  ....... 25 
13   UNITED KINGDOM – RENEGOTIATION OF T ARIFF RATE QUOTAS UN DER 
ARTICLE  XXVIII OF TH E GATT  1994 – STATEM ENT BY THE RUSSIAN F EDERATION  ....... 29 
14   INDIA – QUANTIT ATIVE RESTRICTIONS O N IMPORTS OF CERTAIN  PULSES – 
STATEMENT BY AUSTRAL IA, CANADA, THE EURO PEAN UNION, RUSSIAN  
FEDERATION, AND THE UNITED STATES  ................................ ................................ ........  30 
15   INDIA - CUSTOMS  DUTIES  ON TELECOMMUNICATIO N AND OTHER PRODUCTS  – 
STATEMENTS BY CHINA AND THE UNITED STATE S (G/MA/W/120, G/MA/ W/128)  ...... 32 
16   INDONESIA  – CUSTOMS DUTIES ON  TELECOMMUNICATION P RODUCTS – 
STATEMENT BY THE UNI TED STATES  ................................ ................................ ..............  34 
17   MONGOLIA – QUAN TITATIVE RESTRICTION S AND PR OHIBITIONS ON 
IMPORTATIONS OF CERT AIN AGRICULTURAL PRO DUCTS - STATEMENT BY  THE  
RUSSIAN FEDERATION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 34 
18   RUSSIAN FEDERAT ION – QUAN TITATIVE RESTRICTION S ON EXPORTS OF  
SCRAP AND WASTE OF F ERROUS METALS – STAT EMENT BY THE EUROPEA N UNION  ..... 35 
19   DRAFT REPORT (2 019) OF THE COMMITTE E TO THE COUNCIL FOR  TRADE IN  
GOODS (G/MA/SPEC/59)  ................................ ................................ ...............................  36 
20   OTHER  BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 36 
20.1   Kingdom of Saudi Arabia – Digital Stamp Tax – Statement by Switzerland  .....................  36 
20.2   Dates of the next meetings  ................................ ................................ .......................  37 
 
  G/MA/M/71  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1  ELECTION OF VICE -CHAIRPERSON  
1.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that Rule 12 of the Rules of Procedure of this Committee allowed it 
to elect a Vice -Chairperson, and that the long -standing practice had been to elect a Vice -Chairperson 
during the autumn meeting. Based on his consultation, the Chairperson proposed to elect 
Mr Christopher O'Toole (Canada) as Vice -Chair person  of the Committee by acclamation.  
1.2.  The Committee so agreed . 
2  INTRODUCTION OF HARMONIZED SYSTEM CH ANGES TO SCHEDULES OF CONC ESSIONS  
– STATUS REPORT  
2.1.  The Chairperson  indicated that a full version of the Secretaria t's report regarding the different 
transposition of Schedules had been  made available in the back of the room .1 
− HS1996 (L/6905 and WT/L/756)  
2.2.  The Secretariat  (Mrs Alya Belkhodja) reported that one  file remained pending in HS96, namely 
that of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela; this file was under review under a separate procedure, 
based on GATT  document  L/6905.  
2.3.  The Committee took note  of the Secretariat's report.  
− HS2002 ( WT/L/605 and WT/L/807)  
2.4.  The Secretariat  (Mrs Alya Belkhodja) reported that 1 16 schedules of concessions had been 
transposed and had either been certified or were in the process of certification. One  schedule 
remained pending, from the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.  
2.5.  The Committee took note  of the Secretariat's report.  
− HS2007 ( WT/L/673 and WT/L/830)  
2.6.  The Secretariat  (Mrs Alya Belkhodja) reported that 110  schedules of concessions had been 
transposed and had either been certified or were in the process of certification. The Secretariat noted 
that only 15 schedules remained pending an d that it had been in contact with four of those Members 
to finalize their files, namely: Argentina; the Dominican  Republic; Indonesia; and Paraguay. 
Comments were still pending with regard to Thailand's file.  
2.7.  The Committee took note  of the Secretariat's r eport.  
− HS2012 ( WT/L/831)  
2.8.  The Secretariat  (Mrs Alya Belkhodja) reported that 97  schedules of concessions had been 
transposed and had either been certified or were in the process of certification. The Secretariat noted 
that 36  schedules remained pending and that it had been in contact with three o f those Members to 
finalize their files, namely: Ecuador; Mexico; and Norway. Comments were still pending with regard 
to the files of Armenia and India, whereas the files of Bangladesh and Hong Kong, China would be 
reviewed at the Committee's next meeting , on 25  February  2020.  
2.9.  The Committee took note  of the Secretariat's report.  
− HS2017 (WT/L/995)  
2.10.   The Secretariat  (Mrs Alya Belkhodja) recalled  that the Committee had agreed on the "Notes 
on Methodology" for HS2017 at its meeting of  10 April 2019 (document  G/MA /366) . The Secretariat 
reported that it had completed the technical work on the computer programmes needed  for the 
automatic transposition, the implementation of simplification cases , and the verification of 
 
1 Document  RD/MA/57 . G/MA/M/71  
 
- 4 - 
 
  inconsistencies. Templates in Excel and Access h ad been prepared and technical notes in the WTO's 
three  official languages had been drafted. The Secretariat reported  that the first  batch of 20  files 
was under preparation and that they would be sent to Members by end-November. The Secretariat 
expected to  send a  second  batch of files to Members before the end of 2019.  
2.11.   The Committee took note  of the Secretariat's report.  
3  EXTENSION OF THE HS -RELATED WAIVERS  
3.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that the General Council had agreed to extend the relevant waivers  
for the  introduction of the Harmonized System (HS) changes into WTO  Schedules of concessions for 
a number of Members on the basis of a "collective decision". The most recent waive rs were : HS2002 
(WT/L/1048 ); HS2007 (WT/L/10 49); HS2012 (WT/L/10 50); and HS2017 (WT/L/10 51 and 
WT/L/10 51/Add. 1). He noted that these waivers would expire on 31  December  2019 and that the 
Members concerned had yet to complete their relevant transposition procedures . Therefore, the 
Chairperson proposed that t he Committee extend all of these collective waivers until 
31 December  2020. He proposed  to the Committee to forward the draft collective waiver decisions 
granting such an extension, as contained in docume nts G/C/W/7 68, G/C/W/7 69, G/C/W/7 70, and 
G/C/W/7 71, to the General Council, through the Council for Trade in Goods (CTG), for appropriate 
action.  
3.2.  The Committee  so agreed . 
4  THE HARMONIZED SYSTE M AND THE WORK OF TH E WORLD TRADE ORGANI ZATION  
4.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that , at its last meeting , the Committee took note of the Secretariat's 
report entitled "The Harmonized System and the work of the World Trade Organization", which had 
been circulated in document  G/MA/W/142 and its corrigenda. At the s ame meeting, South Africa 
and Canada had requested to include the issue in the  agenda  of the next meeting . He also informed 
the Committee  that the WTO  Secretariat had been invited by the World Customs Organization (WCO) 
to participate in a Conference, whic h had taken place in Brussels on 23  September  2019.  
4.2.  The Secretariat  (Mr Roy Santana) reported that , in September  2019,  the Secretariat had been 
invited  by the WCO  to participate in a meeting of the HS  Committee to make a presentation similar 
to the one tha t had been delivered  at the WCO  Conference that had taken place earlier  that year. 
He recalled that the presentation had revolved around the work of the WTO and the impact of each 
HS amendment on the WTO  and, more specifically , on the work o f the Market Access  Committee. 
The content  of the presentation was similar to that set out in document  G/MA/W/142. He informed 
Members that discussions  on this topic  would continue at the next meeting of the WCO Harmonized 
System Committee.  The main question bei ng analysed by the HS  Committee was whether or not a 
strategic review of  the organization of  the current  HS System  was required . In this respect, the next 
amendment would not consist  of traditional HS amendments, but rather  a more substantive change 
in the  way that the HS was organized and updated. A second  point to report was that, in June  2019, 
the WCO Council had adopted a Recommendation that list ed all the recommended amendments to 
the HS nomenclature that would  enter into force on 1  January  2022. This Recommendation  had been  
undertaken pursuant to Article  16 of the HS  Convention, which implie d that HS  Contracting Parties 
had six months from the date of the Recommendation to notify the WCO  Secretariat of any obje ction 
to the recommended amendment . The Secretariat had  been in contact with the WCO and it had  been 
informed that the transition to HS2022 would entail  a substantive set of amendments , including  both 
the recognition of new commodity categories that were currently classified under different heading s 
or subheading s, and other changes that sought  to legally clarify certain matters. There were 351  sets 
of amendments  in total . In terms of new classes of goods , these included: e dible insects and their 
products ; novel tobacco products, nicotine products , and their substitutes ; hydrofluorocarbons 
(HFCs) , including their mixtures and other substances , covered by the Kigali Amendment to the 
Montreal Protocol  (here he reminded Members that references  to these products  could be found in 
the QR  notifications , as they concern ed substance s that deplete d the ozone layer ); flat panel display 
modules ; and dual -use items relating to radioactive materials, toxins, and industrial robots ; among 
others . He further reported that the WCO was considering the introduction of new definition s for the 
following : electronic waste ; machines for additive manufacturing, also known as 3D  printers ; Light 
Emitting Diode (LED) modules ; Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV), a lso known as drones ; cultural 
objects, including works of art and antiquities ; and many more . In term s of the clarifications, he G/MA/M/71  
 
- 5 - 
 
  reported that these changes had not been intended to modify the current classification of a product, 
but simply to make the cor rect classification clearer. For HS2022, these amendments would include  
a clarification of what was meant by the provisional preservation for travel of some vegetables, 
fruits, and nuts; with regard to  electric vehicles ; and finally , as concerned smartphon es, a new Note  
was expected to clarify that smartphones were to be classified as telephones.  He emphasized that 
this was but a simple list  and that the actual changes would be more detailed and extensive than 
those  that he had just mentioned.  He conclude d by noting that the WCO  Secretariat  had been invited  
to attend that day's meeting , although unfortunately  this had not proven possible  on this occasion . 
Nevertheless , the WCO  Secretariat hoped  to attend the Committee 's first  meeting  in 2020 with the 
intention to provide the Committee with additional examples and explanations.  
4.3.  The delegation of the Russian Federation  expressed support for the Secretariat's proposal to 
strengthen cooperation with the WCO's HS Committee. In her delegation's view, 
document  G/MA/W/142 provided an insightful analysis of the negotiating practices relating to the 
preparation of Member 's' Goods Schedules. The Russian Federation noted  that, based on that 
document,  26 WTO Members were not currently contracting parties to the HS  Convention . In this 
context, the Russian Federation requested to receive more information about the methodology  
followed by UNCTAD, UNSD, and  the WTO, in the harmonization process used  to generate HS-based 
trade statistics by produ ct, origin , and destination. The Russian Federation  suggest ed that the 
Committee continue its discussion of this topic  and that the HS  Committee  be invite d to participate 
in the Committee 's meeting s, as required . She also proposed to  organi ze a workshop , with 
HS Committee participation, by the Market Access Committee 's next meeting; this would provide an 
opportunity for the HS  Committee to elaborate  further on the various challenges and practices 
relating to transposition , particularly  for the b enefit of Capital -based experts working on  the 
transposition of schedules.  
4.4.  The delegation of Switzerland  observed that , at each amendment,  the HS  changes affected 
approximately 10% of the total number of subheadings. Members were only obliged  to notify and 
transpose the HS  changes, which were subsequently certified. In consequence, Members had the 
original schedule , and all subsequent changes ; however, they did not have a comprehensive 
overview of the current status of their commitments. The ir only possibility was to check the CTS, 
although only the schedule's paper version was legally binding. In order to improve transparency 
and predictability, Switzerland suggested that Members consider the option of certifying entire 
schedules once a Member 's HS2017  transposition exercise had been completed. In Switzerland's 
view, t his would allow Members  to see their updated schedule , with latest available nomenclature , 
in its entirety . 
4.5.  The delegation of the United States found it useful for the WCO and its  delegates to better 
understand how the HS underpin ned the goods market access commitments that WTO  Members had 
undertaken, and how changes to the HS, including more frequent amendments to it, could impact 
upon Members' implementation of their market access commitments. The US believed that e nsuring 
that all bound schedules were up to date ensure d transparency and ultimately promote d trade 
between economies. The US considered that t he lag between Members ' more current applied 
schedules and the updating of bound schedules c ould lead to significant concerns, as evidenced by 
some of the issues on the Committee 's agenda.  The US r ecognize d and appreciate d the work that 
the Secretariat perform ed to ensure that the transposition of Members ' schedules was accurate, 
transparent, and efficient.  For this reason , the US  would not want WCO  changes to the HS to strain 
the Secretariat and its resources.  The US urged the Secretariat to strengthen its collaboration with 
the WCO on this issue and to keep Members apprised of such activities.  
4.6.  The delegation of Canada  recognize d the importance of the HS to many aspects of WTO-related 
work, including serving as a basis for tariff negotiations, and the accurate collection of trade and 
tariff data. Canada also recognize d the vast amount of work that was required every time that the 
HS was amended . Therefore, Canada support ed a continued collaboration , working together on 
exhaustive correlation tables and HS2022  amendments,  between the HS  Committee  and the 
WTO Secretariat .  Given the amendments that had been described, he thought that it would also be 
useful for the WCO  Secretariat to attend the Committee 's meetings  and to provide an overview of 
upcoming changes.  
4.7.  The delegation of the European Union express ed appreciation for the Secretariat's work in 
ensuring that Members' schedules were transposed into new HS  classifications accurately and 
transparently.  The EU support ed the Secretariat in its encouragement  to WCO to produce even more G/MA/M/71  
 
- 6 - 
 
  exhaustive correlation tab les than at present in order to obtain  guidance that was as clear as 
possible.  
4.8.  The Chairperson  recalled that, as in the case of previous HS amendments, the Committee 
should develop a new procedure for the introduction of HS2022  changes in Members' Schedule s. 
Therefore, he proposed that the Committee instruct the Secretariat to prepare a draft decision, 
based on the Decision for the HS2017  transposition (document  WT/L/995) , to be discussed next 
year. Furthermore, given Members' interest in better understanding the changes resulting from the 
HS2022  amendment, he suggested inviting the WCO  Secretariat to make a presentation on this 
subject at the Committee's next formal meeting.  
4.9.  The Committee took note  of the Secretariat's report and of the statement s made.  
5  OPERATION OF THE INT EGRATED DATABASE (ID B) AND THE  CONSOLIDATED TARIFF  
SCHEDULES  (CTS) DATABASE  
5.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that , at its previous meeting, the Committee had adopted a new 
version of the IDB  Decision, which had been circulated in docum ent G/MA/367.  
− STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 2019 IDB DECISION (G/MA/367)  
5.2.  The Chairperson  informed the Committee that the Secretariat had been working to implement 
the various changes that had resulted from the new IDB  Decision. In particular, he drew Mem bers' 
attention to the status of authorized users under the dissemination policy (Annex  4 of the Decision). 
Given the changes in the dissemination policy, the previous Chairperson had written to the different 
organizations on the list, as well as to the In ternational Grain Council (accepted during that same 
meeting ), to inform them of the changes in the policy and to ask if they were acceptable to them. 
To date, in addition to the International Grain Council, the changes had been accepted by the 
following organizations: the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO); the United Nations Conference 
on Trade and Development (UNCTAD); and the United Nation s Economic and Social Commission for 
Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP).  However, the other organizations ha d not yet responded or, if they 
had done so, they had not  indicate d that they accepted the new terms of the dissemination  policy . 
Therefore, he would write to these organizations to remind them of th is issue and to ask them to 
confirm their acceptance of the changes . He would report back to Members on this issue at the 
Committee's next formal meeting . 
5.3.  The Secretariat  (Ms Adelina Mendoza) reported that it had been working on a revision of  the 
template used to record the status of IDB submissions  following the requirements of the new 
IDB Decision. The main changes included  dropping the column on bound duties , which was no longer 
required  under the new Decisi on; shorten ing the period for provisional data from 60 to 30  days; and 
synchroniz ation of  the deadline for import notification s, which used to be differen t for PTA and 
non-PTA Members , and which had now been set at 31 October . In addition, she  reported that an 
online survey had been  conducted in the three  WTO official languages . The Secretariat had  also 
begun to recompose tariff data for those M embers  that had notified imports  for which tariff s were 
not available. The delegations  concerned had been informed of this and the new tariff data was 
expected to be  disseminat ed once the IT-related  processes  had been completed . In this regard, the 
Secretariat had already engaged a consultant to work  on these  processes . The Secretariat had also 
begun to reach out to those delegations  that had expressed an interest in exploring the automat ic 
notification of  data, especially those where  tariff data was already available on their public websites.  
5.4.   The delegation of Canada  thanked the status report from the S ecretariat , which allowed 
Members to keep abreast of the latest developments concerning  implementation of  the new 
IDB decision. He emphasized that two of the main  strength s of this decision were the additional 
voluntary information that could be submitted,  including the ability of the Secretariat to utilize the 
information that Members were voluntarily providing to it as part of their IDB  data notifications , as 
well as the possibility for Members voluntarily to enter into agreements with the Secretariat to 
provide the relevant data automatically . In Canada's  view, this would h elp to facilitate and simplify 
the work to be carried out both in Capitals and in Geneva in terms of getting th e necessary 
information into the database . More importantly, access to additional  information and the ability 
relatively easily to update such information would be of particular benefit to micro , small, and 
medium -sized enterprises  (MSMEs) , since transparency was especially important  to them . In G/MA/M/71  
 
- 7 - 
 
  addition,  information provided  by Members  to the Secretariat through  the IDB was also  being utilize d 
by other organisations , such as UNCTAD and the ITC , to create  and to provide information  useful to 
MSMEs . Canada informed the Committee that it had brought  the updated  IDB Decision to t he 
attention of the Informal Working  Group  on MSMEs  with the purpose of examining ways in which 
the group could use this decision to improve access to information  and transparency for MSMEs 
within their respective jurisdiction s. 
5.5.  The Committee took note  of the Secretariat's report and of the statements made.  
− LIST OF MEMBERS' OFFICIAL WEBSITES WITH TARIFF INFORMATION  AND IMPORT 
 STATISTICS (G/MA/IDB/W/13)  
5.6.  The Chairperson  recalled that the new IDB  Decision required the Secretariat to  prepare a list 
of Members' official websites containing tariff information and import statistics. To this end, a draft 
document had been emailed  to delegations on 31  July 2019 indicating a deadline for comments. He 
thanked those Members that had updated t heir information, these updates had already been 
incorporated in to document  G/MA/IDB/W/13. The Chairperson believed that this document was of 
particular importance  because  it afforded Members and trade operators an opportunity directly to 
access the official pages where this information  could be found . At the same time, he encouraged 
Members to review their corresponding links and  to contact the Secretariat  if they were incorrect.  
5.7.  The delegate of the European Union  thanked the Secretariat for preparin g the document and 
suggested that , once the document had been  stabilized,  it could also be made available on the 
WTO website to facilitate access to its information . 
5.8.  The Secretariat  (Mr Roy Santana) replied that the list of websites was already available on 
Documents Online, although it could also be published on other WTO  websites dealing with tariffs or 
import information if Members so wished. He encouraged Members to check the information 
contained in the document and to confirm that the websites indicat ed there were correct. The 
Secretariat had noticed that such websites frequently change d. For example, by the time that the 
document had been produced and circulated there were already three or four  links that were not 
working. Therefore, he asked Members to inform the Secretariat of any change as soon as possible 
in order to keep the list up to date.  
5.9.  The Committee took note  of the Secretariat's report and of the statements made.  
− STATUS OF IDB NOTIFICATIONS (G/MA/IDB/2/REV.50)  
5.10.   The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to the Secretariat's report on tariffs and imports of 
Members, circulated in document  G/MA/IDB/2/R ev.50 and G/MA/IDB/2/Rev.50/Corr. 1. 
5.11.   The Secretariat (Ms Adelina Mendoza) presented the status of notifications to the IDB. In 
particu lar, she noted that IDB notifications on MFN  applied tariffs were 82% complete  for the  period  
1996-2019, meaning that  18% of tariff  notifications  remained  outstanding , correspond ing to 
531 country -year files ; of these , 69% of the data available had come from notifications f rom 
Members , whereas 31% had been  collected by the Secretariat from other  approved sources.  With 
regard to imports, 76% of the data was  complete for the period 1996 -2017,  whereas  24% remained  
outstanding , corresponding  to 654  country -year datasets. In addition, she noted  that 78% of import  
data had been  notified  by Members, whereas  22% had been gathered  by the Secretariat  from 
"framework sources ". In terms of complete notifications, 40 Members  had submitted their complete 
notifications o n tariffs , and 24  Members on import s. However, the Secretariat commented that 
42 Members had still not notified their tariff data dating back over at least six years ; similarly, 
51 Members had not yet notified their import data dating back over at least si x years . Finally , the 
Secretariat drew Members' attention to the  notifications of 23  Members (counting the EU -28 as one) 
under the PTA Transparency Mechanism , which had become an  integral part of the new IDB Decision . 
At the same time, she acknowledged that , of those 23 Members, seven had not yet notified their 
2019 applied tariffs , and 15  had not yet notified their import data , either  at the  aggregate level or 
under  the PTA -TM, requiring a breakdown by duty scheme.  
5.12.   The Committee took note  of the Secretariat's report.  G/MA/M/71  
 
- 8 - 
 
  − FEEDBACK ON THE WTO'S PUBLICATIONS AND ONLINE TOOLS TO DISSEMINATE 
 TARIFF AND IMPORT DATA (G/MA/W/144)  
5.13.   The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to paragraph  15 of the new IDB  Decision , which 
required the Secretariat to meet regularly with Members to seek their feedback on the WTO's 
publications and online tools to disseminate tariff and import data . In this context, he reminded 
Members that the Secretariat had organized a first  feedback  session on 17  July 2019, the results of 
which had been summarized and circulated in document  G/MA/W/144. It was his view that  Members 
had recognized the importance of the Secretariat 's work to  collect and process this information, 
particularly in respect of tariffs. At the same time , Members were experiencing difficulty over  the 
fragment ed character of the information being presented across several online tools, some of which 
could also be more user -friendly. In addition to the July  session, the Chairperso n recalled that the 
Secretariat had launched an online survey to allow users in Capitals to give their feedback on 
different aspects of the publications and tools. In this regard, he requested  the Secretariat to report 
on the survey results and to inform M embers of the preliminary plans in place to take that feedback 
into account.  
5.14.   The Secretariat  (Ms Adelina Mendoza) informed Members that the survey for Capital -based 
officials had been  launched at the beginning of  August  2019 and had been made available in the 
WTO's three  official languages. The same survey , with separate links,  had also been  published on 
the WTO  website  with a view to receiving feedback from  public users. The survey consist ed of 
20 questions divided into four  parts, as followed : part 1 focuse d on the general information about 
the respondent ; part  2 addressed  user needs in relation  to tariff and import data ; part  3 concerned 
the degree of user-satisfaction with regard to the current WTO  tools and publication s on tariffs and 
impor ts; finally , part 4 allowed users to provide additional feedback or suggestions. The survey had 
taken  into account replies received until 31  October  2019, although it remained  open. The 
questionnaire had information on residence which was used as an indicator of Member. Overall, the 
response rate of the official survey had been very low , at 15% . Of 164 WTO Members , not counting  
the European Union,  only 25  delegations had participated  in the survey, against 138 that had  not 
respond ed. In addition, there had been a total of 54  individual respondents , which amounted to only 
a very modest sample size . In terms of national breakdown,  the highest number of respondents had 
been based in Canada; Canada was followed by Switzerland , although the number for Switz erland 
had also include d delegates who had indicated that they live d in Switzerland ; Thailand ; the United 
States; and Hong Kong, China. There had also been two respondents , respectively , from Argentina, 
Australia, the Dominican Republic, Japan, Norway,  and Mexico , as well as  from one official  each for 
16 different delegations. The list  of respondents by nationality was annexed  to the Secretariat's 
report . In terms of language breakdown , 41 respondents had replied to the questionnaire  in English , 
10 in Spanish , and three  in French. Respondents had included  the following : 42 Capital -based 
delegate s dealing with  WTO issues ; nine  Geneva -based delegates ; eight Capital -based officials not 
dealing directly with WTO  issues;  and the remainder were from the public domain  (for example , 
other  international organizations and academia , including students ). She reported that, overall, 
respondents had expressed their satisfaction  with the WTO 's online tools . More specifically, 85% of 
the respondents had indicat ed that they felt satisfied with the tools on tariffs , and 80% had indicated 
that they felt satisfied with the WTO 's tools for imports. The "Tariff Analysis Online" (TAO) application 
appeared to be the most frequently used tool for generating reports on tariff lines  and duties, and 
tariff and trade profiles , which published both  IDB and CTS  data. In terms of functionalities, the 
respondents  had indicated that they had found the following to be the most useful : the applied tariff 
reports ; database queries using different selection criteria ; and the option to download data. She 
informed Members that a dditional information was provided in the report and that the Secretariat 
would welcome  additional feedback, comme nts, or suggestions , on how to  improve or redesign the 
dissemination tools.  
5.15.   The representative  of the Russian Federation  thanked  the Secretariat for initiating the work 
on updating the Decision on Modalities and Operation of the Integrated Database, and co ngratulated 
Members on their consensus to modernize this Decision within six months. Russia highlighted that 
this was a landmark achievement in the work of th e Committee  and encourage d Members  to continue 
in this direction . Russia believed that t he feedback session on the WTO  publication and online tools 
had shown the importance of  the smooth operation of the IDB. Russia believed that  maintain ing the 
WTO tools as a primary source of information  was essential to tackling difficulties in its operation 
and to improving its user-friendliness . Russia acknowledge d the Secretariat 's role in taking steps to 
advance with this task based on Member s' comments. Russia also highlighted that Members were 
the providers of the information for these tools and , at the s ame time,  its principal users. She pointed G/MA/M/71  
 
- 9 - 
 
  to paragraph  8 of the new  IDB decision , which re ad as followed : "Members may voluntar ily enter 
into an agreement with the Secretariat for the automatic transmission of data ". In this regard , Russia  
believe d that there must exist modern ways for Members to fulfil their notification obligations on 
tariff and data submission. She recalled that , in October  2019, at the meeting of the Informal 
Working Group on MSMEs, the Secretariat had given a presentation on  the IDB Decision ; in that 
presentation, the Secretariat had described, among other things, the new modalities for the 
automatic submission of data  between databases. The Russian Federation request ed the Secretariat 
to elaborate further on the idea to automat e the process of data transmission and to share best 
practices. Furthermore , according to paragraph  15 of the IDB  Decision, Russia believed that it was 
important to establish close cooperation between interested WTO  Member s and the Secretariat 
through the establishment of a  "task force " on databases. In her delegation's view, this task force 
should meet to exchange positive experience s of, and challenges when using WTO data tools ; in 
addition, it should pilot new WTO  tools and their prototypes before their official launch, and revise 
information relating to the work of the Committee  that had been published on the WTO's official 
website. The Russian Federation believe d that  the approach taken by the Secretariat to moder nize 
databases within the framework of the Market Access Committee  should be continued in joint 
cooperation with those WTO Member s interested in setting up an open -ended task force.  
5.16.   The delegate of  Canada  thank ed the Secretariat for outlining its prelimina ry plans for updating 
the WTO 's publications and online tools. Canada believe d that it  was important for Members to have 
access to the vast amount of information that was available  through these WTO  publications and 
online tools. Canada was supportive of t he work being done to make this information more readily 
accessible  and more user -friendly . 
5.17.   The delegate of the United States  thank ed the Secretariat for its updates and for its work on 
modernizing and streamlining the WTO 's data tools. She noted  that colleagues in Washington use d 
the WTO 's online tools daily, and that they had appreciated this opportunity to provide feedback and 
suggestions on how to improve the m. The United States  welcome d the plans to update the 
publications and tools and hope d that there would be additional opportunities to test any updated 
tools and to provide additional feedback.  
5.18.   The delegate of Australia  joined others  in thanking the Secretariat for looking at the review 
and modernization of these tools. With regard to th e survey, Australia noted that the level of 
response had indeed been  low, and that it remained unclear as to whether or not the survey had 
closed. He was surprised that there had been a high rating on the question of  the tools being 
satisfactory  since, in his view , these tools were complex . He said that he personally prefer red to look 
at TPR  reports for statistical data and relevant tariffs rather than  using the WTO 's online tools. In 
conclusion, he asked the Secretariat to clarify whether or not the su rvey was closed , and commended 
it for its ongoing  review of these  tools.  
5.19.   The Secretariat  (Ms Adelina Mendoza) expressed disappoint ment over the low response rate. 
She explained that only the official links had been published initially; the public links had been 
opened during th e WTO Public Forum in the hope of attract ing more responses . The Secretariat could  
differentiate between the official responses and those received  from the general public  and, based 
on the feedback,  it did seem that users were satisfied  and had found these tools useful . At the same 
time, she recognized that there had also been many respondents  who had indicated  that they had 
found the tools to be cumbersome  and difficult to use. For this reason, the Secretar iat encouraged 
Members to provide their  open feedback on what could be done to improve th ese online tool s. She 
informed Members that the links to the survey were still active and encouraged them to participate 
and to provide their specific feedback.  
5.20.   The Co mmittee took note  of the Secretariat's report and of the statements made.  
− STATUS OF THE CTS DATABASE  
5.21.   The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to the Secretariat report on the status of the 
CTS database , which had been made available to Members at the back of the room,  as well as a new 
website that was being  developed by the Secretariat to give access to all the legal instruments that 
together formed Members' Goods Schedules.  G/MA/M/71  
 
- 10 - 
 
  5.22.   The Secretariat  (Ms Maria Alvarez de Cozar) introduced Members to the main fea tures of the 
new Goods Schedule E-library , which was currently in development phase . On the home page, the 
information had been organized around four core themes that addressed  the main questions  relating 
to schedules and their changes, namely: (i)  what a WTO Schedule  was; (ii) why WTO Schedule s 
change d; (iii)  how WTO Schedules were identifie d; and (iv)  how WTO Schedules change d. She 
explained that on the page, "how do schedules change", for example, Members could find the 
procedures that they needed to follow for the rectification and modification of schedules . They could 
also access there the latest ongoing procedures and related information ( including  document  symbol, 
the initiating  Member, type of change, status of procedures , and so on ). For the  procedures that had 
not yet been completed, the documents containing the proposed changes could not be accessed and 
downloaded directly from the website. In this case, Members were redirected to the WTO  Documents 
Online , where they could then be access ed. Likewise, the website provided information on the latest 
certified changes  to Schedule s, where Members could directly access the do cument s pertaining to 
each certification  procedure , and also search them by several criteria ( for example,  by Member , type 
of change, certification file , date, and so on ). She reminded Members that , once draft changes  had 
been certified , the certification documents  were no  longer restricted  and could  be ac cessed and 
downloaded directly, including their attachments, in one of the WTO 's three  official languages,  from 
the WTO's website . She noted that the website also featured a "Member profile " page and presented 
Australia's page  as an example. The informatio n contained in Australia's profile page included 
Australia's Schedule number, the number of WTO  procedures  undertaken , and the breakdown of 
those procedures by categor y (including  different HS transpositions  and other categories ). 
Information was also show n regarding the status of procedures undertaken by the Member: for 
example, in the case of Australia, out of the  nine procedures  undertaken , seven had been completed 
and certified , and two were ongoing because of  reservations . She emphasized again that, as in the 
case of Australia's two ongoing procedures , the files were not publicly available ; therefore, they 
could only be  accessed by Members via Documents Online . However, on each Member's profile page, 
users could also access  relevant pre-WTO procedures, search using different filters , and also 
download all public documents and supporting Excel file s in one click . She also presented to Members 
the " resources " area, where th e main documents and links  were organized and stored . She 
highlighted that these links were already available through other channels ; however, they had now 
been compiled in to one single page , and organized by subject. For example , on the same page , 
Members now had access to  trade and tariff databases, the World Tariff Profiles , frequently consulted 
Secretariat report s (such as the document on the "Situation of WTO Members ' Schedules" or the 
"Status of  Renegotiations under GATT  Article  XXVIII ", documents relating to legal provisions  and 
procedures , and documents relating  to each transposition  exercise (grouped together with their 
respective Secretariat notes on methodology, explanation of changes, and the Decision of the 
introduction of each of the HS and correlation tables ). In terms of  next steps, she informed Members 
that the Secretariat would continue to work to wards  finalizing the website in the hope to launch it 
officially in the following few months.  
5.23.   The delegate of New Zealand  noted that this website included links to tariff and import data 
and asked the Secretaria t if it had considered creating a single access portal or a cross -reference 
covering the wealth of information available. By way of  illustration, he referred to a presentation , 
delivered at the previous meeting of the Rules of Origin Committee, on the website 
www. findrulesoforigin.org. As a small delegation, New Zealand emphasized that the proliferation of 
separate websites could make it difficult to understand what information w as available and how best 
to access it.  
5.24.   The delegate of the Russian Federation  expressed appreciation for the presentation of this  
new tool, which looked useful and could be further applied. As previously stated , Russia requested 
time to pilot new prototyp es or updated systems before their official launch. The Russian Federation 
therefore sought  clarification from the Secretariat as to whether or not the Goods Schedules  E-library 
would also make available the  Schedule's  headnotes, if any. She also drew the Secretariat's attenti on 
to the WTO webpage, "Current Situation of Schedules of WTO  Members ", which had not been 
update d since April 2017. Russia  believe d that the development of the E-library should not replace 
the work required on the updating of  information relating to the work of th e Market Access  
Committee , which was published on the WTO 's main website . 
5.25.   The delegate of Australia  thanked the  Secretariat for its work on transparency and for 
modernizing its way of  reaching out to Members.  G/MA/M/71  
 
- 11 - 
 
  5.26.   The deleg ate of Canada  believed that the website  appear ed to provide  very good background 
and contextual information , gathered together in one spot, which would be of great assistance to all 
delegations following the C ommittee , as well  as to others outside of th e Organization , in 
understand ing what specific matters  had been discussed  at which meeting s. He expressed Canada's 
appreciation to the Secretariat for its ongoing  work on the website  and would provide Canada's 
additional comments as appropriate . 
5.27.   The Secretariat  (Mr Roy Santana) recognized that, as mentioned by New Zealand  and the 
Russia n Federation, the fragmentation of WTO  websites  caused  difficulty to Members, especially 
smaller delegations. This point had also been made at the feedback session  in July. The Secretariat 
had taken note of this concern  and, in an effort to improve the situation, it planned in the 
medium -term to create  a single website  with a list of all existing WTO website s or online tools so 
that it would become easier for Members  to find the m. Regarding the Russian Federation's  comment 
concerning the "current situation of schedules" section of the WTO webpage, he explained that it 
was administered by the E xternal Relations Division and was based on a paper document that was  
issued annually for the Committee 's consideration  (document  G/MA/W/23 and its revisions). Since  
this document was  updated only annually , the website , too,  was likewise updated only annually . He 
informed Members that the Goods Schedules E -library would shortly replace that section  and would 
be updated promptly on the basis of  new documents and certification s. In addition, the "current 
situation of schedules" section of the WTO webpage would be decommissioned and  replaced by  a 
link to the new Goods Schedules E -library . The approach would be similar to that taken for trade 
facilitation. In addition , he assured Members that , once the  different prototypes were ready, they 
would be announced to Members and  Members would then have a period of time in which to 
comment  on them . The Secretariat would try to take into account as many of the comments from 
Members as possible  prior to their public launch. He confirm ed that there was no plan to launch this 
website before Members ha d first received an opportunity to see and comment  on it. 
5.28.   The Committee took note  of the Secretariat's report and of the statements made.  
− PRESENTATION BY THE INTERNATIONAL GRAINS COUNCIL  
5.29.   The Chairperson  reminded Members that , at its previous formal meeting , the Committee had 
agreed to grant access to the IDB and CTS  databases to the International Grains Council  (IGC) . He 
also recalled that the delegation of Sri Lanka had indicated that it would be useful to invite the IGC 
to make a presentation on its use of  this data. Following consultations with Members at the 
Committee's informal meeting of 17 July 2019, the Secretariat had invited the IGC to make a 
presentation.  
5.30.   The International Grains Council  (IGC) presented its method for calculating the total cost of 
trade in grains.2 Regarding the use of tariff data, the IGC  aimed at incorporating data on tariffs for 
five commodities in seven  exporting countries and 36  importing countries in order for its Members 
to be able to calculate live t he cost of trade on a particular date . In this regard , the IGC recognized 
that the TAO could be a valuable source of standardized and formal information on tariffs, which 
could then be pulled out and updated on a regular basis. Data on tariffs and tariff rate  quotas , 
together with prices,  was provided to IGC  Members for their information only ; the IGC did not 
perform any calculation  of tariffs . And when the IGC began to incorporat e tariffs, they encountered 
a number of challenges, including  keeping tariff info rmation up to date. The IGC recognized that  
there could be delays in the submission  of the tariff data  of certain  Members , and that time elapsed 
between the submission and the dissemination  of data  via the online databases.  In the IGC's view, 
one way to ad dress this issue was to have access to information from national sources ; in this 
regard, it acknowledged that the Secretariat had prepared a list of Members' national websites with 
tariffs and import statistics. However, the IGC pointed to the fact that sometimes this information 
was available only in the national language or in different format s, and that it was sometimes difficult 
to process . Therefore , the IGC  considered that it would be ideal to have such information 
incorporated in to the TAO  database and informed the Committee that the IGC would encourage its 
Members to feed this information into the TAO on a regular basis. In addition, the IGC believed that  
the automatic transmission of data, as for example through the use of  application programming 
interface s (APIs), would significantly  streamline the process of accessing data and updating 
information. In terms of next steps , the IGC planned to develop a mechanism for regular ly pulling 
data from the TAO , subject to the approval of an  extended access to th e database , to incorporate 
 
2 Document RD/MA/56 . G/MA/M/71  
 
- 12 - 
 
  updated tariff data in their cost of trade methodology ; the IG C looked  forward to working with the 
WTO in this regard . 
5.31.   The delegate of Sri Lanka  thanked the IGC for its presentation but asked them to clarify if 
IGC Members consisted only of exporters , or importers , too, and also if the information  collected by 
the IGC  was shared with other parties . She noted that Sri Lanka imported  wheat grain and that 
fluctuations in the market price had drastic consequences on the country's food bill; indirectly , they  
represented a concern , too, to  Sri Lanka's food security.  Sri Lanka asked  if the IGC, if given 
permission  by the Committee  to access  the IDB  data, could share its reports and outputs  with 
WTO Members , as well as their experience with regard to the  different  tariff classification s of wheat 
beyond the 6-digit level arising from  its grading. She recognized that certain countries may create 
tariff structures beyond the 6 -digit level , based on the technical content of a product , this giving 
different tariffs , although Sri Lanka did not  differentiat e in this way and might apply the same duty 
on high -value and low -value item s alike, such as in the case of wheat.  
5.32.   The Chairperson  recalled that the Committee had already agreed to give access to the IGC to 
the data from the IDB and the CTS databases.  
5.33.   The International Grains Council  (IGC) replied that it was  an intergovernmental platform 
consisting only of countries . At the beginning , the IGC Members were mainly exporting countr ies; 
but today they were made up of a balance d representation between importers and exporters . If Sri 
Lanka was interested in the activities and information provided under the Grain Convention, the IGC 
could assist them in acceding to the Convention. With regard to access to databases, the IGC 
explaine d that having sensitive access information on a daily basis for physical markets was why 
IGC Members were requested to limit such information to IGC  Members only. Therefore, if 
WTO Members wished to have access to daily information on market analysis and m onitoring, they 
should consider joining the Grain Trade Convention . The remaining data and information was shared 
by IGC with the WTO and other organizations. Regarding tariff classification, the IGC explained that 
if a country did not distinguish among di fferent varieties, the IGC would apply the same tariff to 
calculate the price of the various kind s of wheat; however, for countries that were more advanced 
in their tariff classification based on the wheat's quality, and that used a national breakdown up t o 
8-, 10- or even 11 -digit tariff codes , as did, for example , the European Union, which distinguished 
between high -quality and medium -quality wheat , with specific characteristics , the IGC had then to 
ensure that they applied the correct tariff to the price that they reported. All this was generally  
decided on a case -by-case basis  according to market destination , looking at both tariffs and 
non-tariff measures in the importing market , including customs va lue. 
5.34.   The Committee took note  of the presentation and of the statements made.  
6  NOTIFICATIONS PURSUA NT TO THE DECISION O N NOTIFICATION PROCE DURES FOR 
QUANTITATIVE RESTRIC TIONS (G/L/59/REV.1,  JOB/MA/101/REV.1)  
6.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that the two  issues under this agenda item were as follow ed: 
(i) examination of notifications received; and (ii)  the Secretariat's introduction of its report 
concerning the factual information contained in these notifications.  
A. NOTIFICATIONS  
− Afghanistan  (G/MA/QR/N/AFG/2)  
6.2.  The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new notification from Afghanistan for the periods 
2016-2018 and 2018 -2020.  
6.3.  The Committee took note  of this notification.  
− Brazil (G/MA/QR/N/BRA/2)  
6.4.  The Chairperson  recalled that, at its previous meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert to 
the notifications by Brazil that had been circulated in documents  G/MA/QR/N/BRA/1 and 
G/MA/QR/N/BRA/2.  Questions had been asked by the United States and Switzerland.  G/MA/M/71  
 
- 13 - 
 
  6.5.  The represe ntative of the United States  thanked Brazil for the ir recent Capital -based bilateral 
engagement  to address their questions. Her delegation had  found those conversations to be helpful 
and informative , and the United States looked forward to a continued dial ogue in this regard . The  
United States  had no further questions on Brazil's notifications  at this time.  
6.6.  The representative of Brazil  thank ed the United States . He confirmed that Brazil's Capital -based 
officers  had been in contact with the United States to examine this topic . He also thanked  the 
Secretariat  for its support . 
6.7.  The Committee took note  of this notification  and of the statements made . 
− China (G/MA/QR/N/CHN/4/Rev.1, G/MA/QR/N/CHN/5/Rev.1)  
6.8.  The Chairperson  recalled that, at its previous meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert to 
the notifications by China  that had been circulated in documents  G/MA/QR/N/ CHN/4/Rev.1  and 
G/MA/QR/N/CHN/5/Rev.1 . Questions had been raised by Switzerland and the United States.  
6.9.  The representative of the United States  wished , as a preliminary matter, to raise an issue 
concerning China's quantitative restriction on certain recyclable materials. In this regard, her 
delegation underscore d that recyclable materials were saleable comm odities and not trash. In her 
delegation's view , it was not accurate to classify these materials as "solid waste " and to subject 
them to a framework that had been designed for waste. The United States maintain ed significant 
concerns over the broad scope of  China 's import bans , and with the contaminant standards that it 
had set pertaining to recyclable materials. The United States  was also concerned that China did not 
apply the same bans and restrictive contaminant standards to products  sourced domestically . 
Unfortunately, China ha d yet to provide sufficient technical information. As her delegation had done 
previously, across  several forums, the United States again  asked China to provide technical 
information supporting the adoption of the se measures . Her delegation was also interested to know 
if China ha d plans to apply the same bans and restrictive contaminant standards to domestically 
sourced recyclable materials  and, if not, why not. Finally, the United States  reiterate d its request 
that China halt the implementation of the existing and planned measures and to consider less 
trade -restrictive alternatives  instead . 
6.10.   The representative of Switzerland  indicated  that h er delegation had just been informed that 
China ha d received feedback from Capital, which she would be  glad to discuss with them. 
6.11.   The representative of China  thanked the United States and Switzerland for the ir comments. 
Regarding the solid waste prohibition, China ha d already made comments on several previous 
occasions. China  believe d that  solid waste was inherent ly polluting, which ma de it different from 
other normal goods. According to the Basel Convention an d other internationally accepted principles, 
every country ha d the obligation properly to handle and to dispose of its domestically -produced solid 
waste. Since  China ha d suffered pollution derived from  imported solid waste for decades, it was 
imperative to  implement measures to limit the negative effect from such solid waste. With regard to 
the technical information that had been requested by the United States , she recalled that C hina ha d 
notified the TBT  Committee of the pollution control standards applied to import s of solid waste that 
could be used as raw materials, including waste motors, waste and scrap of iron, steel, paper or 
cardboard, and so on . Regarding the specific questions that Switzerland had raised at the 
Committee's previous meeting, she believe d that China 's notifications complied with  the 
requirement s of the QR  notification . Nevertheless, her delegation would consider Switzerland 's 
suggestion for its  future  QR notifications. She concluded by noting that China's QR notifications 
made reference to its  Questionnaire on Import Licensing Procedures, in which Members could  find 
the relevant information regarding China 's restricting measures concerning  ozone -depleting 
substances.  
6.12.   The Committee took note  of the statements made  and agreed  to revert to this notification at 
its next meeting.  
  G/MA/M/71  
 
- 14 - 
 
  − Hong Kong, China (G/MA/QR/N/HKG/4)  
6.13.   The Chairperson  recalled that, at its previous meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert 
to the notification by Hong Kong, China that had been circulated in document  G/MA/QR/N/HKG/4.  
Questions had been raised by Switzerland.  
6.14.   The representative of Switzerland  thanked the delegation of Hong Kong, China for having 
provided its answers and noted that her delegation had no  additional question s. 
6.15.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  recalled that, at the Committee's previous meeting, 
Switzerland had  raised a question regarding Hong Kong, China's  notification in 
document  G/MA/QR/N/HKG/4. Specifically, Switzerland had asked for clarification of the difference 
between "non-automatic licences " and "permits " mentioned in certain of the measures . The answer 
that had previously been provided bilaterally to Switzerland was that H ong Kong, China  had 
prohibit ed or restrict ed the importation and exportation of certain items mainly for reasons of public 
health, animal health, safety, security , and environmental protection, or to comply with obligations 
under international conventions.  The types and terminology of the restrictions that had been  adopted 
(for example,  "permit " versus "non-automatic licence ") had been devised by the relevant 
government agencies having regard, for example, to the types and terminology of the restrictions 
being specified in the corresponding international conventions, the related domestic control regime, 
and the local legislation or administrative procedures.  While "permits " and "non-automatic licences " 
may be similar in nature and operation , such that clear -cut differences between the two could not  
generally be provided, he asked Members to refer in particular to the last column in the  notification , 
which contained  information on the administration of i ndividual restrictions.  
6.16.   The Committee took note  of the notification  and of the statements  made . 
− India (G/MA/QR/N/IND/2, G/MA/QR/N/IND/2/Add.1)  
6.17.   The Chairperson  recalled that, at its previous meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert 
to the notifications b y India that had been circulated in documents  G/MA/QR/N/IND/2, and 
G/MA/QR/N/IND/2/Add.1.  Questions had been raised by the United States.  
6.18.   The representative of the United States  expressed concern over the quantitative restrictions 
that had been implemented by India on certain pulses. Although she would  also address th e issue 
later, under a separate agenda item , the United States remained  concerned that India ha d not 
updated its QR  notification to reflec t those restrictions. India had  previously informed the Committee 
that its restrictions on pulses were temporary. However, some of the restrictions ha d been in place 
since August  2017, and India had recently extended the restrictions for a full year , throu gh March 
of 2020. Her delegation questioned how these measures c ould be considered to be "temporary ". 
Indeed, the 2012 Decision on Notification Procedures for Quantitative Restrictions d id not 
differentiate between temporary and permanent restrictions.  Rather, Members were required to 
report "complete notifications of all quantitative restrictions in force ". She urged India to update its 
QR notification accordingly.  
6.19.   The representative of Australia  joined the United States in  raising their concern and noted 
that he would deliver  a statement on this issue later in the meeting.  
6.20.   The representative of India thank ed the U nited States  and Australia for their remarks  and 
noted that he would be responding to this issue under the separ ate agenda item . 
6.21.   The Committee took note  of statements made  and agreed  to revert to this notification at its 
next meeting.  
− Republic of Korea  (G/MA/QR/N/KOR/2 ) 
6.22.   The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new notification from the Republic of Korea for 
the period 2018 -2020, which had been circulated in document  G/MA/QR/N/KOR/2 . G/MA/M/71  
 
- 15 - 
 
  6.23.   The Committee took note  of this notification.  
− Kyrgyz Republic (G/MA/QR/N/KGZ/1)  
6.24.   The Chairperson  thank ed the Kyrgyz Republic for presenting its first  QR notification, covering  
the period 2018 -2020, which had been circulated in document  G/MA/QR/N/KGZ/1 . 
6.25.   The representative of the United States  thanked the  Kyrgyz Republic for having submitted  its 
first QR  notification , which indicated that they were still working on a notification with additional 
measures. Her delegation wondered whether this meant that the notification was  incomplete  or 
whether the Kyrgyz Republic was going to introduce new measures  that woul d be notified at a later 
date. The United States wished to know when this new notification  would  be submitted  and whether 
it would list all of the quantitative restrictions in force  in the Kyrgyz Republic . 
6.26.   The representative of the Kyrgyz Republic  thanked the United States for its questions. He 
informed the Committee that, as had been prescribed in Government Decree No.  323, this  measure 
had been  implemented  with a duration of six months. On the questions, h e requested to  receive 
them in writing , and indicated that his delegation would work bilaterally  with the United States . 
6.27.   The Committee took note  of the statements made  and agreed  to revert to this notification at 
its next meeting.  
− Maldives (G/MA/QR/N/MDV/1)  
6.28.   The Chairperson  thanked Maldives for presenting its first QR  notification, which covered the 
periods 2014 -2016, 2016 -2018, and 2018 -2020.  
6.29.   The representative of Switzerland  thank ed Maldives for its notification  and noted that  item 11 
related to an  import prohibition on all medicines without a valid medical prescription , which appeared 
to include live-saving medicines , such as vaccines and antibiotics . Switzerland requested  Maldives 
to explain the reason behind  such a prohibition, given that a medical prescription did not guarantee 
the quality of a medicine.  
6.30.   The Committee took note  of the statements made  and agreed  to revert to this notification at 
its next meeting.  
− New Zealand (G/MA/QR/N/NZL/4)  
6.31.   The Chairperson  drew Mem bers' attention to a new notification from New Zealand for the 
period 2018 -2020.  
6.32.   The Committee took note  of this notification.  
− Russian Federation (G/MA/QR/N/RUS/2, G/MA/QR/N/RUS/3, G/MA/QR/N/RUS/3/Corr.1, 
G/MA/QR/N/RUS/4, G/MA/W/119)  
6.33.   The Chairperson  recall ed that, at its previous meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert 
to the notifications by the Russian Federation for the periods 2014 -2016, 2016 -2018, and 
2018-2020. The European Union had submitted written questions, which had been circulated in 
docume nt G/MA/W/119.  
6.34.   The representative of the European Union  recalled that, during previous meetings of this 
Committee , the EU had reiterated its concerns over two measures contained in the Russian 
Federation's notifications , which related to the export prohibition on hides and skins ( numbered  28 
in the most recent notification) and the export restriction on birch logs ( numbered  30). She 
requested the Russian Federation  to confirm that the two measures had effectively lapsed. In this 
regard, s he recalled that t he export prohibition on hides and skins had first been introduced in 
August  2014, for a period of six months , and that it had been repeatedly renewed for periods of G/MA/M/71  
 
- 16 - 
 
  six months, the latest of which had expired on 1  September  2019. The E uropean Union  sought  
confirmation that no further extension of the measure had been  planned. With regard to the export 
restriction on birch logs, which had lapsed on 30  June 2019, the E uropean Union  requested Russia 
to confirm that the measure  would not be reinstated. Subject to such confirmations by Russia, her 
delegation  would consider the exchange on these measures to be closed.  
6.35.   The representative of the Russian Federation  thanked the European Union for its interest in 
Russia's QR  legislation , and confirm ed that the export prohibition on hides and skin , as well as the 
export restriction on birch logs , had indeed expired and not been further extended. In consequence , 
the Russia n Federation request ed that the review of its notifications be considered  as complete d. 
6.36.   The Committee took note  of these notifications and of the statements made . 
− Singapore (G/MA/QR/SGP/4)  
6.37.   The Chairperson  recalled that, at its previous meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert 
to the notification by Singapore for the period 2018 -2020. Questions had been raised by Switzerland.  
6.38.   The representative of Switzerland  recalled that her delegation had offered suggestion s to 
Singapore with a view to clearly specify ing some of the measures  that it had notified . Since 
Singapore had not submitted an updated notification, she wished to know if Singapore would 
comment  on Switzerland's suggestions . 
6.39.   The representative of Singapore  thank ed Switzerland for its comments  and apologized for not 
having been able to contact them prior to this  meeting . Switzerland's suggestions had concerned 
the structure of certain of the notified meas ures, including QRs  19 and 22 -25, which had  included a 
general description of the items and then a statement to the effect that these could affect certain 
tariff lines under the relevant chapter. Singapore had been looking  at the possibility of including an  
"ex" before the chapter codes,  but also other options ; for this reason, she would be happy to discuss 
this issue bilaterally with a view to clarifying future  submissions.  
6.40.   The Committee took note  of the statements made and  agreed  to revert to this notification at 
its next meeting.  
− Thailand (G/MA/QR/N/THA/2, G/MA/QR/N/THA/2/Add.1)  
6.41.   The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new notification from Thailand,  covering the 
periods 2014 -2016, 2016 -2018, and 2018 -2020. At the Committee's previous meeting, questions 
had been asked by the European Union.  
6.42.   The representative of the European Union  recalled that, at the Committee's previous meeting , 
her delegation had noted that Thailand's notification had not include d the import licensing 
requirements for feed wheat. The EU consider ed that these were non-automatic licensing 
requirements ; in consequence , they should have been included in Thailand's notification. The EU 
had expressed its concern s over Thailand's feed wheat  import procedures in the Committee on 
Import Licensing and the Committee on Agriculture  on numerous previous occasions . Furthermore, 
the EU remind ed Thailand that its written replies to the EU 's questions , which had been submitted 
to the  Committee on Impo rt Licensing in April  2017 and March  2018, also remained  pending 
(documents  G/LIC/Q/THA/3 and G/LIC/Q/THA/4). The EU reiterate d its interest in understanding 
what the basis had been for introducing a  measure, initially announced as a temporary measure , 
that had been maintained now for almost three years , and likewise in knowing when the measure 
would cease to apply. The EU was also concerned about the WTO compatibility of Thailand's import 
license regime for feed wheat. Furthermore,  given the re cent market and policy developments 
relating to corn, the EU considered that, to its understanding , there were  no economic reasons to 
keep the measure in place. The EU wished also to understand if, pending the removal of the licensing 
regime, Thailand inte nded to notify the measure  in accordance with Articles  1.4 and 5 of the Import 
Licensing Agreement , and to include them in its notification on quantitative restrictions.  
6.43.   The representative of Thailand  thanked  the European Union for its  continued interest  in 
Thailand's import licensing regime for feed wheat. The EU had provided Thailand with a set of written G/MA/M/71  
 
- 17 - 
 
  questions in relation to this matter , which were currently being consulted internally . Thailand would 
provide  its responses to the EU in due course.  
6.44.   The Committee took note  of the statements made  and agreed  to revert to this notification at 
its next meeting.  
− Turkey (G/MA/QR/N/TUR/2)  
6.45.   The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new notification from Turkey,  covering the 
period 2018 -2020.  
6.46.   The Com mittee took note  of this notification.  
− United States (G/MA/QR/N/USA/2, G/MA/QR/N/USA/3, G/MA/QR/N/USA/4, G/MA/W/116, 
G/MA/W/127)  
6.47.   The Chairperson  recalled that, at its previous meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert 
to three  notifications from the United States,  covering the periods 2014 -2016, 2016 -2018, and 
2018-2020. The European Union had circulated questions to the United States in 
documen ts G/MA/W/116 and G/MA/W/127.  
6.48.   The representative of the European Union  recalled that her delegation had been expressing 
its concerns over US trade prohibitions on sturgeon products in this Committee since 2015. In the 
latest US  notification (G/MA/QR/N/USA/ 4), the restrictions had been  listed in measures  9 and 10. 
The EU had  also submitted written questions to the US on two occasions. But given the limited 
explanations that the EU had received, it remained  unclear to the EU why the US consider ed, first,  
that wild and farmed sturgeon and their products were not separate categories , and second, that 
trade in captive -bred sturgeon and its products was considered detrimental to the survival of wild 
stocks. She observed that such a position went beyond the require ments of the CITES  Convention. 
In addition, during  past meetings of this Committee, the US had informed Members about an ongoing 
review that was being carried out by the  US Fish and Wildlife Service on the listing of sturgeon 
species under the Endangered Species Act. The European Union asked for  an update on this review.  
6.49.   The representative of China  reiterate d her delegation 's concern over the US import restricting 
measures on  steel and aluminium under Section  232. China again requested the US to clarify how 
these measures could address its so -called National Security concerns. Furthermore, China believed 
that these import restricting measures were inconsistent with Article  XI and Article  XXI of the GATT.  
6.50.   The representative of  Brazil  share d the concerns that had been expressed by several Members 
over the problem of overcapacity  in the world's steel production. Brazil once again express ed its 
understanding that trade restrictive measures were not the appropriate way to deal with this 
problem ; rather, it should be dealt with through multilateral coordination , such as in the G20 global 
forum on steel overcapacity or the OECD Steel Committee. In this context , Brazil once again 
request ed the United States  to review its QRs on Brazilian steel with a view to restor ing normal 
trading conditions between the m. 
6.51.   The representative of the United States  appreciate d the continued interest shown by the 
European Union on the matter  of sturgeon . As delegations were aware , there were five foreign 
species of sturgeon that had been listed as "endangered " under the  US Endangered Species Act 
(ESA). The ESA applie d not only to wild animals but also to those in captivity ; and when a species 
was listed under the ESA, the listed entity include d both captive and wild animals. She recalled that 
the US had not made a finding under the ESA that farmed sturgeon products were considered 
detrimental to the survival of wild stocks. In fact, t his was not a criterion under the ESA. She also 
noted that t here were 10 additional species of sturgeon under review by the  US Fish and Wildlife 
Service (USFWS). In December  2017, the USFWS had published a preliminary determination that 
one of those species, the Yangtze River sturgeon,  was presently in danger of extinction and should 
be considered endangered under the Endangered Species Act. She asked Members to see  82 Federal 
Register  61230 of 27 December  2017 for more information . The final determination was currently 
under review by USFWS  leadership. With regard to the current status of the nine other species under 
review, the USFWS was conducting a 12 -month status review on the petition to  list those species of G/MA/M/71  
 
- 18 - 
 
  sturgeon under the Endangered Species Act. The Service was still collecting and evaluating 
information and ha d not made a determination regarding the listing of th ose species. A listing 
determination w ould be made on the best scienti fic and commercial information available. At any 
time during the Service 's review, the EU would be able to  provide additional information to help in 
making this determination. Once the status review had been  completed, and if the Service f ound 
that a listing was warranted, it would prepare a proposed rule. At that point, the public w ould be 
given 60  days to comment. This would  give the EU another opportunity to provide the Service with 
information , and her  delegation would be happy to facilitate a disc ussion among the relevant 
authorities , as appropriate. Regarding the comments on the notification  of the Section  232 quotas, 
she had taken note of the comments and questions that had been raised by China and Brazil 
regarding the ir WTO consistency. She reca lled that t he US ha d invoked Ar ticle XXI(b) of the GATT 
and that the actions were therefore fully WTO-consistent. Regarding questions relating to the 
operation of Section  232 quota s, she referred Members to  the proclamation  that had been  issued by 
the Pres ident under Section  232, and to the quota implementation information that had been 
published on the website of the US  Customs and Border Protection.  
6.52.   The Committee took note  of the statements made  and agreed  to revert to this notification at 
its next meeting.  
− Uruguay (G/MA/QR/N/URY/3)  
6.53.   The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to a new notification from Uruguay,  covering the 
period 2018 -2020.  
6.54.   The Committee took note  of this notification.  
B. REPORT FROM THE SECRETARIAT (G/MA/QR/8)  
6.55.   The Secretariat  drew Members' attention to document  G/MA/QR/8 and its corrigendum, 
entitled "Status of Notifications under the Decision on Notification Procedures for Quantitative 
Restrictions (G/L/59/Rev.1)". In this document, the Secretariat had summarized the status of 
notifications as of 1 November  2019. He noted that the Decision on Notification Procedures for 
Quantitative Restrictions provided that "Members shall make complete notifications of all 
quantitative restrictions in f orce by 30  September  2012 and at two-yearly intervals thereafter". The 
format of the document had been slightly changed to include all Members and not only those that 
had notified. He observed that compliance remained low. In fact, since 2012, only 49  Memb ers had 
submitted a notification , and 115  Members had never done so. With a view to identifying possible 
ways to improve this situation, the Secretariat had conducted a pilot regional workshop in Vienna 
for the Central Asia and Eastern Europe region, which  had focused not only on the technical aspects, 
but also on soft skills and other organizational aspects to assist those responsible for preparing the 
notification. Of the eight  WTO Members that had participated , two had already submitted a 
notification for the meeting , and three  others were currently discussing their draft notifications with 
the Secretariat. Given the se positive results, the Secretariat hoped to  organize at least two  additional 
workshops for other regions in 2020. He conclud ed by reminding Members that the Secretariat was 
available to assist any Member needing technical assistance to prepare or review its notification.  
6.56.   The representative of Switzerland  thank ed the Secretariat for its report  on the status of 
notifications and noted that, in her opinion, this was a challenging notification to prepare because of 
the national coordination  required , being able to find the relevant HS  codes for the relevant products, 
dealing with  International Conventions that did not include  tariff codes, and so on . She recalled that 
Switzerland had proposed at the Committee's previous meeting to change the  title of the QR Decision  
to something less  misleading . For this reason, Switzerland thought that the title could be changed 
to "notification on prohibitions and other restrictions covered by Article  XI of the GATT".  
6.57.   The Chairperson  indicated that informal consultations would be organized to discuss 
Switzerland's proposal.  
6.58.   The Secretariat  (Mrs Roberta Lascari) presented the prototype of the new Quantitative 
Restrictions Database (QR  Database). As had been mentioned by the Chairperson  in his introduction , 
the Secretariat had undertaken a number of activities and initiatives that had sought to assist  
Members to improve their levels of compliance wi th this notification require ment. In the Secretariat's G/MA/M/71  
 
- 19 - 
 
  view, the new QR  database was an additional tool that could be used to enhance access to 
information about these notifications. She recalled that the 2012  QR Decision had provided for the 
creation of a  publicly accessible database and explained that the new prototype was meant to replace 
an older version , which , although  still accessible via a link on the WTO 's website , had had not been 
much used, unfortunately . The link to the new QR database would likewise be access ible from the 
WTO's official website . She also confirmed that Members would have the opportunity to test the new 
database and to provide  their comments and feedback  on it before it was made public . To this end, 
the Secretariat would send the link of the new QR  database to Members as soon as possible . Turning 
to the functionalities of the new QR website, she explained that the new homepage  had been 
designed to provide more information, including  a generic introduction to main concepts  and an 
overview of the summary data and information contained in the notifications. The data and 
information that was shown on the website was not new to Members ; indeed, it was very similar in 
character to the factual report on QR  notifications that was period ically reviewed by the Committee. 
The most important difference was that the website would be updated every time a new notification 
was received, meaning that Members would always have access to the most recent  data. She 
explained that, in the "Notificatio ns" section , Members would be able to find  information  about , and 
have access to, the latest notifications received. At present , the data remained in complete because 
it only took into account the latest notification  for each Member  as received by the Secre tariat by 
May 2019. Members would also have  access to an overview of all of the notifications that had been 
received, including the number  of notifications  by year and for each of the  biennial periods provided 
for in the Decision. There existed also the possibility to search information  according to different 
criteria, including  by Member, type of notification, biennial period, or by specific date. The system 
made  it possible to export  and download information either in PDF or Excel  formats . The section 
"About QRs" was intended to be more informative ; it contained explanations , reference s to the legal 
provisions, and links with additional information on QRs. The new QR website also feat ured a 
"Member Profile" page for each WTO  Member. While  presenting Switzerland's profile , she explained 
that the page would direct the user to the current  biennial period, which could be seen in the tab at 
the top of the page. I n the case of no notificatio n being available for the current biennial period, the 
system  would not return any data and a green check in the biennial period tab would show the 
biennial periods for which data was available . Once the right biennial period had been selected, the 
page wo uld provide  an overview of the data contained for that  period, including summary charts 
with such information as the  most notified measures, the WTO  justifications used, the products  most 
affected , if the Member was implementing restrictions because  of international conventions, and so 
on. It was also possible to access and to download the actual notification document. While t his 
information was based on the content of the notification as submitted  by a Membe r, the user could 
also select the button "additional information" to access a different view of the QR -related 
information, in particular for those cases where the Secretariat had been required to complete or 
harmonize the information notified acc ording to the requirements of the 2012  Decision. The 
"Explore"  section allowed users to make a more detailed search according to different criteria , 
including , for example , by measure, justification, product category, or international commitments 
outside t he WTO  framework. An "advanced search " feature would also be made available  at a later 
stage . In the section "How to notify", the Secretariat would include  all relevant documents and 
resources that Members need ed when preparing a QR  notification. Finally, the section "Resources" 
compiled on a single page all information relating to QRs that was currently spread across different 
websites and documents. The intention was to provide to users a single entry -point for all relevant  
information, including template s, reports , background papers, and so on, that Members required in 
order to prepare a notification. She concluded the presentation by recalling  that a  link would be sent 
to Members to afford them  the opportunity to comment and provide  feedback on the new 
QR database before its official launch.  
6.59.   The representative of the European Unio n thanked the Secretariat for th e updated prototype, 
which she thought would be extremely useful. She asked the Secre tariat whether it could provide a 
more precise indication of the time-frame  during which this work was to be completed.  
6.60.   The Secretariat  (Mrs Roberta Lascari) replied that , in principle , it would  be ready by the end 
of the year ; however, it would really dep end on the amount of time required to  include the missing  
data, plus additional time for  the Secretariat's internal testing phase , which it hoped to have 
conclude d by the end of the year . 
6.61.   The Committee took note  of the Secretariat's report and of the statements made.  G/MA/M/71  
 
- 20 - 
 
  7  ENHANCING TRANSPAREN CY IN APPLIED TARIFF S – COMMUNICATION BY  THE 
RUSSIAN FEDERATION ( JOB/MA/138)  
7.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that this issue had been included on the agenda at the request of the 
Russian  Federation.  
7.2.  The representative of the Russian Federation  recalled that, i n March  2019, her delegation had  
submitted a communication on enhancing transparency in applied tariffs (JOB/MA/138 and 
JOB/AG/154). This initiative sought to address two issues. Fir st, the communication explained  the 
existing legal gap between the transparency procedures that prevailed  at the national and 
WTO levels in respect of applied tariffs. Second, the uncertainty with regard to the time between the 
publication at national leve l and the entry into force of decisions that increased  tariffs. She noted  
that Article  X of the GATT did not require  any precise minimum time-limit for the entry into force of 
an adopted decision after its publicatio n, although the absence of a clear time -frame might  result in 
additional losses for exporters. The Russian Federation strongly  believe d that this issue should be 
addressed at the multilateral level. The current WTO  rules were limited to the annual submission of 
applied  tariff rates as of 1  January of each calendar year, but they did not require Members to submit 
information regarding applied tariff rate changes throughout the year. With a view to address ing this 
issue, the Russian Federation had submitted a  communicatio n (RD/MA/45) which  underline d the 
existing "water " between Members ' Schedules of concessions  and their applied tariffs. In this 
communication, the Russian Federation had explained  that the possibility to change tariffs without 
notice during the calendar ye ar might create additional obstacles for traders and , in particular , for 
micro, small and medium -sized enterprises  (MSMEs) . In order to resolve both of these issues , and 
to find a balanced solution, the Russian Federation ha d submitted a communication that  was 
comprised of all of the questions that had been raised by Members in meetings of the Committee on 
Agriculture in Special Session and the Committee on  Market Access, as well as during bilateral 
meetings. Her delegation  believe d that it was essential to discuss collectively , in an open and 
transparent manner,  all of the issues that had been raised with a view to ensuring predictable market 
access conditi ons. Russia was  keen to hear Members ' views on the approach that it had proposed 
and stood ready to adjust it s approach  accordingly in order to  promote further work in this area. 
She believe d that a discussion on enhancing transparency in applied tariffs would help to develop a 
balanced solution for the whole WTO  Membership ; it would also connect business es directly to the 
work of the WTO. The Russian Federation encouraged  Members to provide comments in writing when 
addressing the list of questions that had  been circulated in document  RD/MA/52 . Finally, her 
delegation was planning a  round table  to discuss this issue. 
7.3.  The representative of  Australia  noted that his delegation support ed further work to  consider 
how to improve the transparency of ad hoc changes to applied tariffs. Australia  agree d that requiring 
the advance notification of ad hoc changes to applied tariffs would create  a more favourable and 
stable trading environment ; it was particularly important for shipments "en route ". He recalled that 
the Cairns Group ha d previously called for ongoing discussions in this area with a view to improving 
certainty for traders ; Russia 's paper was a valuable first step in this regard . In terms of next steps, 
Australia propose d that Me mbers share information on how they treat shipments en route when 
tariffs had increase d mid-shipment , and what was the time-period that Members  would consider  
reasonable for traders to be made aware of tariff changes. Australia ha d been working with the 
Russia n Federation  and other  Members  on a questionnaire to answer some of these questions and 
they would welcome Members ' responses . He concluded by noting that Members should consider 
improved transparency and new disciplines regardi ng shipments en route as potential outcome s, 
among others, for MC12.  
7.4.  The representative of Paraguay  thank ed the Russian Federation  for its proposal and reiterate d 
its readiness to collaborate in these  efforts , which had the potential to substantially  reduc e the 
unpredictability faced by  exporters caused by  modifications in applied tariff s. 
7.5.  The representative of New Zealand  also thanked  the Russian Federation for the work that they 
had done on this topic. His delegation  agree d that greater transparency on ch anges in applied tariffs 
would  be of benefit to businesses, MSMEs in particular, and other stakeholders. His delegation  looked 
forward to participating in further discussions on this topic.  
7.6.  The representative of Singapore  indicated  that her delegation continued  to support the aim of 
this proposal , as well as  the broader aim of improving transparency in tariffs . Singapore would 
continue to engage in any follow -up discussions on this issue.  G/MA/M/71  
 
- 21 - 
 
  7.7.  The representative of Chinese Taipei  thanked  the Russian Federation for its efforts to enhance  
transparency in applied tariff information. His delegation was interested in joining the round -table 
discussion to share practical  experience s with other Members. However, his delegation was 
concerned by the proposal to notif y each applied tariff change to the Secretariat. In his delegation's  
view, it would also be necessary to take  into account the possible burden imposed on Member s, as 
well as the benefits for traders , including the frequent time-lag in receiving  notifications.  
7.8.  The representative of the European Union  expressed the EU's interest in all constructive 
initiatives to enhance transparency on trade measures. The EU  acknowledged that there could be 
uncertainty for traders deriving from the existence of "water" between Members' applied and bound 
tariffs. Such uncertainty would be  exacerbated if tariff changes took place suddenly. And it was  
possible that additional  transparency on applied tariffs might indeed alleviate some of this 
uncertainty. As had been indicated at the last meeting of this Committee , as well as in the Committee 
on Agriculture in Special Session , the European Union was  interested in exploring the issues that 
had been highlighted  by the Russia n Federation . 
7.9.  The representative of Guatemala  noted that her delegation was  ready to improve transparency 
and the functioning of the multilateral trading system with regard to existing commitments. She 
thank ed the Russian Federation for its p roposal and the dialogue that had been launched on the 
issue. Her delegation's preliminary analysis was that the proposal could result in new commitments . 
For these reasons, her Capital would continue  to review this topic , including the implication s of 
assuming new commitments in this area. Guatemala stood ready to continue discussing the issue . 
7.10.   The representative of Colombia  thanked the Russian Federation for the information, including 
the room document that summariz ed the comments and questions that had been received to date. 
Her delegation would  review  it in detail. Colombia shared  the view that the difference between 
applied and bound tariff s could l ead to uncertainty ; for this reason, Colombia considered that making 
additional information available on this topic c ould be beneficial for MSMEs. For her delegation, it  
would also be interesting to know the comments that had been  received in the various Committee s 
where the proposal ha d been discussed , and if the Russian Fede ration had information on the 
Committee  or body where  the proposal would be  discussed in greater detail. Her delegation would 
continue to follow this issue closely and stood ready to participate in the round table.  
7.11.   The representative of Switzerland  noted that her delegation share d the goal expressed in the 
communication of enhancing transparency. For trade operators it was essential to know what tariff 
would have to be paid when the goods arrive d at the border. The gap between bound and applied 
tariffs pose d a real challenge in this regard. It was also true that there was no requirement to notify 
changes in the applied tariffs throughout the year, although Switzerland did notify them to the Trade 
Monitoring Mechanism. Moreover, it would appear that th e current obligation to notify MFN  applied 
tariffs was something that was not necessarily obvious for some Members. However, comparing 
them was the only way in which one could know whether a tariff had changed from one year to 
another. Switzerland remained  open to continue discussing Russia's  ideas in this regard . In the same 
spirit, she considered that it would be appropriate to discuss ways to improve the level of Members' 
compliance with the yearly notification of the MFN  applied duties.  
7.12.   The representati ve of Canada  noted that, where tariffs had indeed changed, Canada 
supported the public policy that would include an "in - transit" provision that would take into account 
goods that had already been shipped prior to the change in tariff to avoid surprises on  the part of 
traders at customs. He supported the proposal by Australia to have a discussion on different practices  
in this area, and the comment by Colombia concerning where this issue should be discussed. He 
asked the Chairperson to consult with his coun terpart in the Committee on Agriculture to explore 
whether there was a way of coordinating and working together ; if not,  it would be difficult to make 
progress because different delegates participated in different discussions and would have to rely 
upon wr itten reports from colleagues – perhaps not the best way of making progress.  
7.13.   The representative of Thailand  looked forward to engaging in the discussion in order to 
address the existing gaps in transparency with regard to applied tariffs.  
7.14.   The representative of China  noted that her delegation considered that  the discussion on 
enhancing transparency should take into  account Members ' capacity. While h er Capital was still 
reviewing the proposal , she reiterate d her delegation's interest in this issue.  G/MA/M/71  
 
- 22 - 
 
  7.15.   The representative of Mexico  noted that her delegation was in favour of transparency and of 
finding ways to improve Members'  compliance with their notification obligations. For this reason, her 
delegation  considered it relevant to continue discussing how best to  address this proposal and,  as 
other s had said, how to improve compliance with notification obligations. She also  expressed  her 
delegation's  interest in participating in the proposed round table and in knowing in which forum the 
Russian Federation would be raising  this issue. 
7.16.   The representative of India thanked  the Russian Federation for its proposal and noted that 
India stood ready to participate in the discussions in case they moved further.  India wanted it to be 
understood that, in the case of changes in tariffs , there were already websites in the public domain 
where the information  was made available, which were separate from the annual notifications and 
the Trade Monitoring Report.  In its bilateral meetings, India had informed Russia that India made 
this information available through the CBIC  website , which was updated every day an d immediately 
after the imposition of changes had taken place . This website had been notified to  the Trade 
Facilitation Agreement. Any Member interested in looking at the changes could access this website 
and the relevant information. His delegation  wonder ed what the added value of the proposal would 
be given the time gap between  the actual imposition of the increased duties and the notification to 
the WTO. On the issue of consignments in transit , his delegation wished  to understand how Members 
dealt with s ituations where there had been manipulation or misuse by traders, and how they deal t 
with the situation of high sea sales for shipments in transit destined for other countries . In other 
words, as soon as traders knew that the tariff would be increased, cou ld there be arrangements 
where a product that was initially shipped to a third country could then be sold on the high seas and 
the consignment sent to the country that had increased the duty. He asked other delegations to 
explain how they addressed  such si tuations . His delegation stood ready to continue discussions in 
any format.  
7.17.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  noted that his delegation was interested in this  issue 
and would continue to monitor it closely.  
7.18.   The representative of the Russian Federation  thanked all the delegations that had taken the 
floor to make comments and ask questions. Regarding a number of the questions, including that on 
high sea sales, sh e requested that delegations provide them in writing so that they could be added 
to the list of questions. On the issue of coordination between the Committee on Agriculture in Special 
Session and the Committee on Market Access, the Russian Federation would  consult with the 
Secretariat on how best to involve delegates from both committees in the round table.  
7.19.   The Committee took note  of the statements made . 
8  ANGOLA – IMPORT REST RICTING PRACTICES – STATEMENT BY THE UN ITED STATES  
8.1.  The Chairperson  recalled  that thi s agenda item had been included at the request of  the United 
States . 
8.2.  The representative of the United States  expressed  concern over Angola 's Presidential Decree 
No. 23/19, which had been issued on 14 January  2019. Her delegation understood  that this decree 
was aimed at restricting Angola 's imports with the goal to increase domestic economic development. 
They also unders tood that this decree had target ed 54 products, mainly agricultural goods, and that 
it could potentially target more in the  future, and that it also cover ed any imports that compete d 
with goods produced in the Luanda -Bengo special economic zone. Since the implementation of the 
decree, the US had heard reports of confusion over how the decree was being enforced , and of 
delays f acing goods at the border. US agricultural exporters had been  particularly concerned over 
delays that perishable goods had faced amidst all this uncertainty. The United States request ed 
Angola to explain this decree in light of Angola 's WTO commitments, including with respect to 
national treatment and quantitative restrictions. Her delegation was also concerned that these 
actions could do a great deal to discourage overseas companies from doing business in Angola and 
might compromise Angola 's relationships with key trading partners. She asked  Angola to explain if 
it plan ned to revise the decree, or how it plan ned to implement the decree, in light of WTO  rules, 
and the potential impact on trade and investment . She urged the Angolan government t o request 
technical assistance, if necessary, from the WTO  Secretariat in notifying any trade measure s that 
had been  taken under Decree No.  23/19 to the appropriate WTO  Committee . Finally, the United 
States  urged the Angolan government to continue to work with the  US Embassy in Luanda in G/MA/M/71  
 
- 23 - 
 
  developing good regulatory practices and technical standards cooperation. Such work would help 
the Angolan government to develop policies and regulations that took into account stakeholder 
concerns and address ed strategic p olicy goals, while avoiding disruptive trade policies.  
8.3.  The representative of the European Union  recalled that the  EU was supportive of Angola 's 
intention to diversify its economy and to develop its domestic industry. However, the EU share d the 
concerns that had been expressed by the United States. Decree No. 23/19 seem ed to protect 
domestic industries in a manner that was incompatible with WTO  rules and that could be highly 
detrimental to foreign investments in Angola. She urged Angola to review the relevant measures in 
order to ensure their compliance with WTO  rules.  
8.4.  The representative of the Russian Federation  expressed deep concern over Angola 's trade 
restricting practices  regarding a wide range of products, including pork meat, wheat flour , and 
poultry meat. Angola 's Presidential Decree No . 23/19 had prioritize d domestic products over 
imported products  and had impose d a quantitative restriction on imports. Her delegation s ought 
clarification as to whether or not Angola had applie d preshipment inspection under the 
aforementioned Decree . She encourage d Angola to actively engage bilaterally  with the Russian 
Federation , because Angola ha d failed to provide an explanation as to how these measures were 
consistent  with WTO  rules. She asked Angola to justify these measures in relation to  Articles  III 
and XI of the GATT , and urged Angola to bring its measures into conformity with the WTO  Agreement 
and to lift its import ban on agricultural products.  
8.5.  The representative of Canada  recalled that,  at the Committee's July 2019 meeting, her 
delegation had  encourage d Angola to comply with its WTO  notification requirements and to notify 
this Decree, as well as any measures taken under th is Decree, to the appropriate WTO  Committees. 
Canada had also sought  to clarify the scope of the measure, and the HS  codes of the agricultural 
products it covered. To support the predictability of agricultural trade, Canada encourage d Angola 
to provide add itional information on when and how this Decree w ould be enforced.  
8.6.  The Committee took note  of the statements made . 
9  CHINA - CUSTOMS DUTI ES ON CERTAIN INTEGR ATED CIRCUITS – STAT EMENT BY THE 
EUROPEAN UNION AND C HINESE TAIPEI  
9.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that this agenda item had been included on the agenda at the request 
of the European Union and Chinese Taipei.  He recalled that Canada would also like to be considered 
as a co-sponsor of this item.  
9.2.  The representative of the European Union  recalle d that this issue had  been on the Committee's 
agenda for a long time. She thank ed China for having shared an overview of its tariffs on MCOs 
(multi -component integrated circuits) following the transposition. However, t he fact that several 
delegations had continue d to raise this issue demonstrate d that the information that had been 
provided thus far ha d not alleviated their concerns. As the WTO  Secretariat had pointed out earlier 
this year in response to a letter from the Chairperson of the 19th Meeting of t he GAMS  
(Government/Authorities Meeting on Semiconductors), Members ha d agreed on a set of procedures 
to transpose their Goods Schedules into HS2017. These  procedures provide d that, in case the 
original concessions of HS2012  tariff lines were different, the new concession elements of the new 
HS2017  tariff lines should reflect this, and tariff lines should normally be broken down to a more 
detailed level so that the draft HS2017  file fully reflected the same level of concessions. Therefore, 
her delegation considered that China could have created additional national tariff lines to continue 
to apply a zero  duty on these products , which previously had been duty-free, thereby maintaining 
the value of its concessions and respecting  the spirit of the ITA  Expansion. However, th is had not 
been the case. From the WTO  Secretariat 's letter, her delegation had also understood that China 
should have consulted on its approach with other Members  in advance . Despite the elements that 
had been provided to the GAMS, the European Union regret ted that China had not agree d to take 
steps on this matter at the recent GAMS  meeting of October  2019. The EU  continue d to encourage 
China to rectify this situation a t its earliest convenience , either  by modifying the classification, or by 
immediately eliminating the remaining duties.  
9.3.  The representative of Chinese Taipei  recalled that this issue had been raised at different 
meetings of this Committee, as well as at meeting s of the ITA Committee and the Council for Trade G/MA/M/71  
 
- 24 - 
 
  in Goods . Although China had explained that the tariffs would progressively diminish  over five years, 
the same concern was still being raised by their semiconductor in dustry. Her delegation reiterated 
that, based on the WTO  Procedure for the Introduction of HS2017  changes to Schedules of 
Concessions using the Consolidated Tariff Schedules (CTS) database, "the scope of the concessions 
and other commitments shall remain u nchanged  when a Member was preparing the 
HS2017  transposition ". In her delegation's  view, China had not  provided  a valid justification  for 
choosing the method of applying  an arithmetic average to previous rates of duty. As a result , 
ten tariff lines , which  had been  covered by China 's ITA-1 commitments , and which had been bound 
at duty-free levels in China 's WTO  schedule , had now been made subject to duty rates. Considering 
the princip le of tariff rate neutrality  and non -violation of a Member 's ITA obligation s, Chinese Taipei 
again urged China immediately to eliminate its tariffs on MCO  products , which were effectively 
duty-free. 
9.4.  The representative of the United States  supported the statements and questions that had been 
raised by the EU  and Chinese Taipei . She reiterated her delegation's concern over the  change in 
China 's applied duty rates for certain semiconductor products. Th e United States  had previously 
raised the issue in this Committee, as well as in the ITA  Committee and the Council for Trade in 
Goods. She considered that t he facts were simple. Certain semiconductor products that had been  
duty-free for over a decade  were now being charged import duties at the border. China 's 
transposition for these products s hould have resulted in changes to the tariffs that were being 
imposed. Her delegation  remain ed concerned, in line with the General Council Decision on 
HS transpositions and the Guidance that had been approved by this Committee, that the scope of 
China's co ncessions appear ed to have changed substantially, and that the value of the concessions 
had been impaired.  
9.5.  The representative of Japan  recalled that her delegation held a significant interest in this issue. 
Japan held a different view to that of China concerning  the classification of intelligent power modules 
(IGBT-IPM). For example, Japan  underst ood that some IGBT -IPMs should be classified under 
HS subheading  8542.39 as goods that were currently subject to duty -free treatment.  However , 
China had treated some of the se IGBT-IPM as products that d id not have the properties of 
Multi-Component Semiconductors , and had classified them under HS  subheading  8504.40. Products 
under this subheading had been  subject to a 5%  tariff. Japan wished to continue discussing this 
classification matter with China at an expert level. Japan was also closely monitoring China 's 
commitment to abolish customs duties in July  2021 on all relevant items in line with the staging of 
the ITA  Expansion.  
9.6.  The representative of China thanked  the EU, Chinese Taipei, the United States, and Japan,  for 
their interventions. She recalled that China had already responded on this issue on many occasions. 
Her delegation had  also conducted several  bilateral consultations with interested Member s in order 
to clarify certain technical questions.  While she di d not want  to repeat all of China's previous 
statements, she briefly reiterated China's position. In the transposition of MCO  products, China had 
used the methodology that had been suggested by the WTO  documents, which was fully consistent 
with WTO  rules on HS2017  transposition. China ha d always undertaken its tariff reduction 
commitments  seriously . Since 1 July 2019, China had implemented the 4th tariff reduction on 
ITA Expansion products. The duty rates on MCO  products ha d been further reduced to 1.3%, 1.4% , 
and 3.3% , respectively. China would  continue to undertake seriously its commitment and all duties 
on MCO  products w ould be eliminated by July  2021, as scheduled. She noted that, regarding the 
proposal to break down tariff lines with new tariff lines that had been suggested by the 
EU delegation , and as had been explained by China in the ir bilateral consultations , in practice, it was 
difficult to distinguis h between these MCO products. Her delegation would clarify bilaterally  the 
technical question on IGBT -IPM that had been raised by Japan . 
9.7.  The Committee took note  of the statements made . 
10  CROATIA – REGULATION  OF IMPORT AND SALE OF CERTAIN OIL PRODU CTS – 
STATE MENT BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION  
10.1.   The Chairperson  recalled that this agenda item had been included on the agenda at the 
request of the  delegation of the Russian Federation . G/MA/M/71  
 
- 25 - 
 
  10.2.   The representative of the Russian Federation  thank ed the European Union for facilitating the 
process of bringing this measure in to conformity with WTO  rules. At the same time, the Russian 
Federation requested the European Union to confirm that no alternative measures would be imposed 
in the future that woul d restrict market access for oil products originating in third  countries, including 
Russia. In addition, her delegation asked the  EU to inform Russia  of whether or not the respective 
Decree of the Government of Croatia ha d entered into force , and to confir m that all the restrictions 
had been eliminated in practice.  
10.3.   The representative of the European Union  thanked  the Russian Federation for its continued 
interest in Croatia's regulation on the import and sale of certain oil products. On 3  October  2019, 
the G overnment of Croatia had adopted a legal measure repealing the regulation in question. This 
measure had been  published and ha d entered into force. The EU had subsequently communicated 
this development to the Russian Federation . The EU trusted that, with th is step , the issue c ould be 
considered closed.  
10.4.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
11  ENLARGEMENT OF THE E UROPEAN UNION TO INC LUDE CROATIA – NEGOT IATIONS 
UNDER ARTICLE XXIV:6  OF THE GATT 1994 – STATEMENT BY THE RUS SIAN FEDERATION  
11.1.   The Chairperson  noted that this agenda item had been included at the request of the 
Russian  Federation.  
11.2.   The representative of the Russian Federation  reiterated her delegation's  deep concern over 
the European Union 's negotiations under Article  XXIV:6 of the GAT T 1994 in the framework of its 
enlargement to include Croatia. Her delegation had repeatedly raised this issue bilaterally  and at the 
Committee on Market Access and the Council  for Trade in Goods . Russia's  concerns had been 
transmitted to the European Unio n in writing and circulated to WTO Members. The Russian 
Federation could not  agree with the EU 's position that "the indication of a WTO  Member as principal 
supplier in a GATT  Articles  XXIV:6 and XXVIII notification was not an automatic recognition of a 
right for that WTO  Member to obtain compensation ". First, the Procedures for Negotiations under 
Article  XXVIII of the GATT d id not oblige Members to indicate principal suppliers in their notifications 
based on import data.  Second, Russia ha d never challenged the data that had been provided in the 
EU's notification. In other words, Russia ha d agreed with its negotiating rights, which had been 
determined by the EU in the respective notificat ion. Third, the procedures provide d for the possibility 
of simultaneous transmission of import data and a proposal for compensatory adjustment. This might 
be possible only in case s where the Member itself determine d the negotiating rights of the other 
Memb ers based on its import data. With regard to the EU 's position concerning the conclusion of 
negotiations , her delegation  recall ed that the Russian Federation had objected to the conclusion of 
these negotiations , in document  G/SECRET/35/Add.4. The Russian F ederation  emphasized that it 
could not  consider the negotiations to have been completed and call ed upon the EU to engage in 
compensatory adjustment negotiations with Russia.  
11.3.   The representative of the European Union  recalled the explanations that had been provided 
at previous meetings. The EU had informed WTO  Members about the conclusion and outcome of the 
negotiations following Croatia 's accession to the EU on 26  July 2018 in 
document  G/SECRET/35/Add.2 . The outcome of the Article  XXIV:6 proce ss would  be faithfully 
reflected in the EU -28 Schedule  CLXXV , which was currently in the process of certification. The 
EU delegation was pleased to note that , as of the meeting  date, they had  been able to clarify and 
accommodate the comments and questions of all Member s except one. The EU ha d extensively and 
repeatedly explained, orally and in writing, its reasons for not having accepted the compensation 
claims of the Russian Federation in the context of the EU's most recent enlargement.  The position 
of the  European Union  had remain ed unchanged.  
11.4.   The Committee took note  of the statements made . 
12  EUROPEAN UNION – RENEGOTIATION OF TARIFF  RATE QUOTAS UNDER 
ARTICLE  XXVIII OF TH E GATT 1994 – STATEM ENT BY THE RUSSIAN F EDERATION  
12.1.   The Chairperson  noted that this agenda item had been included on the agenda at the request 
of the Russian Federation.  G/MA/M/71  
 
- 26 - 
 
  12.2.   The representative of the Russian Federation  reiterated her delegation's concern over the 
approach that had been taken by the European Union with regard to the  TRQ negotiations in the 
context of Brexit. Her delegation considered that t he approach of apportioning the EU -28 TRQs c ould 
not be considered to be WTO-consistent  and nor could it be considered that  the EU had maintained  
a general level of reciproca l and mutually advantageous  concessions.  Russia maintained the position 
that these negotiations could not be concluded without a respective agreement on compensation 
with the principal suppliers of the products  concerned . Thus, the Russian Federation urge d the EU 
to submit its compensatory proposal.  
12.3.   The representative of Australia  thank ed the Russia n Federation  for having includ ed this 
important item on the agenda  and noted that his statement also covered the next agenda item . He 
reiterate d the significant concerns of his delegation over the continued uncertainty of the future 
UK-EU trading relationship post -Brexit. To date, there ha d been three  extensions to the UK 's 
withdrawal date. The repeated process of extension and delay ha d caused sig nificant commercial 
disruptions for Australian businesses which held licenses to export agricultural products under 
existing EU  WTO tariff -rate quotas (TRQs). With uncertainty around quota allocations in the event 
of a no -deal Brexit on 31  October  2019, many Australian businesses  had ceased exports of 
commercially valuable beef and sheep meat in the lead up to Christmas. These same exporters ha d 
also had to make this difficult commercial decision in the lead up to 29  March, 30  June, 
31 October  2019,  and now 31  January  2020. In addition, the EU and the UK ha d proposed 
two differing and conflicting methodologies for apportioning current EU -28 TRQs midway through a 
quota year.  
12.4.   The representative of the United States  noted that her intervention also applied to both issues 
that had been raised by the Russian Federation on the EU and UK Article  XXVIII TRQ  negotiations . 
She recalled that, as had been  noted by the US  delegation in the CTG and other Committee s, the 
United States support ed the efforts by the Un ited Kingdom  to separate its WTO  rights and obligations 
from th ose of the European Union. However, the United States reject ed the current EU -UK approach 
to TRQs as it was prejudicial to their WTO rights and trade interests. The approach that had been 
chosen by the EU and the UK w ould reduce market access opportunities for  US exporters into both 
markets. Indeed, for certain TRQ  products, the proposed split w ould result in no in -quota access to 
either the UK or the EU -27. For other products, the proposed  split w ould likely result in reduced 
access to the EU only , as the UK 's draft applied schedule, in the event of a no -deal Brexit, indicate d 
that it w ould not apply TRQs for many of the products.  Furthermore, the proposals had failed to 
address how bilater al EU-UK trade  would be treated once the UK was no longer part of the European 
Union. Currently , such bilateral trade was not subject to TRQs , but the US wondered what would 
happen once Brexit had been conclude d.  Currently, other WTO  Members ha d been affo rded the 
opportunity to export the full TRQ  quantity into either the UK or the EU-27. However,  if the UK and 
the EU -27 would be subject to the same TRQs that other Members  faced, then other Members would 
quickly be crowded out and face d a loss of access to both markets. For example, she observed that 
their analysis had shown that the volume of wine the UK import ed from the EU -27 was more than 
9,000  times greater than the proposed TRQ for that wine. In light of such odds, it was difficult  to 
imagine how the United States would  not lose access to the UK market under the current proposals 
as a result of EU -27 exports of wine to the UK. Her delegation considered this to be  unjustifiable and 
clearly an unacceptable outcome for other WTO  Member s. Like other Members, the United States 
remain ed ready to engage with the EU and UK in productive negotiations that ensure d that their  
trade interests were maintained.  
12.5.   The representative of New Zealand  observed that , like others,  his intervention would co ver 
both this agenda item and the next. New  Zealand join ed other  Members  in reiterating its concerns 
over the proposals that had been made by the European Union and the United Kingdom to reduce 
their WTO  tariff rate quota commitments in light of Brexit . As had been  pointed out on previous 
occasions, the current proposals would not preserve the existing bound market access opportunities 
for other WTO  Members . He observed that, u nfortunately, the term "apportionment " that ha d been 
used to describe this approa ch was not as unassuming as it sound ed, because it  failed to convey the 
reality of the loss of significant existing market access opportunities that these EU and UK proposals 
entail ed. These included: (i)  the complete elimination of existing quota access for 60 out of the 
142 quotas at issue into the EU ( five quotas) and UK (55  quotas) ; (ii) large-scale reductions in the 
levels of access for many more of these quotas;  (iii) the loss of flexibility for exporters and markets 
to respond to fluctuations in deman d, which was  likely to be even more important given curr ent 
uncertainties in the trading environment; and  (iv) the risk of wholesale "crowding out " of other 
WTO Member access to the MFN  tariff rate quotas as a result of the high level of bilateral EU -UK trade G/MA/M/71  
 
- 27 - 
 
  in these products.  WTO rules m ade it  very clear that  any Member seeking to make changes to its 
bound commitments needed  to propose solutions t hat ensure d that other WTO  Members were not 
left worse off. This was the responsibility of the Member proposing the changes and it could not  be 
sub-contracted out to another WTO  Member . He considered that, unfortunately, t he separate EU 
and UK  proposals did not deliver on the "no worse off " principle , which gave  rise to an important 
systemic issue. The "no worse off " principle was at the heart of the preservation of the balance of 
benefits that WTO  Members ha d worked to negotiate over long years, and which had been  given 
effect through "binding commitments ". He observed that th e further extension of the Brexit 
timetable , which  had recently been agreed by the EU and the UK , offered additional time to find a 
solution to this unprecedented situation , namely,  one that was acceptable to affected WTO  Members 
and that upheld the vitally important "no worse off " principle . For this reason, New Zealand urged 
the EU and the UK to redouble their efforts to this end and to bring to the table new proposals that 
would address the concerns that had been consistently raised by New Zealand and other 
WTO Members.  
12.6.   The representative of China  observed that h er intervention would  also apply to both agenda 
items. China  share d the concerns that ha d been expressed by other Members. While China was 
willing to work with the EU to modify the TRQs in its Schedule , and with the UK to establish its own 
TRQs, China could not accept the approach that had been adopted to apportion the current 
EU-28 TRQs, which her delegation believed would lead to a significant loss of market access 
opportunity and flexibility in the future EU and UK market s. While she did not wish to repeat  what 
her delegation had expressed at previous meetings of this Committee and the CTG, China's  views, 
concerns , and requests , had remain ed unchanged.  
12.7.   The representative of Uruguay  reiterate d the concerns that had been expressed in 
document  RD/CTG/5 , which had been raised in this Committee  and other fora, and , in particular , 
the importance of resolving this issue on the basis of negotiations among interested parties. He 
recalled that c onfidentiality should be preserved  and that it was necessary to find a solutio n that did 
not involve the unilateral establishment of  TRQs, which would be contrary to Article XXVIII of GATT. 
He also noted that it was important to conclude the negotiations, and in particular with regard to 
the erga omnes  TRQs which already had high levels of trade between the UK and other EU members 
for the products concerned . Uruguay considered that there was a real risk that th e proposed  TRQs 
and their conditions would be affected by that bilateral trade, which  would leave out the other 
Members that were currently using that  quota  or that could use it in the future , thereby  undermin ing 
their market  access opportunities . Uruguay  consider ed that both the negotiations and the results to 
be reached should be in accordance with WT O rules, and respect the market  commitments that had 
been undertaken and the balance of concession s that had been  reached in the Uruguay Round,  with 
a view  to maintaining and strengthening the multilateral trading system.  
12.8.   The representative of Japan  indicated  that her intervention also cover ed both agenda items. 
Japan share d the concerns that had been expressed by other M embers on this issue. Japan 
emphasize d the importance of finalizing the draft EU and UK  schedule soon after Brexit in order to 
ensure legal stability under the WTO  Agreement . Her delegation  also believe d that it would be  
important to have a high level of transparency in future processes relating to this issue.  
12.9.   The representative of Canada  indicated that he would also address  both agenda items under 
the same  statement. He recalled that Canada and other WTO  Members continue d to have significant 
concerns with the approach that had been taken by the EU and the UK in preparation for the UK 's 
withdrawal from the European Union, which consis ted essentially of reducing the volumes available 
under its tariff rate quotas in its WTO  commitments. This approach deviate d from the original intent 
of tariff ra te quotas, which was to provide WTO  Members with a minimum  access to markets of 
export interest , and neglect ed the fact that the higher out -of-quota tariffs associated with TRQs were 
predicated on minimum access levels. In the view of his delegation, i t also fail ed to consider that 
the final bound volumes were the  result of negotiations  that had  sought to establish a balance of 
concessions between WTO  Members. By apportioning its TRQ  volumes, not only was the EU reducing 
the quality and level of access provided to Members to a top market, but it was also ignoring the 
imbalance that it create d between the EU 's market access concessions and the concessions that had 
been made by WTO  Member s which, for some reason, were expected to remain the same. This was 
especially true if the UK would  also have access to these same TRQs , like other WTO  Members, and 
if the EU ha d access to the UK 's apportioned volumes. In this situation, WTO Members would  be 
"crowded out " of smaller TRQs by EU -UK trade, given the favourable position that the  EU and the 
UK enjoyed . In addition to these conceptual incongruities, Canada considered that the EU 's approach G/MA/M/71  
 
- 28 - 
 
  also result ed in pragmatic issues that would  have commer cial implications. This include d cases where 
the apportionment resulted in tariff rate quota volumes that were not commercially viable, either in 
the EU or the UK, or where the volumes were too low to provide the flexibility necessary for exporters 
and importers to adapt to the evolution of demand and supply conditions in the EU and UK  markets. 
With regard to these low -volume TRQs, Canada was of the view that the UK ha d to ensure minimum 
access levels for all of their scheduled TRQs, as had been  done by every WTO  Member with TRQs in 
the Uruguay Round, to maintain the balance of concessions and to ensure that the high out -of-quota 
tariffs in its schedule were attached to an appropriate volume,  as was currently the case with all 
WTO Members with TRQs. By taking minimal portions of the EU -28's TRQs, the UK 's proposed 
volumes had significantly altered the current balance of concessions between  the UK and the EU , on 
the one side, and WTO  Members , on the other. This was in addition to the very apparent uncertainty 
with regard to the future EU -UK relationship, which still remai ned to be defined, and which made  it 
almost impossible to assess the relative value of the EU 's market access concessions. Can ada was 
also concerned about the EU 's adoption of certain implementing regulations (2019/216 , of 
30 January  2019; and 2019/386 , of 11 March  2019) , which would  apply the reduced volumes as of 
the day of the UK 's withdrawal, which would put  Members in front of a "fait accompli ", without having 
completed the necessary negotiations, and with little flexibility for adjustments thereafter. Canada 
encourage d the EU an d the UK to reflect on these  concerns and to continue their engagement with 
Members.  
12.10.   The representative of Mexico  noted  that he would also deal with both agenda items . Mexico  
share d the concerns that had been expressed by previous delegations  and reiterate d its systemic 
concern over the EU and the UK 's intention  to change the TRQs in their  schedule of  concessions  to 
reflect the UK's departure from the EU . His delegation considered that there were problems in the 
process adopted  to separate out the TRQs and  it may , as a result , lead to the reduction and even 
elimination of a number of market access opportunities. In Mexico's view, any methodology adopted 
must retain the balance between rights and obligations undertaken by all Members. Currently , 
Members had no  clarity as to the future bilateral obligations of the EU or UK in the WTO , or vice  
versa , which increased its systemic concern . For example, if both Members retain ed the possibility 
of accessing the  erga omnes  TRQs in each other's markets,  then the other Members would be at risk 
of seeing  their own market access opportunities further  reduced , which was clearly a matter of 
concern. For this reason, Mexico had encourage d the EU and the UK to continue their discussions 
with WTO  Members and to take into account the ir trade and systemic concerns with a view to finding  
a mutually satisfactory solution through rule s-based WTO procedures.  
12.11.   The representative of Paraguay  noted that, since other delegations had addressed  both 
agenda items at the same time , she would do the same . She wished to register her delegation 's 
concern over the  apportionment of the erga omnes  TRQs and, in particular , over the lack of market 
access  that might result from  this proposal , in addition to  the loss of flexibility that the break -up 
itself would generate. Paraguay considered that the  lack of clarity on the  future EU-UK trade 
relationship generated a problem because of the event ual saturation of the TRQ  volumes in the 
bilateral trade between the  EU and the UK , resulting  from the fact that  neither party ha d specified 
that the  volume provided for in those TRQs  would exclude the trade  between them . For this reason, 
Paraguay  urged the UK and the EU to take the necessary steps to avoid damaging  their trade 
partners in the event of a no-deal Brexit , and recall ed that both the UK and the EU had assured 
Members that their  separation w ould not lead to a loss of market access  by third parties, and that 
there would be no collateral damage. Paraguay hoped that they would meet this promise.  
12.12.   The representative of India noted that his intervention would also cover both agenda items . 
India echoed the concerns that had been raised by other Membe rs. His delegation had  already 
conveyed its  concern over this issue  to the EU and the UK , both in writing and during bilateral 
consultations. India was concerned about the proposed  methodology and data that had been used 
by the EU and the UK for the apportionment of the TRQs, and how that apportionment would affect  
Members'  rights on specific tariff lines. Moreover,  he recalled that  the nature of the future trade 
relationship between the EU  27 and the UK remained un known , leading  to uncertainty over the 
resulting market access  conditions. His delegation expected  that the EU and UK would  provide  
reasonable opportunities to all WTO  Members , including India,  to exercise their rights  under the 
WTO Agreement , taking into account  the concerns that had been raised. He looked forward to fruitful 
negotiations with the EU and the UK  in this regard . 
12.13.   The representative of the European Union  appreciated the well -known concerns that had 
been expressed by Russia and other WTO  Members about the ongoing uncertainty surrounding the G/MA/M/71  
 
- 29 - 
 
  UK leaving the EU. WTO  Members would understand that traders throughout the European Union, 
including in the United K ingdom, were also affected by and concerned about this uncertainty, which 
of course was not a reason not to try to do justice to the concerns of other WTO  Members. This was 
why the EU and the UK had jointly engaged with other WTO  Members as early as Octobe r 2017 on 
the envisaged approach to the apportion ment of  the WTO  commitments that took the form of TRQs. 
As had been stated on many occasions, the key principle was to maintain the existing level s of 
market access to the EU -27 and UK. The European Council had endorsed the revised Withdrawal 
Agreement agreed with the UK  government on 17  October  2019 in order to provide for an orderly 
withdrawal. Subsequently, the period that had been provided for in Article  50(3) of the Treaty on 
European Union had been exte nded by the European Council Decision (EU)  2019/1810 until 
31 January  2020. The EU had been very clear that an orderly withdrawal of the UK was the preferred 
option. Nevertheless, in order to reduce the inevitable commercial uncertainties for operators, th e 
EU had also published detailed information on the consequences and implications for 
TRQ apportionment and management in the case of a no -deal Brexit. The Commission would 
continue to manage the apportioned EU -27 TRQs in the same way as it had already been doing. 
Negotiations under Article  XXVIII of the GATT were currently ongoing with those partners holding 
rights under that provision. The last round had taken place in September  2019, in Geneva. The EU 
was a supporter of the rules -based multilateral trading system. It had followed all of the relevant 
WTO procedures when launching its Article  XXVIII negotiations and would continue to follow those 
multilateral procedures. The EU  delegation had engaged with the relevant WTO  partners on a regular 
basis and wou ld continue to do , so in good faith , as part of the se procedures. The EU maintained 
that it was willing to continue negotiations in an open and fair manner under Article  XXVIII regardless 
of the eventual scenario for the UK 's withdrawal.  
12.14.   The Committee took note  of the statements made . 
13  UNITED KINGDOM – RENEGOTIATION OF TARIFF  RATE QUOTAS UNDER 
ARTICLE  XXVIII OF TH E GATT  1994 – STATEM ENT BY THE RUSSIAN F EDERATION  
13.1.   The Chairperson  noted that this agenda item had been included on the agenda at the request 
of the Russian  Federation.  He also recalled that several delegations had already referred to this issue 
under the previous agenda item.  
13.2.   The representative of the Russian Federation  noted that her delegation continued  to have 
significant concern s over the UK 's approach to its  TRQs renegotiations. Her delegation reiterate d 
that the negotiations could not  be concluded without an agreement on compensation that had to be  
provided by the UK. Russia  also emphasized the importance of establishing an ind ependent Schedule 
of concession s for the UK in full compliance with WTO  rules. The Russian Federation urge d the UK 
to provide its compensatory proposal.  
13.3.   The representative of Uruguay  thanked  the United Kin gdom for having launched with 
interested Members the negotiation process under the procedures under  Article XXVIII of GATT . He 
highlight ed the importance of resolving the issue based on  negotiations , and not unliterally. He also 
reiterated  the need to take into account in the nego tiations the significant  levels of trade that already 
existed in the erga omnes TRQs between the UK and the other  EU member States , and the real risk 
that the proposed conditions would leave out other Members . Uruguay hope d that, as a result of the 
bilater al and confidential negotiations , it would be possible to  arrive at market access  commitments 
that would  both accord with the existing market conditions and fit the needs of Members. The UK 
should also avoid contradicting existing market access opportunities and fully comply with the 
relevant rules of the multilateral trading system.  
13.4.   The representative of the European Union  recalled that her delegation  could not  respond to 
comments and questions on the proposed UK Goods Schedule , which the UK  would apply when the 
EU Schedule stopped applying  to it, as set out in document  G/MA/TAR/RS/570 . She invited 
interested Members to engage with the UK  bilaterally on these issues . 
13.5.   The Committee took note  of the statements made . G/MA/M/71  
 
- 30 - 
 
  14  INDIA – QUANTITATIVE  RESTRICTION S ON IMPORTS OF CERT AIN PULSES – 
STATEMENT BY AUSTRAL IA, CANADA, THE EURO PEAN UNION, RUSSIAN FEDERATION, 
AND THE UNITED STATE S 
14.1.   The Chairperson  noted that this agenda item had been included on the agenda at the request 
of Australia, Canada, the European Union, the Russian Federation,  and the United States.  
14.2.   The representative of Australia  recalled his delegation's  long-held concerns over India's 
restrictive measures on the importation of pulses , which were well known to Memb ers, and in 
particular India 's quantitative restrictions (QRs). These concerns were held not just by Australia, but  
also by other Members , including a number of developing Members. Australia had  raised these  
concerns with India in bilateral and plurilatera l meetings , including at the highest level. As Members 
were aware, his delegation  had explained these  concerns in every relevant Committee in Geneva 
over the past two  years. Regardless of these efforts, India ha d failed to respond to Australia's 
concerns, most importantly by explain ing the WTO  basis for maintaining these QRs. He recalled that 
the onus was on those WTO Members utilizing a general exception to provide that information. As 
the world 's largest consumer of pulses, India 's imports of pulses had a direct impact on the global 
pulses market. They directly impact ed the planting decisions of farmers and the sustainability of 
global  pulses  production , which could have a serious negative impact on farmers around the world. 
Australia was  increasingly concerned that , at any moment, India could remove or modify the series 
of import restricting measures on pulses to shore -up supply if and when its domestic production and 
stocks of pulses decrease d. His delegation was  concerned that such actions by  India would put 
unnecessary strain on global pulses producers as they attempt ed quickly to supply India with the 
pulses that it needed and, by doing so, potentially divert pulses from other markets , leading to 
shortages elsewhere. Notwithstanding these  serious concerns about the QRs  and India's 
characterization of them as "temporary " measures  (measures that had been in place for over 
two years for some varieties ), Australia was  also concerned with India 's administration of the se QRs. 
For example, on 3  July 2019, India had announced that it would increase the QR volume on pigeon 
peas, from 200,000 to 400,000  tonnes. While Australia had  welcomed that increase, his delegation 
was concerned that India had administered that additional  tonnage in a trade -distorting manner, 
whereby importers had just nine days to apply for allotments of this additional tonnage, and those 
allotments had to be received  at Indian ports by 31  October  2019 at the latest. On two occasions, 
as per Trade Notice s 32 and 35 of 2019 -2020, India had announced that it had received 
representations from its pulses importers to extend that 31  October date, but had rejected doing so. 
Furthermore, in Trade Notice  35, India had  threatened to debar importers from being alloc ated 
allotments in future quota periods  in case  they were assigned  an allotment within the additional 
200,000  tonnes, but then failed to import th eir allotment by 31  October. His delegation considered 
that, the fact that representations had been made, and that India had rejected those 
representations, and that India had threatened to prevent those importers from engaging in the 
market in the future , was seriously concerning ; indeed, it had further damage d confidence in India 's 
trade regime, and w ould further destabilize the global pulses industry , in particular with regard to 
those cases where pulses may already have been en route to India. Australia remain ed seriously 
concerned that India was using its QRs as an ongoing means flexibly to manage imports, which 
would be inconsistent with its WTO obligations, and likewise that the QRs were not a "temporary 
measure ". This was evident by the 3  July 2019 announcement to increase the QR on pigeon peas, 
which had appea red to respond to lower domestic production estimates. Australia also noted that 
India ha d confirmed on multiple occasions that it would provide answers to Members ' questions on 
these matters in "the relevant Committee ", and that , pursuant to the Decision on Notification 
Procedures  for Quantitative Restrictions (G/L/59/Rev.1) , this was the relevant Committee . 
Therefore , Australia again request ed India to answer the following questions. First what the 
WTO basis was for the application of these QRs . In this regard, Australia recalled that the burden 
had been on India to provide an explanation at the time that the measures had been introduced , 
and not two years later . Otherwise , India should remove the QRs immediately . And, second , to 
explain how these measures were "temporary ", noting that these QRs ha d now been in place for 
more than two years for certain varieties . 
14.3.   The representative of Canada  noted that, a s the largest supplier of pulses to India, Canada  
had been the Member most negatively affected by India 's measures to limit the import of pulses. 
Pulses were an important source of protein for many Indian  consumers and Canada was a high 
quality and reliable supplier. Canada was disappointed that India had continue d to use  quantitative 
restriction s on the import ation of dried peas and other pulses. His delegation had  previously 
expressed its views on the WTO -consistency of these measures. India had now appear ed to be using G/MA/M/71  
 
- 31 - 
 
  arbitrary administrative rules as a m eans of further reducing predictable access to the Indian market 
for pulses. In September  2019, the Government of India had suddenly announced that shipments 
of pulses subject to the quantitative restrictions must arrive at an Indian port by  31 October  2019, 
thereby shortening the time-frame for the import of dry peas to five  months. The Government of 
Canada was disappointed that India was still finding more creative ways to restrict the pulses  trade . 
And India's restriction s on the import ation of pulses was an ongoing concern . Canada and other 
pulse exporters ha d met regularly with India,  including as recently as 30 October  2019, to discuss 
this issue. During the 92nd meeting of the Committee on Agriculture , which had taken  place on 
30-31 October  2019, and in response to Canada 's questions, India had indicated that answers would 
be forthcoming in the Committee on Market Access.  In this regard, Canada noted that India 's 
QR notifications (G/MA/QR/N/2 and G/MA/AR/N/IND/2/Add.1 ) did not provide information on the 
quantitative restriction s on dry peas. He recalled that t he elimination of quantitative restrictions was 
a fundamental principle in both the GATT and the WTO  and asked  India to specify what it believe d 
the legal basis for this measur e to be under the GATT or the WTO. To conclude, Canada reiterate d 
its call on India immediately and expeditiously to review the trade restrictive measures that had 
been put in place on pulses , and instead to consider alternative, WTO-consistent , policy options that 
promote d a predictable and transparent import regime for pulses.  
14.4.   The representative of the European Union  noted that her delegation was reverting  to this 
issue with a certain impatience and call ed upon India to answer the question s that had been 
addressed to it about its policies on pulses. Together with other Members, the EU had  asked India 
various questions on its import  restrictions on pulses in this Committee  as well as in other fora. 
However, India had so far only replied that it w ould provide its answers in another Committee. In 
the meeting of the "Friends of the Pulses " that had taken place ahead of the last Regular Committee 
on Agriculture , in October  2019, India had promised participants that it would provide  substantive 
answers  to the four  questions that it had been asked by Australia, Canada, the Russian Federation,  
and the United States,  during the Committee 's meeting . However, in the CoA meeting itself , India 
had again just stated , disappointingly,  that it would provide its answers in the Market Access 
Committee. For this reason , the European Union  looked forward to the substantive replies that India 
was going to provide at the current meeting . 
14.5.   The representative of the United States  indicated that her delegation  remain ed concerned 
about India's use of domestic support policies, multiple increases in tariff rates, and the application 
of quantitative import restrictions for pulses , including pigeon peas, mung beans, black gram lentils,  
and peas. In addition to raising the issue  in the CMA and the Council for Trade in Goods, the United 
States ha d repeatedly  raised this issue in the Committee on Agriculture since India began 
implementing trade -distorting policies for various pulses in 201 7. However, India ha d not responded 
to US requests for an explanation of how these measures compl ied with India 's WTO  commitments. 
She recalled that India ha d stated that it would offer such an explanation in the appropriate 
Committee , but without indicati ng which  Committee  that was . In addition, India ha d indicated on 
numerous occasions that the quantitative restrictions were intended to be temporary measures , 
although they had now been in place for two  years. Therefore, the United States reiterated its  
previous requests for information on how the measures compl ied with India's WTO commitments , 
and when and how the measures w ould be brought to an end.  
14.6.   The representative of the Russian Federation  recalled that, a fter a ban had been introduce d 
on the import of yellow peas , in March  2019, India had issued a notification establishing a new quota 
of 150,000 MT for the period from 1  April 2019 until 31  March  2020.  However, after seven  months 
of quota administration , India had completely prohibit ed the import ation of pulses into its territory . 
And, according to India's Trade Notice No. 32/2019 -2020, "imports should be effected until 
31 October  2019". Russia note d that, as a result of  India's measures , imports of yellow peas ha d 
decreased s ignificantly over the last two  years. At the same time, her delegation considered that t he 
explanations that had been provided by India at other WTO  Committee  meetings regarding the legal 
basis for these measures had been unpersuasive. This was the reason  why the Russia n Federation  
had request ed India to provide a proper justification for its quantitative restrictions and prohibitions 
on the import ation of yellow peas. For greater clarity, her delegation  also urge d India to submit its 
explanation in a notification pursuant to the "Decision on Notification Procedures for Quantitative 
Restrictions ". The Russian Federation consider ed that the general elimination of quantitative 
restrictions was one of the core disciplines of the GATT and WTO  legal system s. For this reason, it 
requested  India to bring these measures into conformity with the WTO 's rules.  G/MA/M/71  
 
- 32 - 
 
  14.7.   The representative of India thanked the  delegation s of Australia, Canada, the European Union, 
the United States,  and the Russian Federation,  for expressing their views on this matter. He recalled 
that the i ssues that had been raised at this meeting  had also been raised in the recent past in 
meetings of the Committee  on Import Licensing, the Committee on Market Access , and at the 
previous meeti ng of the CTG. For the sake of a better utilization of the time available for th is 
Committee meeting, his delegation would refrain from repeating  what had previously been stated. 
In brief, India inform ed Members that it was the largest producer and consume r of pulses , and that 
its decision to impose a  quota had been  based on the domestic demand and supply situation of 
pulses in India. He recalled that the measure was aimed at alleviating the distress that had been 
caused to small and marginal farmers by the  influx of cheap imported pulses , and the consequent 
impact on their food and livelihood security. He emphasized  that t hese measures were temporary 
and that decisions on the extension or removal of these QRs were based on the domestic demand 
and supply sit uation. India was constantly reviewing these measures. In the statements that India 
had made at earlier meetings, it had informed Members about  the change in its wholesale price 
index ( WPI) on pulses , and had  clearly brought  out the facts reflecting the state of affair s. On the 
issue of additional quota s for imports of peas during the financial year 2018 -2019, his delegation 
informed Members that, despite the quota under the QR, substantial imports had been  allowed on 
account  of Court orders. Further more,  in the present financial year, fresh quotas had been 
announced and the relevant procedure ha d also been laid down by the Directorate General of Foreign 
Trade. The government had been regularly reviewing the market situation o f pulses , owing to which 
the quota of pulses had been increased from time to time. Certain additional issues had been raised 
by Members at the most recent meeting of the Committee on Agriculture, where India had responded  
to the queries on these measures. On the specific WTO  provisions under which India had imposed 
these temporary measures, he stated that the QRs on pulses were necessary for the enforcement 
of governmental measures to remove any surplus of pulses, as permitted under Article  XI:2(c)(ii) of 
the GATT  1994, and for the protection of public morals and human, animal or plant life or health in 
India, as recognized under Article s XX(a) and (b) of the GATT  1994. Finally, he stated that India 
would address any further query on this issue in the appropriate Committee  and stood ready to 
continue discussions bilaterally . 
14.8.   The Committee took note  of the statements made . 
15  INDIA - CUSTOMS DUTIES  ON TELECOMMUNICATIO N AND OTHER PRODUCTS  – 
STATEMENT S BY CHINA AND THE U NITED STATES (G/MA/W /120, G/MA/W/128)  
15.1.   The Chairperson  noted that this agenda item had been included on the agenda at the request 
of China and the United States. The Chairperson also recalled that certain  Members had submitted 
questions to India in document  G/MA/W/120, to which India had replied in document  G/MA/W/128.  
15.2.   The representative of the United States  regret ted that her delegation  and other Members  had 
yet again to raise concerns over India's imposition of duties – of up to 20 % – on imported information 
and communication technology products , which include d commercially significant products from the 
United States. Her delegation had  given India many opportunities, both bilaterally and in the relevant 
WTO Committees, to address its actions in light of India's  WTO tariff commitments. Unfortunately, 
the tariff increases had continue d. She indicated that it had been even more frustrating that a 
representative from India had not been present at the most recent ITA  Committee meeting to 
discuss this important agenda item or to respond to the important ongoing concerns of many 
Members. The United States noted  with interest the request  for consultations that had been  filed 
recently by Chinese Taipei , in addition to the request s for consultati ons that had been  filed by the 
EU and Japan earlier in the  year. Her delegation  regret ted that India ha d denied US requests to join 
both of these consultations , despite the substantial US trade interest. She called upon India to 
provide duty -free access for the ICT and telecommunications equipment products for which India 
had a WTO  commitment to do so. The United States would  continue to raise this issue in the relevant 
WTO Committee s until such time . 
15.3.   The representative of China  reiterate d his dele gation's  concern over India's customs duties 
on telecommunication s and other products,  in particular mobile phones and their components. China 
believe d that  these products f ell within the scope of the ITA-1, and therefore that India's applied 
rates had exceeded its bound rates in the WTO , thus failing to comply with the ITA-1 and Article  II 
of the GATT. For this reason, China once again urge d India immediately to eliminate its customs 
duties on the relevant products  and to abide by its WTO  bound rates. He noted that certain Members G/MA/M/71  
 
- 33 - 
 
  had requested consultations with India under the WTO  dispute settlement mechanism. China would  
continue to monitor this issue closely.  
15.4.   The representative of Canada  noted that her delegation viewed  India's  continue d application 
of tariffs above its bound rates on a broad range of ICT  products to be inconsistent with India 's 
WTO commitments , and to run  contrary to the objectives of multilateral tariff liberalization. Canada 
remain ed deeply concerned in this regard; m oreover, it did not believe that India ha d addressed the 
concerns that had been raised by numerous WTO  Members in this Committee , the ITA  Committee , 
and at the Council for Trade in Goods. She recalled that Canada, like other Members, had submitted 
an objection letter in response to India 's notification of its Rectification and Modification of its 
Schedule of Concessions  in order  to unbind its commitments on a range of ICT  products . She recalled 
that I ndia had claimed that this notification  intended to fix errors in the transposition from HS2002 
to HS2007. However, she would like to recall that the 1980 Procedures were to be used only when 
the proposed changes d id not alter the scope of a concession. Since Canada ha d no evidence to 
substanti ate India 's claim that errors had been  made in the transposition from HS2002 to HS2007, 
it could only conclude that India 's proposed rectification d id, in fact, alter the scope of India 's tariff 
concessions pursuant to the ITA  Agreement. Beyond these syste mic concerns , Canada continue d to 
have commercial concerns with  regard to  India's application of tariffs on ICT  products. India's action s 
had annually impacted $52.7  million of Indian imports from Canada between  2016 and 2018. In this 
context, Canada also regret ted that India ha d rejected Canada 's request to join the separate 
consultations requests that had been made by the EU and Japan, and most recently by Chinese 
Taipei . Canada requested to schedule a bilateral meeting with India in order to further  discuss its 
concerns over India's application of tariffs above its bound commitments.  
15.5.   The representative of Singapore  shared  the concerns that had been expressed by other 
Members . Her delegation  urged India to align its applied tariff rates on the IC T products concerned 
with its commitment s under the ITA -1. She concluded by noting that Singapore would continue to 
monitor this issue very closely.  
15.6.   The representative of New Zealand  echoed the concerns that had been raised by other  
Members  over India's imposit ion of tariffs on ICT  products in excess of its WTO  bound commitments . 
He also register ed New Zealand's  systemic interest in this issue.  
15.7.   The representative of Thailand  reiterate d her delegation's ongoing commercial and systemic 
concerns over India's reimposition of customs duties on an increasing number of ICT  products. 
Thailand joined other delegations in requesting India to abide by its WTO  commitments. Thailand 
would continue to monitor this mat ter closely.  
15.8.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  noted that her delegation remained concerned over  
India's increased  tariffs on at least 32  ICT products since 2014. Her delegation  had requested 
consultations with the Government of India, in DS588 , pursuan t to the Understanding on Rules and 
Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes  (DSU) . Without further comment, Chinese Taipei 
request ed India to abide by its WTO commitment s and to restore the original zero tariff rates.  
15.9.   The representative of Australia  express ed his delegation's  interest in this matter.  
15.10.   The representative of Norway  recalled the interest  that his delegation attached to this issue 
and that it  would continue to further monitor it.  
15.11.   The representative of Switzerland  added her  voice to the concerns that had been expressed 
by previous delegation s and urge d India to comply with its WTO  commitment s. Her delegation would 
also continue to monitor the issue closely.  
15.12.   The representative of India thanked the delegations of the United States, C hina, Canada, 
Singapore, New Zealand, Thailand, Chinese Taipei, Australia, Norway,  and Switzerland,  for their 
continued interest in India 's customs duty regime on certain telecommunication products. On the 
issue of customs dut ies imposed on certain product s, which were being  alleged as ITA -1 products 
by certain  Members, India had previously made statements in various Committee s, including this 
Committee, the ITA  Committee,  and the CTG. For the sake of saving time, India would not repeat 
those earlier statements . However, India reiterate d that it  was fully aware of its obligations and 
commitments under the ITA -1, and  that it  had been abiding by the same. India had signed the ITA -1 G/MA/M/71  
 
- 34 - 
 
  in the year 1997 and had presented its Schedule of concessions , which had been  certified in 
document  WT/Let/181. India did not intend to commit itself to anything beyond the scope of its 
ITA-1 commitment s, as inscribed in that document . In its previous interventions, India ha d also 
stated that Members had the right to revisit any error or mistake that had been committed in 
assigning bound tariffs while transposing their HS  schedule , and to place the necessary rectification 
request before the Committee  concerned . Accordingly, India ha d filed a rectification request for the 
purpose of correcting certain errors in its HS2007  Schedul e, in accordance with "the Procedures for 
Modification and Rectification of Schedules of Tariff Concessions " (1980  Procedures) , as contained 
in the Decision of 26  March  1980 under the category "other rectifications ". India urge d Members to 
go through its rectification request and , if a Member ha d any other views on the technical aspects 
of these products and their clas sification, India w ould be happy to discuss these with the Member 
concerned.  
15.13.   The Committee took note  of the statements made . 
16  INDONESIA  – CUSTOMS DUTIES ON  TELECOMMUNICATION P RODUCTS – STATEMENT 
BY THE UNITED STATES  
16.1.   The Chairperson  noted that this item had been included on the agenda at the request of the 
United  States.  
16.2.   The representative of the United States  noted that it had  come to the attention  of her 
delegation  that Indonesia was applying tariffs at the border on a category of ICT  products that 
appeared  to be in excess of its bound tariff rates. By way of example, Indonesia ha d a duty -free 
tariff commitment for all products that were classified under tariff subheading  8517.62. How ever, 
US and Indonesian traders had report ed that a 10 % duty was being levied for certain products in 
this tariff category. The United States had also raised this issue at a recent meeting of the 
ITA Committee. Her delegation  would appreciate receiving an explanation of this matter and of how 
Indonesia intend ed to resolve it, as soon as possible. Her delegation  wished also  to underscore that, 
if this issue related to HS transposition that HS transposition must not modify the scope of the 
concessions  in ques tion, as had been reflected in the General Council Decisions and underscored in 
the Secretariat's guidance to this Committee . 
16.3.   The representative of the European Union  thank ed the United States  for drawing their 
attention to this issue. As had been mentioned previously , she considered that this issue deserve d 
close consideration, especially in light of Indonesia 's commitment to provide duty-free access for the 
tariff lines under the heading  8517.62. Following the exchanges that had taken pla ce recently in the 
ITA Committee, her delegation  looked forward to receiving an update from Indonesia.  The EU would 
continue to monitor this matter closely.  
16.4.   The representative of Indonesia  thank ed the US and the EU for the ir statements. With regard 
to the concern that had been raised on duties imposed on certain telecommunication s products, it 
was Indonesia 's intention to review the situation and to respect its WTO  commitments and 
obligations , in particular those taken under the IT A. As had been mentioned in the  bilateral meeting 
and at the most recent meeting of the ITA Committee, there was an  ongoing internal investigation 
that was being carried out by the relevant authority  in Indonesia . From initial observation, the 
discrepancy between bound a nd applied rate s for the products in question appeared to be the result 
of the HS  transposition , which had merge d two different HS  codes. Indonesia was open to receiv ing 
inputs and to engaging in  further  discussion with the US and other Members  in this reg ard. 
16.5.   The Committee took note  of the statements made . 
17  MONGOLIA – QUANTITAT IVE RESTRICTIONS AND  PROHIBITIONS ON IMP ORTATIONS 
OF CERTAIN AGRICULTU RAL PRODUCTS - STATE MENT BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION  
17.1.   The Chairperson  noted that this item had been included on the agenda at the request of the 
Russian Federation.  
17.2.   The representative of the Russian Federation  recalled that, in 2013 , Mongolia had established 
a quota regime for the importation of certain agricultural products, including wheat flour, wheat, 
milk, d rinking water, and beef. According to Government Resolution No.  77 of 2  March  2013, the G/MA/M/71  
 
- 35 - 
 
  responsible authority had to determine the volumes of the corresponding quotas for each year. To 
import outside of these quotas was prohibited. The Russian Federation h ad raised this issue at 
several WTO  Committee  meetings  and, as a result , in August  2019 Mongolia had adopted 
Government Resolution No.  329, which had replace d Resolution No.  77, and had set out basic criteria 
to determine quota volumes. She noted that, i n light of this policy, the Ministry of Food, Agriculture 
and Light Industry of Mongolia had established an import prohibition on wheat flour in late  2016. In 
2018, although  there had been  a decision to open a quota for wheat flour, Mongolia had not allocate d 
the quota volume among the importers. In January  2019, the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Light 
Industry of Mongolia had issued a decree that should have opened the import of certai n amounts of 
agricultural products, including wheat flour and liquid milk. However, the decision on the allocation 
of quota volume among the importers of wheat flour for  the 2019 quota year had only been adopted 
in late April  2019. She noted , too,  that the  quota volume for import of liquid milk ha d never been 
allocated among the importers for the 2019 quota year  and that, as a result, it had become  
impossible to export liquid milk into the territory of Mongolia in 2019. The Russian Federation had 
observed t hat Mongolia 's imports of wheat flour and liquid milk ha d dropped significantly as a result 
of these measures , and basically to zero in 2018 and 2019.  The Russian Federation was of the view 
that quantitative restrictions , including import prohibitions , were not a trade policy instrument that 
could be applied by WTO  Members without proper justification. Her delegation was of the view that 
Mongolia 's measures were inconsistent with its obligations under the WTO Agreements and, in 
particular, Article  XI of the GATT  1994, Article  4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, and Mongolia 's 
accession commitments under para graph  20 of its Working Party Report. She also noted that, at the 
most recent meeting of the Agriculture Committee , Mongolia had stated that it had begun the 
internal procedures necessary to abolish the quota regime. The Russian Federation  welcome d this 
step and expect ed Mongolia promptly to take all further necessary steps to bring its legislation and 
measures in to compliance with the relevant WTO  provisions. She concluded by noting that Russia 
would continue to carefully monitor the e volution of Mongolia 's quota policy.  
17.3.   The representative of Mongolia  thanked  the Russian Federation for its question s on Mongolia's 
import  policy on certain agricultural products. Mongolia refer red Russia  to the replies that Mongolia 
had given at the most recent meeting of the Committee on Agriculture , on 30 October  2019. 
17.4.   The Committee took note  of the statements made . 
18  RUSSIAN FEDERATION – QUANTIT ATIVE RESTRICTIONS O N EXPORTS OF SCRAP A ND 
WASTE OF FERROUS MET ALS – STATEMENT BY T HE EUROPEAN UNION  
18.1.   The Chairperson  noted that this item had been included on the agenda at the request of the 
European Union.  
18.2.   The representative of the European Union  reiter ated her delegation 's concerns over the 
Russian Federation's recurrent practice of apply ing export -restricting measures. The long -standing 
export prohibition on hides and skins and the export restriction on birch logs had not been further 
extended , which had been a welcome  development . However, her delegation regret ted to note that 
Russia had recently adopted a new export quantitative restriction  on scrap and waste of ferrous 
metals. This new export quota had been put in place by Government Decree No . 1134 of 
31 August  2019, to be applied from 1  September  2019 until 31  December  2019. The EU asked  
Russia to provide  detailed explanations to the following questions regarding this restriction . First, 
the measure was said to address existing regional imbalances at national level. However, the 
statistics that had been provided in the explanatory note of  the draft legislation show ed deficits of 
scrap in certain Russian regions, but surpluses in others. Moreover, t he mentioned surpluses were 
greater than the mentioned deficits  and, t herefore, there  did not seem to be a shortage at the level 
of the Russian Federation. In case a measure was necessary, it should relate to Russia 's internal 
market rather than being a measure to restrict export s. The European Union  request ed Russia to 
explain why it had adopted a measure restricting exports in order to solve an internal problem.  
Second, the quota  that had been  set by the Russian authorities amount ed to 70-75% of the average 
historical volumes. Her delegation asked Russia to explain why the quota had been  set at that level . 
Third, she observed that the export restriction in the form of a quota and export licencing seem ed 
to be incompatible with WTO  commitments under Article  XI:1 of the GATT. Therefore, the EU would  
welcome an explanation from Russia as to how it justifie d the measure . Finally, the measure had 
been introduced  as a temporary measure that would apply  from 1  September  2019 for four  months. 
The EU sought  Russia's confirmation that the measure w ould not be further  extended . To conclude, 
her deleg ation regret ted that Russia ha d adopted an additional measure that deviate d from the G/MA/M/71  
 
- 36 - 
 
  prohibition of quantitative restrictions set out in Art icle XI of the GATT . Finally, the EU asked  when 
Russia intended  to notify this new measure to the WTO.  
18.3.   The representative of the Russian Federation  thank ed the European Union for raising  this 
issue. The Russian delegation confirm ed that the measure was temporary , that it would expire on 
1 January  2020, and that it was  not expected that the measure would be prolonged.  
18.4.   The Committee took note  of the statements made . 
19  DRAFT REPORT (2019) OF THE COMMITTEE  TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS 
(G/MA/SPEC/59)  
19.1.   The Chairperson  noted that the Committee was required annually to submit a report on its 
activities to the C ouncil for Trade in Goods . The Chairperson noted that the Secretariat had circulated 
a draft report covering the activities of the Committee during the review peri od and that it would 
update the report in light of the comments made at the current meeting.  
19.2.   The Committee adopted  the draft report and instructed the Secretariat to update it prior to 
its submission to the CTG.  
20  OTHER  BUSINESS  
20.1  Kingdom of Saudi Arabia – Digital Stamp Tax  – Statement by Switzerland  
20.1.   The Chairperson  recalled  that this item had been included on the agenda at the request of 
Switzerland . 
20.2.   The representative of Switzerland  thanked  the delegations of Oman and the Kingdom of 
Bahrain for the useful  exchange s on the selective tax  that had taken placer earlier that day. 
Switzerland had taken  the floor because the new measure , which was a new requirement in the 
form of a digital tax stamp, to prove that the selective tax had been  paid, w ould come into force  
next year . According to their information , the stamp w ould have to be affixed on each can and bottle 
of energy drinks and carbonated soft drinks as of May  2020. According to the excise tax 
guidelines  – tax stamps of the General  Authority of Zakat and Tax  – the declared purpose of the tax 
was "to combat smuggling and protect consumers against the risks of consuming goods that have 
not entered the market through legitimate channels ". She observed that, a lthough the smuggling 
problem did exist for tobacco products, this was not the case for beverages. In addition, requiring a 
tax stamp as a proof that the selective tax had been paid was not a guarant ee that the beverage 
had complie d with the health prescriptions  in place . Switzerlan d considered that t here were other 
and more efficient means to control the quality of a product. If her delegation's understanding of 
the guidelines was correct, Switzerland saw  several problems with the digital tax stamp requirement . 
First, it would  only apply to a limited category of beverages, namely  to energy drinks and carbonated 
soft drinks  only. And it would  not apply to other sweetened beverages, which  would  also be subje ct 
to the selective tax as of 1 December  2019.  Second, the stamp w ould be applied on imported 
products as of May  2020 and on domestic products as of August  2020.  Switzerland considered these 
measures to be discriminatory and in breach of the national treat ment principle set out in Article III 
of the GATT.  In addition, the requirement of a digital tax stamp on beverages w ould increase  costs 
and was another unnecessary burden to the industry. Her delegation considered that there were 
better alternatives to co mbat hypothetical smuggling. For example, market inspections could be 
increased and heavy fines introduced for infractions , which would create an adequate deterrent 
without the additional costs for the industry.  Thus, Switzerland strongly oppose d the intro duction of 
the tax stamp on energy drinks and carbonated soft drinks as of May  2020, and called upon the 
Saudi Arabian authorities to consult with industry and to have recourse to more appropriate 
alternatives that were less burdensome for the industry, and non-discriminatory , but which 
nevertheless address ed the Kingdom 's concerns. In addition, Switzerland remain ed concerned over 
the selective tax on energy drinks and c arbonated soft drinks  that was  currently  being  levied by the 
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Kingdom of Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates , due to its severe 
discriminatory effects on energy drinks , and  because its high rates were not based on scientific 
evidence. She recalled that the inclusion of the relevant stakeholders in the elaboration of the 
different regulations in the area of beverages ha d not happened, despite numerous requests for 
more transparency . Switzerland  also wished to underline that the product coverage of the selective G/MA/M/71  
 
- 37 - 
 
  tax in each GCC  member was not identical, which create d additional difficulties for traders. As had 
already been indicated , the expansion of the tax base to include other sweetened beverages as of 
1 December  2019 by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates had been  a positive 
first step, but had still not alleviate d Switzerland's concerns because the tax contin ued to 
discriminat e between energy drinks, on one hand, and carbonated soft drinks and other sweetened 
beverages , on the other, without any scientific justification. Therefore, her delegation  urged 
GCC members to harmonize and to apply without delay the sa me rate on all sugar containing 
beverages ; this would mean that the selective tax on energy drinks, carbonated soft drinks , and 
other sugar -sweetened beverages , would  be taxed identically , and that diet, light , and no sugar 
containing beverages would be ex empted from the tax , which  did not make sense from a health 
perspective. On the discrimination against sports  drinks, Switzerland stated that, unfortunately the 
issue remained outstanding. For this reason, Switzerland  urged the GCC  countries to apply, without 
delay, the same excise duty rate to all sports drinks irrespective of brand name or origin, as levying 
different rates on different brands of like products was in breach of the WTO's most -favoured -nation 
principle. She strongly encourage d GCC members to engage with private industry in order to modify 
the selective tax, to ensure that it  was applied in a transparent and non -discriminatory manner while 
still meeting  the desired health policy objectives. Switzerland requested  these Members to inform 
them directly , and on a regular basis , of any future modifications to the selective tax and other 
related regulations. Finally, she recall ed that , on 27  September  2018,  Switzerland  had submitted 
follow -up technical questions to the Kingdo m of Saudi Arabia, the Kingdom of Bahrain,  and the 
United Arab Emirates , regarding certain details of the selective tax on energy drinks and carbonated 
soft drinks ; she noted that these technical questions had not yet been answered . Her delegation 
looked forward to continuing these exchanges in order to reach  a mutually satisfactory solution  to 
this issue . 
20.3.   The representative of the United States  noted  that her delegation shared Switzerland's 
concerns and was also monitoring this issue. She looked  forward to receiving more information from 
the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,  including on how it considered this measure to be consistent with its 
national treatment and other WTO  obligations.  
20.4.   The representative of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia  thanked  Switzerland and th e United States  
for their intervention s concerning the Digital Stamp tax and selective tax. He requested them to 
provide  their comments in writing so that these could be convey ed to experts in Capital for their 
review and consideration.  
20.5.   The representative of the Russian Federation  intervened to  remark  upon the organization of 
meetings . She observed that the CMA and CTG  meetings  had been organized for the same week . 
And she requested the Secretariat to try to avoid holding the meetings of  these two  bodies in the 
same week.  
20.6.   The representative of Paraguay  supported the Russian Federation in this regard, and 
requested, in addition, that the Secretariat try to avoid overlapping meetings , as in the case of the 
upcoming meeting of the TBT Committee , which had also been scheduled to take place at the same 
time as the CTG.  
20.7.   The Committee took note  of the statements made . 
20.2  Date s of the next meeting s 
20.8.   The Committee took note  that the next HS  Multilateral Review  Session would take place on 
25 February  2020 and that the Committee's next formal meeting had  been scheduled for 
2 April 2020. 
__________