RESTRICTED  
  
G/MA/M/66  
 
2 February 2018  
(18-0739) Page: 1/20 
Committee on Market Access    
 
MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE ON MARKET ACCESS  
22 SEPTEMBER  2017 
CHAIR PERSON : MR AHMED EL LIBEDY  (EGYPT)  
Subjects discussed                    Pages  
 
A. INTRODUCTION OF HARM ONIZED SYSTEM 1996 C HANGES TO SCHEDULES 
OF CONCESSIONS (L/69 05 AND WT/L/756) – STATUS REPORT  ................................ ...... 2 
B. INTRODUCTION OF HARM ONIZED SYSTEM 2002 C HANGES TO SCHEDULES 
OF CONCESSIONS USING  THE CTS  DATABASE (WT/L/605 A ND WT/L/807) – 
STATUS REPORT  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  2 
C. INTRODUCTION OF HARM ONIZED SYSTEM 2007 C HANGES TO SCHEDULES 
OF CONCESSIONS USING  THE CTS  DATABASE (WT/L/673 A ND WT/L/830) – 
STATUS REPORT  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  2 
D. INTRODUCTION OF HARM ONIZED SYSTEM 2012 C HANGES TO SCHEDULES 
OF CONCESSIONS USING  THE CTS DATABASE (WT /L/831) – STATUS REPORT ................  3 
E. INTRODUCTION OF HARM ONIZED SYSTEM 2017 C HANGES TO SCHEDULES 
OF CONCESSIONS USING  THE CTS  DATABASE (WT/L/995) – STATUS REPORT  ................  3 
F. EXTENSION OF THE HS2 002 WAIVER (G/C/W/74 1) ................................ ...............  3 
G. EXTENSION OF THE HS2 007 WAIVER (G/C/W/74 2) ................................ ...............  3 
H. EXTENSION OF THE HS2 012 WAIVER (G/C/W/743)  ................................ ...............  4 
I. EXTENSION OF THE HS2 017 WAIVER (G/C/W/74 4, G/C/W/744/CORR.1)  ............  4 
J. OPERATION OF THE INT EGRATED DATA BASE (I DB), INCLUDING STATU S 
OF SUBMISSIONS (G/MA /IDB/2/REV.46), AND THE CTS DATABASE - STATUS 
REPORT  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................  4 
K. NOTIFICATIONS PURSUA NT TO THE DECISION O N NOTIFICATION 
PROCEDURES FOR QUANT ITATIVE RESTRICTIONS  (G/L/59/REV.1), REPO RT 
FROM THE SECRETARIAT  (G/MA/QR/5)  ................................ ................................ ..........  5 
(1) 2014-2016 Notifications  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 6 
(2) 2016 -2018 Notifications  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 9 
(3) Status of Notifications (G/MA/QR/5)  ................................ ................................ ................ 11 
(4) Timeliness and Completeness of QR Notifications  ................................ .............................. 11 
L. DERESTRICTION OF ADD ITIONAL NEGOTIATING MATERIALS – DRAFT 
DECISION (G/MA/W/131 ) ................................ ................................ .............................  12 
M. DRAFT REPORT (2017) OF THE COMMITTEE TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRAD E 
IN GOODS (G/MA/SPEC/ 57) ................................ ................................ ..........................  12 
N. ANGOLA – CONSUMPTION TAX – STATEMENT BY THE EUR OPEAN UNION  .............  12 
O. CHINA – CUSTOMS DUTIES ON CE RTAIN INTEGRATED CIR CUITS – 
STATEMENTS BY THE EU ROPEAN UNION, JAPAN,  CHINESE TAIPEI, AND THE 
UNITED STATES  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  13 G/MA/M/66  
 
- 2 - 
 
  P. INDIA - CUSTOMS DUTIES ON TE LECOMMUNICATION AND OTHER 
PRODUCTS - STATEMENTS BY CANADA , THE EUROPEAN UNION , JAPAN, CHINESE 
TAIPEI, AND THE UNIT ED STATES  ................................ ................................ ..................  15 
Q. KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARA BIA – EXCISE TAX ON ENERGY  DRINKS AND 
CARBONATED SOFT DRIN K PRODUCTS – STATEMENT BY SWITZER LAND 
(G/MA/W/132)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  18 
R. ELECTION OF THE VICE -CHAIRPERSON  ................................ ................................ .. 18 
S. OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 19 
- RUSSIAN  FEDERATION  – TAXATION  ON WINE  ................................ ............................... 19 
- ARGENTINA  – LAW  ON THE AUTO  PART  SECTOR  ................................ ............................ 19 
- DATE  OF THE NEXT  MEEETING ................................ ................................ ..................... 20 
 
The Committee adopted  the agenda as reproduced in WTO/AIR/MA/ 6 with the inclusion of the 
following items under Other Business: " Russian Federation – Taxation on Wine", "Argentina – Law 
on the Auto Part Sector ", and " date of the next meeting" . An annotated age nda was circulated in 
JOB/MA/ 132. 
 
A. INTRODUCTION OF HARM ONIZED SYSTEM 1996 CH ANGES TO SCHEDULES O F 
CONCESSIONS (L/6905 AND WT/L/756) – STATUS REPORT  
1. The Chairperson  recalled that there were two  procedures which had been used by Members 
to introduce HS96  changes to schedules of concessions : the general procedure , contained in 
GATT  document  L/6905 , dated October  1991, and the specific procedure , contained in 
WTO document  WT/L/756 , dated 29  May 2009.  He recalled that , under the first procedure , 
Members were to transpose their own schedules, whereas under the second , the Secretariat  had 
been requested to transpose the schedules of 64  developing countries and LDCs.  The schedule of 
South Afri ca was the only one, of the 64  Members covered by the specific procedure, which  
remained pending. The Chairperson  recalled that South Africa had announced , at the last informal 
meeting , that it had successfully concluded its domestic procedures so as to take into account the 
comments received. Therefore, South Africa  would work with the Secretariat to prepare a revis ed 
file to be reviewed in due course.  
2. The Committee took note  of the statement.  
B. INTRODUCTION OF HARM ONIZED SYSTEM 2002 C HANGES TO SCHEDULES OF 
CONCESSIONS USING TH E CTS  DATABASE (WT/L/605 A ND WT/L/ 807) – STATUS 
REPORT  
3. A member of the Secretariat  (Mr Jurgen Richtering) provided a brief report on the status of 
work on the HS02  transposition files  and recalled that a  full report had been issued as 
document  JOB/MA/42/Rev. 21, dated 24 August  2017. He indicated that the status of  the 
HS02  transposition files  after th e multilate ral review held on 23  June 2017 was as follows : 
113 HS02 files had been certified; one HS02  file had been approved ad referendum  at the 23  June 
meeting; one HS02  file had been released for multilateral review and had received comments f rom 
other Members; one HS02  file had been released for multilateral review  and had been approved at 
the informal session of 22 September ; and one draft HS02  file had been completed and sent to 
Member s for its  first review . Finally, he noted that  18 Members  had not been affected by the 
transposition , as eight Members had acceded in HS02 , another eight Members had acceded in 
HS07 , and two Members had acceded in HS2012 . 
4. The Committee took note  of the Secretariat 's report.  
C. INTRODUCTION OF HARM ONIZED SYSTEM 2 007 CHANGES TO SCHED ULES OF 
CONCESSIONS USING TH E CTS  DATABASE (WT/L/673 AND  WT/L/830) – STATUS 
REPORT  
5. A member of the Secretariat  (Mr Jurgen Richtering) provided a brief report on the status of 
work on the HS07  files and recalled that a  revised full report had been issued as G/MA/M/66  
 
- 3 - 
 
  document  JOB/MA/104/Rev. 16, dated 24 August  2017. He indicated that the status of the 
HS07 transposition files  after th e multilateral review held on 23  June 2017 was as follows : 
106 HS07  files had been certified ; three  HS07  files had been  released for multilateral review and 
had received comments from other Members;  three  draft HS07  files had been completed and sent 
to Me mbers for their first  review; 13  draft HS07  files remained to be prepared; and ten Members 
had not been affected by the transposition as eight  Members  had acceded in HS 2007 and 
two Members  had acceded in HS2012 . 
6. The Committee took note  of the Secretariat 's report.  
D. INTRODUCTION OF HARM ONIZED SYSTEM 2012 C HANGES TO SCHEDULES OF 
CONCESSIONS USING THE CTS DATABASE (WT /L/831 ) – STATUS REPORT  
7. A member of the Secretariat  (Mr Jurgen Richtering) provided a brief report on the status of 
work on the HS2012  transpo sition files and recalled that a  revised full report had been issued as 
document  JOB/MA/129/Re v.2, dated 24 August  2017. He indicated that the status of the 
HS2012  transposition files after the multilateral review held on 23  June 2017 was as follows : 
40 HS2012  files had been approved at the 23  June m eeting; one  HS2012  file had been released 
for mul tilateral review and had been approved at the informal meeting of 22 September ; 
36 HS2012  files had been released for multilateral review; 16  draft HS2012  files had been 
completed and sent to Members for their first  review; 40  draft HS2012  files remained to be 
prepared; and two Members had not been affected by the transposition as they had acceded in 
HS2012.  
8. The Committee took note  of the Secretariat 's report.  
E. INTRODUCTION OF HARM ONIZED SYSTEM 2017 C HANGES TO SCHEDULES OF 
CONCESSIONS  USING THE CTS DATABASE  (WT/L/995 ) – STATUS REPORT  
9. A member of the Secretariat  (Mr Jurgen Richtering) reported that the Secretariat had 
prepared the HS2017  reference nomenclature and correlation tables in a standardized  format , 
which were available for download on the IDB  File Exchange Facility 
(https://IDBFileExchange.wto.org ). 
10. The Committee took note  of the Secretariat 's report.  
F. EXTENSION OF THE HS2 002 WAIVER (G/C/W/74 1) 
11. The Chairperson  recalled that a number of M embers had been granted , in the form of a 
"collective decision", an extension to the HS2002  waiver in order to introduce HS2002  changes 
domestically , and subsequ ently to introduce these changes to  their respective schedule s of 
concessions, as well as to undertake negotiations if required  to do so . The most recent waiver 
decision , contained in document  WT/L/996 , would expire on 31  December  2017. H e proposed that 
the Committee agree to extend the waiver for a further year. The Secretariat had informed him 
that the HS2002  changes of Argentina would be certified a few  weeks after the meeting, such that 
Argentina could  be removed from the list to be considered by the General Council once the 
necessary procedures had been concluded . 
12. The Committee agreed  to forward the draft waiver decision granting the extension , as 
contained in document  G/C/W/741 , to the General Council , through the Council for Trade in 
Goods , for appropriate action.  
G. EXTENSION  OF THE HS2007  WAIVER (G/C/W/742)  
13. The Chairperson  recalled that a number of Members had been granted , in the form of a 
"collective decision", an extension to the HS2007  waiver in order to introduce HS2007  changes 
domestically , and subsequently to introduce these changes to their respective  schedule s of 
concessions, as well as to undertake negotiations if required  to do so . The most recent waiver 
decision , contained in document  WT/L/9 97, would expire on 31  December  2017. He proposed that 
the Committee agree to exte nd the waiver for a further  year. G/MA/M/66  
 
- 4 - 
 
  14. The Committee agreed  to forward the draft waiver decision granting the extension , as 
contained in document  G/C/W/74 2, to the General Council , through the Council for Trade in 
Goods , for appropriate action.  
H. EXTENSION OF THE HS2 012 WAIVER (G/C/W/743)  
15. The Chairperson  recalled that a number of Members had been granted , in the form of a 
"collective decision", an extension to the HS2012  waiver in order to introduce HS2012  changes 
domestically , and subsequently to introduce these changes to thei r respective schedule s of 
concessions, as well as to undertake negotiations if required  to do so . The most recent waiver 
decision , contained in document s WT/L/998  and WT/L/998/Add. 1, would expire on 
31 December  2017. He proposed that the Committee agree to  extend the waiver for a further 
year. 
16. The Committee agreed  to forward the draft waiver decision granting the extension , as 
contained in document  G/C/W/743 , to the General Council , through the Council for Trade in 
Goods , for appropriate action.  
I. EXTENSION OF THE HS2 017 WAIVER (G/C/W/74 4, G/C/W/744/CORR.1)  
17. The Chairperson  recalled that a num ber of Members had been granted a collective  waiver in 
order to introduce HS20 17 changes domestically and subsequently to introduce these changes to 
their respective schedule s of concessions, as well as to undertake negotiations if required  to do so . 
The most recent waiver decision was contained in document  WT/L/99 9 and its addenda  1 to 8 , 
which would expire on 31  December  2017. He proposed that the Committe e agree to extend the 
waiver for a further year. 
18. The representative  of Kazakhstan  noted that Kazakhstan had begun applying HS2017 within 
the Common Customs Tariff (CCT) of the  Eurasian Economic Union from 1  January  2017,  and not 
from " 1 July 2017" as indicated in the draft . 
19. The Committee agreed  to forward the draft waiver decision granting the extension , as 
contained in document s G/C/W/74 4 and G/C/W/744/Corr.1 , to the General Council , through the 
Council for Trade in Goods , for appropriate action.  It also agreed that the document be amended 
by the Secretariat as suggested by Kazakhstan.1 
J. OPERATION OF THE INT EGRATED DATA BASE (I DB), INCLUDING STATU S OF 
SUBMISSIONS (G/MA/ID B/2/REV.46 ), AND THE CTS DATAB ASE - STATUS REPORT  
20. The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to document  G/MA/IDB/2/Rev.4 6, which 
detailed the status of submissions to the IDB.  
21. A member of the Secretariat  (Mr Jurgen Richtering) noted that IDB submissions had been 
consistent. In addition to regular notification s, the Secretariat had used other official and publicly 
available data to fill in gaps in the notification s. For applied tariffs, t he 2017  data for 50  Members 
had already been notified; of those , 34 submissions had also included information on  non-MFN 
preferential trading regimes.  He recalled that t he deadline for submitting 2016 import  data had 
been fixed at 30 September , although the Secretariat ha d already received import notificati ons 
from 20 Members. For those M embers covered by the Transparency Me chanism for Preferential 
Trade Arrangements ( TM-PTA), the deadline for 2016  import  submission s, which included a 
breakdown by PTA  tariff regime , was 30  October  2017. He  encourage d delegations with gaps in 
their data to complete their data time series and a lso to notify their pre ferential tariffs. A nother 
notification reminder would be sent to delegations once the deadline  of 30  October  for 
2016 TM-PTA imports ha d passed. For regular import statistics not covered by the TM-PTA the 
deadline f or submission of 2016 figures  was 30 September.  The full reports , including the status of 
submission s, covering all years from 1996  onwards , had been uploaded and made  available at the 
IDB File Exchange Facility. He  recalled  that tariffs were the basic data used in the integration of 
the IDB ; therefore , it followed that imports that were notified without the accompanying applied 
                                                
1 See document  G/C/W/744/Corr.2 . G/MA/M/66  
 
- 5 - 
 
  tariffs would receive low prior ity with regard to their processing. In addition, he recalled that  the 
WTO's  online applications , namely  TAO and the Tariff Download Facility,  did not have the features 
that would allow the dissemination of import  data without accompanying tariff data . Indeed, most 
of the unprocessed notifications were those containing  import data that had been submitted 
without the corresponding tariff  data. The cut-off date fo r document  G/MA/IDB/2/ Rev.46 had been  
set at  27 August  2017, which had been earlier than usual ; for this reason, the Secretariat 
apologize d if some of the later submissions had  not been reflected in the documen t. As of 
27 August , the follo wing additional submissions had either been notified to the Secretariat or else 
downloaded from relevant online sources: Armenia (imports for 2014 and 2015); Australia 
(MFN tariffs and preference s for 2017); Burundi (MFN  tariffs and preference s for 2017); Cuba 
(imports for 2015); Kazakhstan (MFN  tariffs and preference s for 2017); Kenya (MFN  tariffs and 
preference s for 2017); Rwanda (MFN  tariffs and preference s for 2017); South Africa (imports for 
2016); Tanzania (MFN  tariffs and preference s for 2017); Uganda (MFN  tariffs and preference s for 
2017); and Ukraine (imports for 2016).  On IDB dissemination, the database currently contained 
2238 country -periods , which cover ed all WTO  Members e xcept Afghanistan,  which had acceded on 
29 July 2016. It also included data , now available on the IDB  website,  for five acceding M embers , 
namely  Algeria, Baham as, Belarus, Iran, and Serbia.  On the IDB notification  process , he observed  
that notifications were typically received by e -mail, via the IDB mailbox , and that  the process had 
been working well. However, for big ger files, he reminded  Member s that there existed another 
possible method, which consisted in submitting the notifications through the IDB  File Exchange 
Facility ; indeed, many Members were already using this method . As mentioned in 
document  G/MA/IDB/2/ Rev.46, the complete status of submis sions from 1996 to 2017 for 
MFN tariffs and imports , in all three official WTO  languages , was available for download from that 
facility.  
22. Concerning technical assistance missions, since the last meeting of the Committee in 
May 2017, the following IDB/CTS -related technical assistance activities had taken place: Advanced 
Regional Trading Agreements Course; Regional Trade Policy Cou rse (RTPC) fo r French -speaking 
Members in Africa (Côte d'Ivoire); and an RTPC for Latin America (Ecuador). On the Consolidated 
Tariff Schedule (CTS)  database, the Secretariat had made available bound schedules (CTS  files) for 
all Members  through the website . Of these 1 35 Member s' schedules , two were in HS2012 , 
114 were in HS2007 , 13 were in HS2002, and six  remained in the HS96  nomenclature . The last 
release of th e CTS  DVD, which included a compilation of the original legal instruments as 
submitted by Member s, had been distributed to each  delegation  in September  2016. 
23. The representative of Switzerland  thanked the Secretariat for the report and noted  that 
notification of MFN  duties and import data were essential requirement s for WTO  Members  so as to 
ensure transparency. I n that context, his delegation  thanked all those Members that had recently 
submitted notification s. However, Switzerland was concerned that many Members were still late in 
the submission of their IDB  notifications , and developed countries in particular, which  had not 
complied with this requirement for several years. He urged  all Members , and developed countries  
in particular , to show leadership in this matter and to respect the relevant notification deadlines.  
In addition, his delegation would like to know and  understand the reasons behind such extended 
non-compliance with these notification requirements , which might then help Members to find ways 
to address the issue in the Committee.  
24. The Committee took note  of the report and the statement . 
K. NOTIFICATIONS PURSUA NT TO THE DECISION O N NOTIFICATION PROCE DURES 
FOR QUANTITATIVE RES TRICTIONS (G/L/59/RE V.1), REPORT FROM THE SECRETARIAT 
(G/MA/QR/5)  
25. The Chairperson  recalled that there were two  issues under this agenda item: (i) the review 
of notificati ons received ; and (ii) the report on the status of notifications, including his report on 
the consultations on the timeliness and completeness of notifications . 
  G/MA/M/66  
 
- 6 - 
 
  (1) 2014-2016 Notifications  
- Brazil (G/MA/QR/N/BRA /1) 
 
26. The Chairperson  recalled that, at its last meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert back 
to a discussion of  this notification.  
27. The representative of the United States  reiterated her delegation's  concerns , which had been  
raised at the last meeting of the Committee , regarding a lack of completeness in Brazil' s 
notification , which claim ed that Brazil did not maintain any import quantitative restriction s. 
However, as had been noted at the Committee meeting of 2 May 2017, Brazil did maintain  
non-automatic import licences  and restrictions on the importation of certain goods, which were 
measures that should have been notified as quanti tative restrictions under this D ecision. The 
United States requested  Brazil to advise the Committee as to when it intended to submit a revise d 
QR notification that include d all its relevant measures.  
28. The representative of Switzerland  recalled that  Brazil' s statement at the Committee meeting 
of May  2017 had indicated that "non-automatic import licensing measures should be notified under 
the QR  procedures, to the extent that they were means to implement any kind of QR  restriction ". 
Switzerland remained  puzzled to see that Brazil had not  mention ed non-automatic licences  in its 
own notification , as in the case of the CITES , for example . As CITES fo resaw export and import 
restrictions for certain animals and plants, and Brazil had been a member of CITES since 1975, his 
delegation wondered  as to  the rationale behind Brazil's not mentioning the se non-automatic 
licenses.  Another example was the Protocol  of Montreal concerning  ozone -depleting substances , to 
which Brazil was also a  party. Other WTO  Members that were party to that Protocol had listed 
these measures in their  QR notification , as their systems required non-automatic licenses to import 
and expo rt such products. His delegation asked Brazil to  indicate why its QR  notifica tion had not  
provide d such information . 
29. The representative of Brazil  thanked the United States and Switzerland and took note of  
their comments. He noted  that some of the  points raised had already been raised at previous 
meetings , and would be forwarded to Capital for consideration. He informed  the Committee that he 
could not provide an update on this occasion  as the issue remained subject to an ongoing internal 
process that sough t to identify measures that could possibly form part of a revised notification 
from Brazil. As had previously been indicated , the process was making progress ; nevertheless,  he 
was not yet able to provide a precise date by which the process would be conclud ed. Responding 
to Switzerland's  question, he stated that the purpose of the inter-governmental process was 
precisely to identify any relevant measures, including those resulting from international 
commitments outside the WTO , such as environmental agreemen ts, which might be eligible for 
notification  under the procedures adopted by the CTG in 2012. He considered that Brazil's 
notification also deserved a  word of  clarification. From a material point  of view , the QR  notification 
did not provide any new informa tion in addition to that which Brazil  had already notified to the 
Import Licensing Committee. In other words, Brazil had reflected in the QR  notification the 
information that had previously been notified to the Committee  on Import Licensing ; a revised 
QR notification, likewise, would possibly require adjustments to the Import Licensing notification as 
well. He also reiterated that, in Brazil's view, non -automatic import licensing measures only 
needed to be notified under the QR  procedures to the extent that they were a means by which to 
implement any kind of QR  restriction. From its reading of Article  XI of the GATT  1994, it was not 
Brazil's understanding that every non -automatic import licensing measure had to be notified under 
the QR  procedures adopted in 2012.  
30. The Committee took note  of the statements , and agreed  to revert to this notification at its 
next meeting.  
- China ( G/MA/QR/N/CHN /3) 
 
31. The Chairperson  recalled that, at its last meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert to a 
discussion of this notification.  
32. The representative of Canada  noted that his delegation no longer wished to maintain its 
reservation on China's notification since Canada's comment , as raised in previous C ommittee G/MA/M/66  
 
- 7 - 
 
  meetings , had now been addressed through bilateral consultations. He thanked China for their 
engagement and for their consideration of Canada's comments.  
33. The representative of Switzerland  thanked China for the submission o f its QR  notification. He 
noted that China had only mentioned Article  XX of the GATT under "WTO justification ", which 
Switzerland considered to be very broad. He requested China to be more specific and to indicate to 
which paragraph of Article  XX China referred to.  
34. The representative of China  thanked Canada for removing their reservation and Switz erland 
for its interest in China's notification . China took note of the new question raised by Switzerland  
and indicated that it  would be sent to Capital for consideration.  
35. The Committee took note  of the statements , and agreed  to revert to this notification at its 
next meeting.  
- Mauritius ( G/MA/QR/N/MUS/1 ) 
 
36. The Chairperson  noted that Mauritius had submitted a notification in 
document  G/MA/QR/N/MUS/1, which had  been followed by  new notifications in 
documents  G/MA/QR/N/MUS/2 and G/MA/QR/N/MUS/3. He recalled that the Committee had taken 
note of the latter two  notifications , but had agreed to revert back to a discussion of the 
first notification , on which Switzerland had comment ed. 
37. The representative of Switzerland  thanked Mauritius for the revised notification. Switzerland 
was not sure whether the classification of Article  XI:2 of the GATT , which related rather to 
agricultural and fisheries products.  
38. The C ommittee took note  of the statement , and agreed  to revert to this notification at its 
next meeting.  
- Mexico ( G/MA/QR/N/MEX/1/ Rev.1, G/MA/W/126 ) 
 
39. The Chairperson  recalled that, at its last meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert to a 
discussion of this notification, as well as to the questions that had been raised by the European 
Union in document  G/MA/W/126 . 
40. The representative of the European Union  noted that , in previous meetings, the European 
Union had had an opportunity to comment on Mexico's extensive use of non -automatic licences. In 
document  G/MA/W/126 , the European Union had as ked for further clarification as to the 
procedures  at stake, among other issues. Her delegation wished to receive  written replies to all 
these questions and looked forward to Mexico's responses . 
41. The representative of Switzerland  reiterated his delegation 's interes t in receiving Mexico's 
answers  to the European Union's questions  and, in particular , registered Switzerl and's interest in 
understanding the necessary procedures to be followed for the importation of  medical equipment.  
42. The representative of Mexico  thanked the European Union and Switzerland for the ir interest 
in Mexico's notification and measures. She indicate d that , unfortunately , Mexico did  not yet have a  
written answer as Capital had been  working on the response when Mexico had unfortunately been 
badly affected by a natural disaster . She hoped to be able to provide written answers to the 
European Union's questions  as soon as possible. Mexico already had some elements of its response 
in place , but wished to avoid providing only a partial  answer. She stated that her  Capital was still 
verifying whether or not  an error may have been made in their  notification . 
43. The Committee took note  of the statements, and agreed  to revert to a discussion of this 
notification at its next meeting.  
  G/MA/M/66  
 
- 8 - 
 
  - Russian Federation (G/MA/QR/N/RUS/2,  G/MA/W/119)  
 
44. The Chairperson  recalled that, at its last meeting, the Committee had agreed to  revert to 
this notification  and to the questions that had been raised by the European Union in 
document  G/MA/W/119.  
45. The representative of the European Union  began by raising a procedural issue. Since the 
Russian Federation's measure s were in place  during  the periods 2014 -2016 and 2016 -2018,  she 
wanted to clarify that the European Union's comments remained valid for the Russian Federation's 
notifications of both periods , so it  would not provide comment s separately . To avoid having to take 
the floor multiple times in such situations, the European Union suggested that future meetings 
should address notifications by country  and not by time period.  Turning to the substance, the 
European Union noted that the Russian Feder ation's Government Decree No.  826 of 
19 August  2014 had put in place an export ban on raw hides and skins. The measure had been 
introduced initially for a period of six  months but had been extended several times. According to 
the Russian Federation's latest notification  (document  G/MA/QR/N/RUS/3 ), the ban should have 
expired in  August  2017.  However, the Ministry of Industry and Trade had released a draft legal act 
last June  that had  further extended the measure , from September to February  2018.  As stated at  
previous meetings, the European Union doubted  if this measure could be considered to be 
"temporary ". The European Union had raised this issue several times in this Committee, as well as 
at the CTG, and the replies  thus far received had not seemed convincing to her delegation. The 
European Union would appreciate receiving further explanation of this measure and its probable 
fifth extension. At the last meeting of the Committee, the Russia n delegation  had stated that it 
was analysing how the m easure would ensure implementation of the Russian Federation's national 
defence procurement. The European Union wished to know how the u se of domestic raw materials 
could  ensure the implementation of state defence procurement and why the ban was  necessary to 
ensure such compliance. The European Union  requested the Russian Federation to further 
elaborate on this aspect of its measure and, in particular, to explain the measure's compatibility 
with WTO  rules.  
46. The representative of the Russian Federation  thanke d the E uropean Union  for its  interest in 
Russia's  temporary limitation of exports of raw hides and skins . He emphasized that the restriction 
was of  a discrete nature  because the measure  had been reintroduced several times  and because 
exports had been permitted between the periods of implementation of the respective resolutions. 
The Russian Federation had carefully studied the questions posed by the European Union and the 
relevant responses had been communicated by his delegation bilaterally to the delegation of the 
European Union.  
47. The Committee took note  of the statements made and agreed  to revert to a discussion of 
this notification at its next meeting.  
- United S tates ( G/MA/QR/N/USA/2, G/MA/W/116, G/MA/W/127 ) 
48. The Chairperson  recalled  that, at its last meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert to 
this notification, as well as to the questions that had been raised by the European Union  in 
document s G/MA/W/116 and G/MA/W/127.  
49. The representative of the European Union  stated  that her dele gation had  submitted 
questions to the U nited States (document  G/MA/W/116) in November  2015, which sought 
clarification of certain aspects of the US QR notification submitted in September  2014, in particular 
with regard to measures affecting trade in sturge on products. She noted that the procedural issue 
that had been raised previously applied to this issue  as well , as the measure had also formed part 
of the third  notification of the United States in document  G/MA/QR/N/USA/3.  The E uropean Union 
thank ed the U nited States for the replies that it had provided  thus far and for the ongoing bilateral 
discussion . However, the E uropean Union remained  concerned  as the US reasoning behind its 
decision to apply a ban on wild and farmed sturgeon alike  continued to be unc lear. The European 
Union wished for a clearer  understand ing as to  why wild and farmed sturgeon and their products 
were not trea ted by the US as separate categories , and why trade in captive -bred sturgeon and 
their products was  considered detrimental to the  survival of wild stocks, which was a view that 
went beyond the requirements of the CITES  Convention.  In past years, the E uropean Union had  
provided the U nited States with information on sturgeon aquaculture in the E uropean Union that 
had illustrate d the positive effects of captive breeding on the survival of wild stocks. The G/MA/M/66  
 
- 9 - 
 
  European  Union had to date not received any convincing justification of the ban on captiv e-bred 
sturgeon products ; therefore , the EU consider ed this  ban to be an unjustified trad e barrier.  At the 
previous meeting of this Committee, the United States had  informed Members of the ongoing 
review that was being carried out by the US  Fish and Wildlife Service. Her delegation requested  
the US to provide an update of this review and at the same time to provide further clarification in 
response to the EU's comments.  
50. The representative of the United States  thanked the European Union for its continued 
interest in this matter . She explained that the  US Fish and  Wildlife Service was  currently 
conducting a status review on a petition to list ten  species of sturgeon under the Endange red 
Species Act. The Service was  in the process of collecting an d evaluating information and had  not 
yet made a determination on the listing of these speci es. A listing determination would  be made on 
the best scientific and commercial information available. At any time during the Service 's review, 
the European Union and any other Member could  provide a dditional information to help the United 
States  to make its determination. She indicated that , once the status review was  completed, and 
in case the Service found  that the listing was warranted, the Service would  prepare a proposed 
rule. At that point, the public would  be given 60  days to comment on the proposed  listing , which 
would  then give the E uropean Union a further opportunity to provide the Service with information.  
Her delegation would be happy to facilitate a discussion among the relevant autho rities, as 
appropriate.  
51. The Committee took note  of the statements  made  and agreed  to revert to a discussion of 
this notification at its next meeting.  
(2) 2016 -2018 Notifications  
- Australia (G/MA/QR/N/AUS /3) 
 
52. The Chairperson  drew the  Committee's attention to Australia 's new notification.  
53. The representative of Switzerland  had two  questions on points requiring clarification in 
relation to Australia's notification . The first question concerned QR No. 7, on counterfeit credit 
cards , and the second on QR  No. 17, on human blood tissue.  On the latter, Switzerland wish ed to 
know why expor ts had been prohibited. Switzerland would submit its questions to Australia in 
writing . 
54. The representative of Australia  thanked Switzerland and would revert  to the issue in due 
course.  
55. The Committee took note  of the statements  made  and agreed  to revert to a discussion of 
this notification at its next meeting.  
- Cuba ( G/MA/QR/N/CUB /3/REV.1 ) 
 
56. The Chairperson  stated  that, at its last meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert to the 
notification by Cuba circulated in document  G/MA/QR/N/CUB/3, but that Cuba had subsequently 
submitted a revision to that document, in document  G/MA/QR/N/CUB/3/Rev.1.  
57. The Committee took note  of this revised notification.  
- Kazakhstan  (G/MA/QR/N/KAZ/1 ) 
 
58. The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to Kazakhstan 's new notification.  
59. The representative of Ukraine  observed that , according to this notification , Kazakhstan had 
introduced a prohibition on the export of timber, regenerated paper, and cardboard , pursuant to 
Law No.  175-III, "On Specially Protected Natural Territories ", of 7 July 2006, and Decision of the 
EEC Collegium No.  134, "On Normative Legal Acts in the Area of Non -Tariff Regulation ", of 
16 August  2012. It was Ukraine' s understanding that Kazakhstan had justified this export 
prohibition on the basis of GATT  Articles  XX(b) and XX(g). At the same time, the applied measures 
had to  comply with certain conditions, notably  the even -handedness requirement (effective G/MA/M/66  
 
- 10 - 
 
  restrictions on domestic production or consump tion). In this regard, Ukraine sought clarification 
from Kazakhstan as to whether or not the initial policy objective of this measure ha d now been 
achieved.  If that had been the case, he requested Kazakhstan to provide relevant information 
indicating the results that had been achieved, such as statistics on the preservation of exhaustible 
resources, domestic production, consumption and import  of timber, and paper and cardboard.  
Regarding the licensing requirement s for the import ation of raw cane sugar, imposed by the 
Decision of the EEC Collegium No.  134, of 16  August  2012, and as specifically referenced in 
point 29 of the notification,  Ukraine requested Kazakhstan to clarify whether or not the measure in 
question still remained  in force. A communication  from Ukraine in this regard would shortly be 
circulated to the Committee. Ukraine did not insist upon receiving an immediate response and 
would prefer to receive a written communication  in due course . 
60. The representative of Switzerland  had several question s concerning  Kazakhstan's notification  
and would submit these  in writing  after the meeting . Firstly, Switzerland noted  that A rticle XX(h) 
of the GATT had been used as a justifica tion for several measures. F or example , it had been used 
for chemicals in the Stockholm Convention. However, Switzerland's understanding was that the 
provision referred to intergovernmental commodity agreement s, such as  those relating to  cocoa, 
coffee, cotton, grains, and so on . With regard to QR No. 16, Switzerland 's understanding was that 
Kazakhstan was a member of the Kimberly Process ; for this reason, his delegation wished to 
understand why this information had not been mentioned in the notification. With regard to 
QR No. 17, which applied to a variety of preciou s metals, the justif ication used by Kazakhstan was 
Article XX(c) of the GATT , which only made reference to gold and silver. Switzerland asked  why 
this provision  had been cited for other precious metal s, and queried the  appropriate ness of doing 
so. 
61. The repr esentative of Kazakhstan  thanked the delegations of Ukraine and Switzerland  and 
requested them to  submit  their respective  questions in written form so that these could be sent to 
Capital for appropriate consideration . 
62. The Committee took note  of the statements  made  and agreed  to revert to a discussion of 
this notification at its next meeting.  
- Russian Federation  (G/MA/QR/N/RUS /3) 
 
63. The Chairperson  recalled that, at its last meeting, the Committee had agreed to revert to 
this notification.  
64. The representative of Ukraine  shared the concerns that had been raised by the European 
Union regarding this notification, according to which  the Russian Federation ha d placed a 
temporary ban on the export of leath er semi -products. The measure had been  introduced pursuant 
to Government Resolution  No. 665, dated 12 July 2016, for the period 18  July 2016 to 
18 January  2017. The measure had then been prolonged , by Resolu tion No.  20 of 
18 January  2017, until 1  August  2017. The above -mentioned resolutions,  Resolution No. 665 and 
Resolution No. 20, stated that the temporary ban ha d been introduced pursuant to Annex  7 to the 
Eurasian Economic Community (EAEC) Treaty, and in order to fulfil the so -called "state defence  
order ". The resolutions also state d that the ban ha d been imposed on products that were essential 
to the Russian Federation' s internal market , and products that may be subject , under exceptional 
circumstances, to temporary export prohibitions and restrictions.  In this regard, Ukraine sought  
the following clarifications:  
 Had the measure been introduced pursuant to subparag raph 1 of paragraph  12 of 
Annex  No. 7 to the EAEC  Treaty?  
 If not, which provisions of Annex  7 to the EAEC  Treaty did the Russian Federation use as a 
legal basis for the impo sition of the ban?  
 What was  meant by "exceptional circumstances ", mention ed in the resolutions and in 
Annex  7 to the EAEC  Treaty?  
 What kind of " exceptional circumstances " had the Russian Federation faced in 2014 -2017 
to justify the introduction and maintenance of the ban?  
 Had the measure expired? If yes, on which date had the ban been terminate d? 
 Did the Russian Federation intend  to extend or to re-impose the ban?  
 G/MA/M/66  
 
- 11 - 
 
  65. A communication from Ukraine would shortly be circulated to the  Committee. Ukraine did 
not insist upon receiving an immediate response and would prefer to receive a written 
communication from the Russian Federation.  
66. The representative of  Switzerland  indicated that his delegation 's question s were the same as 
those that had been addressed to Kazakhstan,  and that these  questions would be submit ted to the 
Russian Federation in writing . 
67. The representative of the Russian Federation  thanked Members for the ir interest in Russia's 
temporary limitation of exports of raw hide s and skins. He stated that his delegation had already 
addressed the matter under the previous sub -item and would be grateful to Ukraine and 
Switzerland if they could provide their questions in writing . 
68. The Committee took note  of the statement s made  and agreed to revert to this notification at 
its next meeting.  
- Singapore (G/MA/QR/N/SGP /3) 
 
69. The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to Singapore's new  notification.  
70. The Committee took note  of this notification.  
- Switzerland  (G/MA/QR/N/CHE /2) 
 
71. The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to Switzerland 's new notification.  
72. The Committee took note  of this notification.  
(3) Status of Notifications (G/MA/QR/5)  
73. The Chairperson  drew the Committee's  attention to document  G/MA/QR/5 , entitled "Status 
of Notifications under the Decision on Notification Procedures for Quantitative Restrictions 
(G/L/59/Rev.1)", which summarized the s tatus of notifications as of 11 September  2017. He also 
reminded Members that the Decision provided that " Members shall make complete notifications of 
all quantitative restrictions in force by 30  September  2012 and at two yearly intervals thereafter."  
74. A member of the Secretariat  (Mr Roy Santana) informed Members that the layout of the 
document had been reorgan ized to make it easier  to see the  notifications that had been submitted 
by each Member . For the period 2012 -2014, the Secretariat had received 27 notifications from 
22 Members ; for the period 2014 -2016, the Secretariat had received 30  notifications from 
27 Members; and for the most recent period , 2016-2018, the Secretariat had re ceived 
16 notifications from 16  Members.  
(4) Timeliness and Completeness of QR Notifications  
75. The Chairperson  reported that, on 17  July 2017 , he had held an  informal consultation with a 
small group of Members  on how to improve the number and quality of QR  notifications . More 
specifically, the discussions had revolved around the following three  main issues: (i) the 
importance  of QR notification s; (ii) the challenges faced by delegations when endeavouring to 
comply  with the notification requirement; and  (iii) what actions could be t aken by Members in 
order to redress these difficulties . On the importance of the QR  notification, the delegations 
present at the consultations had emphasized the importance of the Decision , and that  complete 
and timely notifications contributed significantly to the predictability and transparency of the 
multilateral trading system. With r egard to the main challenges  faced by Members , delegations 
had noted the following: (i) a lack of clarity regarding which  measures need ed to be notified; 
(ii) the high degree of national coordination required to obtain the relevant information; and 
(iii) the difficulty of ensuring the quality of the notification itself. In terms of the measures that 
could be adopted in order to improve Members' understanding of the QR  notification requirements , 
and their compliance reco rd, the following proposals had been  discussed:  (1) to ask the 
Secretariat to update the Practical Guide on QR  notifications, as contained in 
document  JOB/MA/101, including the lessons learnt from the operation of the Decision and G/MA/M/66  
 
- 12 - 
 
  possible ways in which national coordination could be improved. Interested delegations would be 
invited to submit their suggestions to the Secretariat; (2) to review the WTO  webpage and the 
QR database in order to improve access to information on QRs and e xisting notifications, which 
could be done after the practical guide ha d been updated a nd discussed by the Committee; and 
(3) to organize a capacity -building workshop in Geneva with a view to increasing awareness on 
what needed to be notified. The workshop  would take place back -to-back with the first  formal 
meeting of 2018 and would be open to capital -based officials , similar to  the workshop that had 
been successfully conducted recently on import licensing procedures. If delegations were 
interested, the Com mittee could ask the Secretariat to explore the possibility of funding the 
participation of some capital -based  experts or officials dealing d irectly with this category of 
notification.  
76. The representative of Brazil  asked what the update of the Practical Guide would entail, and 
which elements were not up -to-date and need ed improvement.  
77. A member of the Secretariat  (Mr Roy Santana) stated that a communication would be 
circulated to delegations requesting their  inputs. He recalled  that the guide that had been 
circulated in document  JOB/MA/101 had been prepared prior to the Committee having received 
any notification, so t he update would take into account the comments that had been made by 
Members  in past meetings, as well  as the experience accrued to date . 
78. The Committee took note  of the report, of the statement s made , and of 
document  G/MA/QR/5 . It also agreed  to ask the Secretariat to update the Practical Guide on 
QR Notifications, contained in document  JOB/MA/101,  to review the WTO webpage and the 
QR database,  and to organize a capacity -building workshop in Geneva . 
L. DERESTRICTION OF ADD ITIONAL NEGOTIATING MATERIALS – DRAFT DECISION 
(G/MA/W/131)  
79. The Chairperson  recalled that, at its previous meeting, the Committee  had adopted the 
procedures for the derestriction of additional negotiating materials from the Geneva (1947), 
Annecy (1949), Torquay (1950 -1951), and Geneva (1956) rounds of tariff negotiations. The 
approved procedures had been circulated in document  G/MA/ 334. Members had been given 
three  months to review the document and to notify the Secretariat of any negotiating material that 
they considered should remain restricted for an additional time  period. The Secretariat had 
prepared the draft Decision for the d erestriction of additional negotiating materials , as circulated in 
document  G/MA/W/131 , for approval by this Committee before be ing officially submitted to the 
General Council through the Council for Trade in Goods.  
80. The Committee adopted  the draft Decision  and agreed  to submit it to the General Council , 
through the C ouncil for Trade in Goods, for appr opriate action.  
M. DRAFT REPORT (2017) OF THE COMMITTEE TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRAD E IN 
GOODS (G/MA/SPEC/57)  
81. The Chairperson  recalled that the Committee was required to submit annually a report on its 
activities to the Council for Trade in Goods. A draft report covering the activities of the Committee 
since its previous annual report  had been circulated in document  G/MA/SPEC/57 . The report would 
be updated by the Secretariat to reflect the discussion held in the present meeting.  
82. The Committee agreed  to the proposal by the Chairperson.  
N. ANGOLA – CONSUMPTION TAX – STATEMENT BY THE EUR OPEAN UNION  
83. The Chairperson  recalled that thi s agenda item had been included at the request of the 
European Union.  
84. The representative of the European Union  recalled  that, at the last meeting, it had already 
commented on Presidential Legislative Decree No.  5-15. The European Union  was concerned by 
the fact that Angola had increased consumption tax on several products , such as spirits, juices, 
foodstuffs , and certain industrial products. Consumption tax rates on imported goods (listed in the G/MA/M/66  
 
- 13 - 
 
  Decree's Annex  I) were higher than those  levied on the same goods produced domesticall y (listed 
in the Decree's Annex  II). The taxation  there fore appeared to be discriminatory. Her delegation 
had circulated written questions to Angola in document  G/MA/W/129 , dated 22 November  2016, 
and looked forw ard to receiving Angola's written replies. The E uropean Union requested  Angola to  
justify the new tax rates in light of its WTO  commitments and Article  III of the GATT, which 
prohibited fiscal discrimination between domestic and like imported goods. The E uropean Union 
also asked wh ether Angola was planning to revise the current system with a view to guaranteeing 
equal treatment of domestic and imported goods.  
85. The representative of Angola  thanked the European Union for its interest in Angola's 
consumption ta x legislation and took  note of the EU's comments . He had transmitted to Capital a 
report on  the bilateral meeting that had been held with the European Union and was  optimistic 
that a mutually satisfactory solution would be found  in the near future . Following Angola's recent 
elections, the  issue would  be dealt with once a new government had  been formed.  
86. The Committee took note  of the statement s made . 
O. CHINA – CUSTOMS DUTIES ON CE RTAIN INTEGRATED CIR CUITS – STATEMENTS BY 
THE EUROPEAN UNION, JAPAN, CH INESE TAIPEI, AND TH E UNITED STATES  
87. The Chairperson  recalled that this agenda item had been included at th e request of the 
European Union, Japan, Chinese Taipei, and the United States.  
88. The representative of the United States  expressed her delegation's concern with regard to a 
change in China' s applied duty rates on certain semiconductor products, an issue that had been 
previously raised in the ITA  Committee. In particular, her delegation  was concerned that, since 
1 January  2017, China had imposed  tariffs on a number of semiconductor products that previously 
had been duty -free by virtue of China' s WTO  bound commitments. As a result of an amendment to 
the Harmonized System in 2017, a number of semiconductor devices that had been previously 
classified in various HS  subheadings covering "parts" of technology products had been reclassified 
under HS  heading  85.42. In China' s national tariff schedule, semiconductor products classified in 
ten of the national tariff lines  impacted by the  HS changes had been  bound as duty-free i n China's 
WTO schedule, and therefore received  duty-free treatment as of 31 December  2016. The ten 
duty-free tariff lines, based on HS2012  nomenclature, were as follows: 8473.30.10 ; 8473.30.90 ; 
8517.70.30 ; 8517.70.6 0; 8543.90.21 ; 8543.90.29 ; 8543.90.30 ; 8543.90.40 ; 9026.90.00 ; and 
9027.90.00. There had been seven  additional tariff lines in China' s national schedule that had also 
been affected by the aforementioned HS  changes , and the products under those seven  tariff lines 
had also been subject to duties. As of 1 January  2017, and as a result of the 2017  amendments to 
the HS  nomenclature, Chinese customs had reclassified the semiconductor products that had been 
previously classified under the duty -free tariff li nes into several subheadings under HS  85.42 in its 
updated tariff schedule. However, also as of 1 January  2017, Chinese Customs had begun charging 
duties on the same  products , following their reclassification u nder HS  heading  85.42. These were 
the same  products that had been  duty-free the previous day. As for the level of the duties, it 
appear ed that China was  applying a duty equal to the simple  average of the duties that had been  
transposed into heading  85.42, rather than preserving the duty -free treatment  that China had 
committed to pursuant to  the ITA. She stated that this was  not a technical issue but rather an 
issue that had a direct  bearing on China' s WTO  binding commitments. She drew the Committee 's 
attention  to paragraph  4 of Annex  2 of the General Council Decision on the "Procedure for the 
Introduction o f Harmonized System 2017  Changes to Schedules o f Concessions ", 
document  WT/L/995, which stated : "Each new HS2017  subheading/tariff line will be derived from 
one or more HS2012  tariff lines or part of  these lines  … If the concessions of the original 
HS2012  tariff lines are different, the concession elements of the new HS2017  subheading/tariff line 
should reflect this. In this case, the HS2017  subheading/tariff line should normally be broken down 
to a m ore detailed level so that the draft HS2017  file reflects fully the same level of concessions as 
the CTS in HS2012. " The United States noted that, regardless of the transposition methodology 
used, the results of an HS  transposition should be tariff rate ne utral, meaning that the value of the 
tariff concession should not be impaired as a result of a change in HS  nomenclature. However , the 
manner in which China had implemented the HS2017  amendment for the semiconductor products 
had had a direct and negative c ommercial impact on US  companies.  The United States urged China 
to implement the HS2017  amendment s for these semiconductor products  in a manner that fully 
reflected  the same level of concessions as in HS2012 ; in other words,  to maintain its duty -free 
WTO bound commitments for these products , to reinstate zero  duties on all products previously G/MA/M/66  
 
- 14 - 
 
  classified under the 10  tariff lines that had been mentioned and for which China had  an obligation 
to provide duty -free treatment pursuant to its WTO  bound commitment s, and to do  so without 
delay.  
89. The representative of Japan  joined other co -sponsors in expressing its concern over China's  
customs duties on certain integrated circuits. Japan understood that , since January  2017, China 
had imposed duties  on some multi -comp onent semiconductors (MCOs) that had previously been 
duty-free under  the ITA  Expansion Agreement . Japan acknowledged that China had used a simple 
average duty rate based on 17 tariff lines , which had been integrated from the result s of the 
HS2017  revision.  She noted that , even if it was within WTO  rules to apply a simple average duty 
rate, Japan held significant concerns regarding the 2017 increase in duty rates applied to certain 
semiconductors. Japan requested China to clarify whether or not it intended to respect its  
duty-free commitments under taken in  the ITA Agreement . Finally, she noted that the issue was 
under discussion at Capital level . 
90. The representative of Singapore  stated that her delegation would follow this implementation 
issue with interest.  
91. The representative of Chinese Taipei  shared the view s and concerns expressed  by the other 
co-sponsors  because, since the beginning of the year, China had imposed tariffs on 
multi-component integrated circuit (MC Os) products at a rate higher than its curren t WTO  bound 
rates, which were duty -free tar iffs. China  was therefore in violati on of its obligation under Article  II 
of the GATT. This measure impaired the benefits that should accrue to Chinese Taipei's industry. 
Her delegation  requested China to justify its use of a method ology  that applied an arithmetic 
average to the previous rates of duty. Chinese Taipei also requested that the tariff rates applied to 
the imports of the MCO  products at issue be immediately reduced to zero.  
92. The representative of the European Union  shared the concerns expressed by previous 
speakers and echoed many of the comments that had been made. China had previously identified 
17 MCO products , some of which  had been duty -free. However, China had since regrouped all 
MCO products int o new common categories and had at the same time applied  duties on all those 
lines, including those that had previously been duty-free. For instance, for some MCOs, the duty 
rate had been set at 0% in 2016 but had been increase d to 3.4% in 2017. In China' s certified 
WTO schedule, China had committed to maintain zero  tariff rates on some of the product lines  in 
question , identified as MCOs , which  used to be  duty-free. She observed that these  developments 
had been  very disappointing to EU industry and  were contrary to  the letter and spirit of the ITA. 
The new duties had been calculated by means of a duty averaging method , but seemed  to be well 
above the arithmetic av erage of the old duties. This went also against the letter of the agreement 
and could constit ute a violat ion of China's ITA  obligations.  In February  2017,  the World 
Semiconductor Counc il (WSC) Members ' Association had  sent a letter to China's  Ministries of 
Commerce and Finance in order to explain their concerns. The E uropean Union had also contact ed 
the Chinese authorities to request  a clarification of the calculat ion method ology used to determine  
these new duty rates, and had also raised the issue at the ITA  Committee earlier this year . To 
date, they had not received any clarification from China of the method ology adopted . 
Nevertheless, her delegation still looked forward to receivi ng such clarification and urged China to 
restore  a zero  tariff on all MCO  product lines that were covered by the ITA.  
93. The representative of  the Republic of Korea shared the views expressed by previous 
speakers  with regard to China's customs duties. Nevertheless, he was sure that China would fully 
respect  its obligation to implement the final result of the ITA , as had been agreed by the parties  to 
that Agreemen t. 
94. The representative of China  took note of the concerns raised by the United States, Japan, 
Singapore, Chinese Taipei, the European Union,  and Korea. She recalled  that, in accordance with  
the results of the ITA  Expansion negotiations, MCO  products covered  17 ex-out tariff lines in 
China's HS2007 tariff nomenclature. Those ex -out tariff lines had been reduced to five national 
tariff lines in the HS  2017 transposition , in accordance with the HS  Amendments of the World 
Customs Organization (WCO). As a result , certain specific parts of several subheading s had been 
regrouped under  new subheadings. Pursuant  to the "Procedure for the Introduction of Harmonized 
System 2012  Changes to Schedules of Concession s Using the Consolidated Tariff Schedules 
(CTS) Database ", document  G/MA/W/109 , and the "Procedure for the Introduction of Harmonized 
System 2017  Changes to Schedules of Concession s Using the Consolidated Tariff Schedules G/MA/M/66  
 
- 15 - 
 
  (CTS) Database ", document  WT/L/995, and given that it had proven impractical to establish 
reasonably accurate trade allocations, China had chosen to apply  the fourth method ology set out 
in these documents. This  method ology  consisted in applying the simple average of the previous 
rates of duty  and was fully consistent wi th WTO  rules on HS2017  transposition . Technically, it was 
unavoidable to increase the duty rate on some products when applying the simple average 
method ology,  while the duty rate on some other products was reduced. In the current case, 
although the duty ra tes for 10  MCO products were higher , relatively, compared to those in 
HS2012, the duty rates for 7  other MCO  products had been  reduced substantially. For example, 
before the transposition, the duty rate on tariff line 8450 .90.90 was 13.3%, and the duty rates on 
tariff lines 8415 .90.10 and 8415 .90.90 had both been 8.3%.  However, after transposi tion, the 
duty rate had been just 3.4% for all those tariff lines, making a reduction of 74% and 59% 
respectively. Since 1  July 2017, that duty  rate had been further reduced , to 2.7%. China had been 
undertaking  the reduction commitments as scheduled under the  ITA Expansion  in earnest . The 
linear reduction of the duties on MCO  products would be conduc ted over a five-year period.  
95. The Committee took note of the statements made.  
P. INDIA - CUSTOMS DUTIES ON TE LECOMMUNICATION AND OTHER PRODUCTS - 
STATEMENTS BY CANADA, THE EUROPEAN  UNION, JAPAN, CHINES E TAIPEI , AND THE 
UNITED STATES  
96. The Chairperson  recalled that this agenda item had been included at the request of Canada, 
the European Union, Japan, Chinese Taipei , and the United States.  
97. The representative of Canada  reiterated his delegation's concerns, which had been 
previously raised in this Commit tee, as well as the ITA  Committee and the Council for Trade in 
Goods , regarding India's tariff s on certain information and communication technology or 
ICT products. The application of tariffs above India's bound rates for tariff items under 
HS heading  85.17 remained inconsistent with India's bound commitments and ran contrary to the 
objectives of multilateral tariff liberalization. Canada continued to be concerned, for both systemic 
and commercial reasons, by India's decision to introduce tariffs on ICT  products in excess of its 
WTO bound commitments , as well as with India's unwillingness to respond meaningfully to 
Members' concerns in this area. India's customs notification No.  56/2017 , which had been issued 
on 30  June 2017, impose d a 10%  tariff rate on additional ICT  products under heading  85.17, for 
which India's tariff bindings had also been set at zero , which further amplifie d Canada's concern. 
Canada did  not accept India's justification for applying tariff s above the rate of  its bound 
commitments and  called upon India to rescind  its tariff increases an d to refrain from pursuing any 
further tariff increases above its WTO  bound commitments.  
98. The representative of the European Union  recalled that  this issue had been raised several 
times in this Committee,  the ITA Committee , and the Council for Trade in Goods, as well in 
bilateral meetings with the Indian authorities. The E uropean Union disagreed with India's position 
that these ICT products were "new" products that were therefore not covered  by the ITA. Her 
delegation was of the view that this reasoning did not hold in light of past WTO  case-law, and in 
particular the case EC-IT products , and  in light of the fact that the ITA covered all products 
classified in the WTO  model list of items in document  JOB(07)/96. These products had been  
identified through their HS  classifications , which were regularly updated to take account of 
different HS  revisions. They all fell within the scope of the agreement , regardless of their 
description. Moreover, the  0% duty rate had also been bound in India's GATT  commitments. As 
mentioned by Canada, since 1 July 2017, the Indian Go vernment had re -introduced a 
10% customs duty on imported base stations, mob ile phones , and certain printers. As indicated in 
its notification of 11  July 2017, India had also applied duties on static converters for cellular mobile 
phones. The E uropean Union was concerned by these measures, which in their  view amount ed to 
violations of India's commitments for most, if not all, of the se products under the GATT and ITA -1. 
It was unfortunate to have to regularly return to this issue despite several att empts to solve it 
bilaterally and in different C ommittees. Given the importance of such products in international 
trade, the European Unio n strongly requested India to reconsider all these measures and to abide 
by its international commitments.  
99. The representative of Japan  joined previous delegations  in expressing its concern over 
India's customs d uties on ICT  products, which had been under d iscussion now for some  time. 
Japan ha d repeatedly raised questions on this matter at previo us meetings of the Committee on G/MA/M/66  
 
- 16 - 
 
  Market Access  and the Council for Trade in Goods. However, Japan had  still not received  any 
convincing explanation from India as to its rationale . Specifically, Japanese companies had 
express ed serious concern over an increase in costs resulting from  a 10%  increase in customs 
duties on ICT products , which had been  enforced as of 1 July 2017. ICT products were covered by 
the ITA and were indicated as duty-free in India's  WTO tariff schedule. Therefore, the measure of 
1 July 2017 was in violation of its ITA commitments.  Japan request ed India to amend the 
measure, not least because the measure would also have a negative impact on India itself  in terms 
of India's investment promotion and attempts to improve its  business environment.  
100.  The representative of the United States  recalled  that, since the last meeting of this 
Committee , and the ITA  Committee meeting of June 2017, India had i mposed new customs duties 
on imports of several essential information technology products , including smart phones, base 
stations, and printer ink cartridges , through Customs Notification  No. 56/2017. These products 
were products for which India had underta ken a WTO  binding commitment to provide duty -free 
access. She drew attention to India' s WTO  tariff schedule, and specifically to tariff line  8517.12.00, 
which covered "telephones for cellular networks or for other wireless networks ", for which  India' s 
binding tariff commitment was clearly zero. The United States failed to see how this recent action 
was consistent with India' s WTO  binding commitments , and it further highlighted a worrying trend 
in India's trade policy in support of the  "Make in India"  campaign. The recent tariff increases had 
come on top of seriou s concerns that had previously been raised in Geneva and bilaterally  
regarding customs duties imposed on other telecommunications equipment pursuant t o Customs 
Notification  No. 11/2014, that i s, on product categories where India ha d also undertaken a 
WTO obligation to provide duty -free treatment. As had previously been stated , the issue was about 
India' s ‎binding tariff commitments  at the WTO and there were obvious discrepancies between 
those  commitments to provide duty -free access to certain products, and the non -zero import 
duties that India was charging at the border.  In addition to the adverse impact of these measures 
on US exports, India's actions lack ed transparency and create d uncertainty  for US and global 
companies. Given that the ICT sector was  a key enabling sector for other industries, the United 
States underscore d that the lack of certainty and transparency  in this sector had a negative impact 
not only on US businesses look ing to export to India, but also on sectors of the Indian economy , 
as well as negatively affecting India' s position in the global supply chain. The United States was  
not asking India to take on new commitments or binding tariff obligations. Rather, the Uni ted 
States l ooked to India simply to honour  its existing commitments by reinstating duty-free access 
where India had committed in its WTO  schedule to provide such duty-free access. The United 
States also requested India to refrain from any future tariff in creases on products where it had 
undertaken a WTO  commitment to provide duty -free access. The United States urged India 
immediately to revoke Customs Notification  Nos. 11/2014 and 56/2017.  
101.  The representative of Singapore  reiterated her delegation's interes t in this issue. Singapore 
was concerned that this issue had been on the agenda of this Committee, the ITA Committee , and 
that of the Council for Trade in Goods , for some time. Singapore would continue to closely monitor 
any future developments.  
102.  The representative of Chinese Taipei  thanked the co -sponsors of this agenda item and 
reiterated her delegation's concerns regarding India' s Customs Notification No.  11/2014 and 
No. 56/2017. She was concerned that the imposition of customs duties on the goo ds in question 
was inconsistent with Article  II of the GATT. Chinese Taipei had also noted that India,  in its replies, 
consider ed the goods at issue to be "new technologies " or "new products, " and goods not covered , 
therefore, by its ITA   or tariff binding  commitments. However, a significant amount  of 
telecommunication equipment , including the four  types of product identified in India' s Cust oms 
Notification No.  11/2014 , came under  tariff heading  HS 85.17, and were therefore  covered by  
India's ITA-1 commitments.  Furthermore, according to the Secretariat's Note on 
"HS2007  Amendments i n Relation to ITA  Products and a  Model List in HS2007 ", the goods in 
question were covered by the ITA and ha d already been incorporated as such by India in its 
1996 Schedu le of Concession (WT/Let/181), as well as in its current Schedul e of Concessions 
(WT/Let/1072). Therefore , Chinese Taipei  request ed that India eliminate  the tariffs at issue.  
103.  The representative of Switzerland  reiterated his delegation's concerns regarding India's 
customs duties on ICT  products , which were covered by the ITA  Agreement and should therefore 
be bound at zero. Switzerland failed to see a case for India's interpretation of the coverage of the 
Agreement regarding new products and  asked India to ab ide to its WTO commitments.  G/MA/M/66  
 
- 17 - 
 
  104.  The representative of  the Republic of Korea  echoed the concern s that had been raised by 
other M embers , and reiterated  that any measure that undermine d the basic principle s of the 
WTO Agreements should be discouraged.  
105.  The representative of Thailand  shared the concerns of previous speakers regarding India's 
increase in customs duties o n ITA  products through Customs N otification No.  11/2014 and 
No. 56/2017. Thailand requested India to clarify the  products ' classification and to justify its 
introduction of these  customs duties in light of India's commitment pursuant to the ITA , and 
India's  WTO schedule. Thailand would follow this issue closely.  
106.  The representative of Australia  noted that his delegation also shared Members' c oncerns 
regarding India's compliance with its WTO  commitments.  
107.  The representative of Norway  noted that his de legation held a systemic interest i n this 
matter and wished to echo other Members' concern s on the measure s introduced by India.  
108.  The representative of India thanked the delegations of Japan, Canada, the European Union, 
Singapore, the United States, Chinese Taipei, Switzerland, Korea, Thailand, Australia,  and Norway 
for their continued interest in India' s customs duty regime on certa in ICT  products.  He noted that 
Members that had intervened under this agenda item had  raised mainly two  concerns. First, the 
imposition of cus toms duties on certain IT and telecom items through Custom s Notification  
No. 11/2014 ; and s econd, the imposition o f customs duties on certain ICT products in 2017 . In 
respect of the concern over the 2014 notification on ICT  products, India recall ed the written 
responses that had been circulated  in document  G/IT/W/45 to the questions posed by certain 
Members in documen t G/IT/W/42. In addition, India refer red to its replies made in meetings of the 
Committee on Market Access , on 2 May 2017, as well as  the Council for Trade in Goods, on 
30 June 2017, 6  April 2017, and 17  November  2016. There had been no subsequent change in 
India' s position and understanding of the matter . Therefore, concerned Members should refer to 
India's written replies and  oral statements in the  context of the  aforementioned meetings. While 
noting that it was  important not to lose sight of  the technological progressio n of telecom and 
IT products, India  would be happy to look at any specific views that delegations may have on the 
technical aspects of any of the products  affected , as well as their classification. India request ed 
Members' understan ding in this matter. On the issue of the duty imposed on other ICT  products , 
notified in  2017, India  acknowledge d the concerns raised by Members in this meeting  and at  
previous meetings of the Council for Trade in Goods, the Market Access Commit tee, and the 
ITA Committee. India had imposed customs dut ies on certain products through Customs 
Notification Nos. 56, 57, and 58,  dated 30 June 2017, and which had become  effective on 
1 July 2017. As a preliminary response, he stated that India remained fully aware of its obligations 
and com mitments under the ITA -1, and that it had been abiding by those commitments . There ha d 
been e xtensive discussion among India's relevant agencies on the co verage of these products in 
relation to India's  ITA commitments. In their  view, these  products had  not been part of the ITA-1 
signed by India. Therefore, India sought inputs from delegations regarding their perception of the 
coverage of these products under  the ITA-1. As a number of issues had been raised, his delegation  
requested M embers to send their statements to India in writing so that these could be forw arded 
to the authorities in Capital for their consideration and further response.  
109.  The representative of the United States  noted that, when looking at any Member's 
WTO binding commitments, any product classified within the scope of a tariff category would be 
subject to the duty applicable to that category. She requested  India to provide an explanation as 
to why a product classified in a tariff sub -heading that had a du ty-free treatment in its 
WTO Schedule  could have a 10%  duty in its applied schedule under the  same tariff subheading. 
She then asked h ow India could argue that it was within its obligations when it charge d an applied 
duty of 10% on a product that was set a t a zero-duty rate in its bound schedule ? Setting aside the 
question of ITA product coverage , and looking only at India's WTO  bound schedule , she asked how  
India could justify a 10%  duty, for example on tariff line  8517.12.00, if the schedule showed a 
bound duty rate of 0% for the same tariff line , without any exception or ex -out. 
110.  The representative of India thanked the United States for its question and reiterated that 
India stood ready to clarify  these issues with those Member s that had expressed their concern s 
with regard to the issue of product coverage. India repeated that the goods in question were not 
covered under its ITA -1 commitments. India had signed the ITA -1 in the year 1997 and had then 
presented its schedule of commitments , which had subsequently been certified in G/MA/M/66  
 
- 18 - 
 
  document  WT/Let/181. India did not  have the intention to make any additional commitment 
beyond the scope of its  commitments undertaken under ITA-1, which were detailed in 
document  WT/Let/181.  His delegation looked forward to receiving specific comments and technical 
clarifications from the Members concerned.  
111.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
Q. KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARA BIA – EXCISE TAX ON ENERGY  DRINKS AND CARBONATE D 
SOFT DRINK PRODUCTS – STATEMENT BY SWITZER LAND (G/MA/W/132)  
112.  The Chairperson  recalled that this agenda item had been included at the request of 
Switzerland.  
113.  The representative of Switzerland  noted that , on 11 June 2017, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 
had implemented a selective tax on energy drinks and carbonated soft drinks , or soda , of 100% 
and 50%  respectively. In light of its  significant commercial interest  in this issue , Switzerland had 
already been in contact with Saudi Arabia before the implementation of the selective tax in order 
to seek a more detailed explanation of certain  of its elements. However, some questions had 
remained unanswered and these were then  circulated to Members in document  G/MA/W/132 , 
dated 12 September  2017. Switzerland wished specifically to know: (a) the rational e for taxing 
energy drinks at a rate that was twice as high as the tax applied to carbonated soft drinks when 
the sugar content in the two categories of products was similar ; and (b) the reasons for choosing 
an ad valorem  excise tax instead of  a specific tax , based on the volume or quantity of the relevant 
ingredients , as had been recommended by the World Health Organization. His delegation  looked 
forward to receiving  Saudi Arabia's  responses with a view to clarifying the matter , while 
recognizing  that the questions themselves had only been circulated to Members shortly  before that 
day's meeting . 
114.  The representative of the European Union  echoed Switzerland' s intervention and its 
questions addressed  to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Switzerl and's questions were in line with 
those that the European Union had also raised bilaterally in the past with the Gulf Cooperation 
Council (GCC) and with Saudi Arabia – both orally and in writing. The European Union requested 
full transparency and detailed information -sharing with regard to Saudi Arabia's 2017 legislation 
on excise tax. It  was fundamental that key WTO rules were respected  and, in particular , the 
principle of non -discrimination under Art icle III:2 of the GATT.  
115.  The representative of the United  States  noted that her delegation was also following this 
issue closely and wished to ask three  additional questions to Saudi Arabia. First, could  Saudi 
Arabia explain why the measure targeted only carbonated soft drinks, with and without sugar, as 
well as  energy drinks . Second, the United States wished  to know how Saudi Arabia intended to 
treat the large number of domestically available products on the Saudi market that contain ed 
similar amounts of suga r and other targeted substances. Finally, her delegati on asked  whether 
Saudi Arabia had undertaken any scientific analysis that might justify the proposed changes in 
fiscal policy . She requested  the delegation of Saudi Arabia to  provide answers to these questions  in 
writing , accompanied by a copy of the  relevant legislation  and any evidence that had been  used in 
support of this new policy.  
116.  The representative of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia  thanked Switzerland for its written 
question s, circulated  in document  G/MA/W/132, which had been transmitted to the authori ties in 
Capital for consideration  and review . He also thanked the European Union and the United States 
for their intervention s and additional questions. He requested the United States to send the ir 
questions in written form so that they too could be  transmitted  to his authorities in Capital . 
117.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
R. ELECTION OF THE VICE -CHAIRPERSON  
118.  The Committee elected  Mr Michael Cannon (Canada) as Vice -Chair of this Committee.  G/MA/M/66  
 
- 19 - 
 
  S. OTHER BUSINESS  
- RUSSIAN  FEDERATION  – TAXATI ON ON WINE  
119.  The Chairperson  recalled that the issue had been included at the re quest of the 
European  Union . 
120.  The representative of  the European Union  expressed her delegation's concern regarding 
Law 254 FZ, which had been adopted on 29  July 2017 by the Russian authorities and that had 
come i nto force the following day, on 30  July 2017. The European Union was of the view that  this 
legislation resulted in  tax discrimination against imported wines.  According to the E uropean 
Union's understanding , wines benefitting from a geographical indication (GI) were submitted to a 
lower taxation rate than non -GI-protected wines. However , the newly adopted law provide d that 
GI protection applied  only to domestic wines. As a co nsequence, imported wines could no longer 
qualify to benefit from a lower taxation rate.  The European Union request ed the Russian 
Federation to confirm that its  understanding was correct. If such were the case, the 
European  Union requested that the Russian Federation then demonstrate the compatibility of its 
legislation with WTO  rules. At the same time, the European Union would welcome clarification of 
the aim of the measure and, in particular, why it had been implemented  so rapidly.  
121.  The representative of  the Russian Federa tion thanked the European Union for informing  
them one  week before the Committee meeting of their intention to raise this issue. However, his 
delegation had not finalized its consideration of the topic and requested the E uropean Union to 
submit  its questio ns in written form.  
122.  The Committee took note  of the statement s made . 
- ARGENTINA  – LAW  ON THE AUTO  PART  SECTOR  
123.  The Chairperson  recalled that this issue had been included on the agenda at the request of 
Mexico.  
124.  The representative of Mexico  expressed her delegation's concerns over Argentina's  
Law 27263 on the Regime for Development and Strengthening of the Argentinean Auto-Parts 
Sector , which created a regime that granted fiscal support to certain pro ducers of auto parts when 
they complied  with certain minimal local content requirements. As had been expressed in the 
previous meeting of this Committee, this law foresaw the provision of an electronic tax credit 
bonus that could be transferred to third  parties for the payment of national taxes , for an amount 
equivalent to a percentage of the ex -factory value of the domestic auto parts.  In other words, for 
Argentinian companies to have the right to receive these tax credit bonuses they had to buy 
national inputs and/or Argentinean raw materials i n order to increase the national content level of 
the final product. For example, automobiles and auto parts.  Mexico reiterated that such measures 
depreciated prices and limited export opportunities not only to the Argentinean market but also to 
other mark ets that had bought  products that had benefited  from artificially low prices . On 
12 December  2016, Resolution  599-E/2016 of the Ministry of Production had been published in the 
Official Gazette , which contain ed provisions for the application of the law , and had entered into 
force that same day. There also existed a website that indicated that the proce dures  to obtain the 
benefit could already be initiated. All these elements demonstrated that the regime was already 
operational. Despite the questions raised by Mexico and other Members, the Argentinean measure 
had not only remained  in force but had also been applied. For the above -mentioned reasons, and 
in order to seek further information on this regime, Mexico had addressed question s to Argentina 
in this Committee and the Council for TRIPS . She reit erated her delegation's concern  over the 
issue and requested the delegation of Argentina to provide an update . She also requested 
Argentina to confirm whether or not the law in question and its imp lementing regulation s had 
effectively entered into force and was being applied. They also wished to know  if tax support had 
already been granted pursuant to  this law and , if so,  the manner in which it had been granted. 
Mexico wished to receive  further info rmation on the matter and requested the delegation of 
Argentina to transmit Mexico's concerns and questions  to its Capital . 
125.  The representative of Argentina  thanked Mexico for its questions, which would be 
transmitted to Capital for consideration.  G/MA/M/66  
 
- 20 - 
 
  126.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
- DATE OF THE NEXT  MEEETING  
127.  The Committee took note  that its next formal meeting had been provisionally scheduled for  
Thursday , 22 March  2018, although  this date was subject to adjustment so as to ensure  that the 
next formal meeting could be held  back-to-back with the proposed Workshop on QRs.  
128.  The meeting was adjourned . 
__________