RESTRICTED  
  
G/IT/M/67  
 
1 May 2018 
(18-2713) Page: 1/14 
Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in 
Information Technology Products    
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETI NG OF  6 NOVEMBER  2017  
CHAIRPERSON: MS ZSÓF IA TVARUSKÓ (HUNGARY ) 
INTRODUCTION  
The Committee adopted the proposed agenda for the meeting circulated in 
document  WTO/AIR/IT/ 6, dated 27 October  2017. An annotated agenda for the meeting was 
circula ted in document  JOB/IT/20 , also dated 27 October  2017. The Chairperson stated that she 
would take up the issue of the date of the next meeting under "Other Business".  
 
INTRODUCTION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  1 
1   REVIEW OF THE STATUS  OF IMPLEMENTATION OF  THE MINISTERIAL 
DECLARATION ON TRADE  IN INFORMATION TECHN OLOGY PRODUCTS  ............................  1 
1.1   Request by Canada, the European Union, Japan, Korea, Norway, Chinese Taipei, 
and the United States Regarding an Implementation Issue  Concerning India  ..............................  2 
1.2   Requests by the European Union, Japan, Chinese Taipei, and the United States 
Regarding an Implementation  Issue Concerning China  ................................ .............................  6 
2   REVIEW OF PRODUCT CO VERAGE  ................................ ................................ ................  9 
3   NON-TARIFF MEASURES WORK  PROGRAMME  ................................ ............................  10 
4   EMC/EMI PILOT PROJEC T – DRAFT LIST OF TYPES OF CONFORMITY 
ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE S FOR EMC/EMI USED B Y ITA  PARTICIPANTS 
(G/IT/W/17/REV.19)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 11 
5   DIVERGENCE S IN CLASSIFYING INF ORMATION TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS 
(G/IT/14/REV.1/ADD.1 ; G/IT/W/6/REV.3; G/ IT/W/33; G/IT/W/34; G/IT/27; 
JOB/IT/12; G/IT/29, AND G/IT/W/40/ADD.1 -15, AND G/IT/W/40/SU PPL.2)  ............  12 
5.1   Implementation of the Decision for the Classification of 18  Attachment  B products 
(G/IT/27)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 12 
5.2   Note by the Secretariat (G/IT/W/40 and its supplements and addenda)  ............................ 12 
6   DRAFT ANNUAL REPORT (2017) OF THE COMMIT TEE TO THE COUNCIL F OR 
TRADE IN GOODS (G/IT /W/46)  ................................ ................................ ....................  14 
7   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 14 
 
1  REVIEW OF THE STATUS  OF IMPLEMENTATION OF  THE MINISTERIAL DECL ARATION 
ON TRADE IN INFORMATI ON TECHNOLOGY PRODUC TS 
1.1.  The Chairperson  informed Participants that an overview of the st atus of implementation  of 
the Ministerial Declaration on Trade in Information Technology Prod ucts could be found in 
document  G/IT/ 1/Rev.56 , which had remained un changed since the last meeting.  
1.2.  She indicated that, under this agenda item, and in addition to the overview of the status of 
implementation, two sub-agenda items had been added.  The first  sub-agenda item had been 
added at the request of Cana da, the European Union, Japan, Korea, Norway, Chinese Taipei, and G/IT/M/67  
 
- 2 - 
 
  the United States,  regarding an implementation issue concerning India.  The second  sub-agenda 
item had been added  at the request of the European Union, Japan, Chinese Taipei, and the United 
States,  regarding an implementation issue concerning China.  
1.3.  She recalled that , with regard to review of the status of implementation, the fo llowing 
two issues  were still pending : (1)  the completion of El Salvador's domestic legal procedural 
requirements; an d (2) the submission of Morocco's final ITA  Schedule of Concessions.  
1.4.  The representative of El Salvador  inform ed Participants that El Salvador had concluded the 
ratification process for this Agreement in its legislature  during the course of  the previous year . 
Nonetheless, there had occurred a technical error in the ratification process that El Salvador had 
still to amend . She stated that El Salvador was committed to implement  the ITA  and would keep 
the Commit tee informed with regard to its implementation process.  
1.5.  For Morocco, the Chairperson  stated that, as mentioned at previous meetings , Morocco had 
become a participant to the ITA on 14  November  2003. However, Morocco had not yet submitted 
its final ITA  Schedule of Commitments. Despite the o utreach efforts made by current and  previous 
ITA Chairs , including a recent letter sent to the Minister of Economy and Finance, there had still 
been no formal response from Morocco . As the delegation of Morocco was not present at the 
meeting, the Chairperson suggest ed that the matter be taken up again at the next meeting.  
1.6.  The representative of  the United States  thank ed the Chai rperson for her efforts in reaching 
out to those delegations that had not yet completed  the 1980  Procedures . She also thank ed the 
delegate of El Salvador  and urged both El Salvador and Morocco to move as quickly as possible to 
complete the 1980  Procedures for their ITA  commitments.  
1.7.  The representative of the European Union  thanked the Chairperson for her update and 
encourage d Morocco and El Salvador to take the necessary steps to advance and complete their 
respective procedures . She appreciated El Salvador's commitment to implement ing the agreement.  
1.8.  The representative of Canada  also encourage d Participants to the Ministerial Declaration that 
had not yet completed their domestic implementation procedures to do so as soon as possible.  He 
recalled the r ecent evidence of the benefits of the ITA, such as  that cited  at the 20th Anniversary 
Symposium held in June  2017 and, more recently, at the 2017 WTO Public Forum. He encourage d 
delegations to take advantage of the ITA's benefits by implementing the agreement as soon as 
possible. He also emphasized the importance of implementation in terms of the growing 
geographical coverage of this initiative, in which all Participants shared an interest.  
1.9.  The Chairperson  thanked the delegation of El Salvador for its update . She once more urged El 
Salvador to complete its domestic legal procedures , and urged Morocco, even in their absence, to 
submit as soon as possible their ITA  Schedule of Commitments for formal rectification and 
modification , as required by the 1980  Decision . She suggest ed that the Committee take note of 
the statements made.  
1.10.   It was so agreed . 
1.1  Request by Canada, the European Union, Japan, Korea, Norway, Chinese Taipei , and 
the United States Regarding an Implementation Issue Concerning India  
1.11.   The Chairperson  turned to the first sub-agenda item, which had been request ed by Canada, 
the European Un ion, Japan, Korea, Norway, Chinese Taipei, and the Unites States , regarding an 
implementation issue concerning India. She referred to document  G/IT/W/42 , dated 4 April 2016, 
which had been  circulated at the request of the delegations of the European Union, Japan, and the 
United States. She also referred to document  G/IT/W/45, circulated at the requ est of the 
delegation of India.  
1.12.   The representative of Japan  express ed concern over the issue of  India's increase d customs 
duties on ICT  products.  He noted that his delegation had already raised this issue at  several 
previous meetings of the ITA  Committee, the Market Access Committee, and the Council for Trade 
in Goods.  However, India ha d still not given Members a convincing explanation  of its increased 
customs duties on ICT  products . G/IT/M/67  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.13.   He said that Japanese companies were expressing serious concern  over India's measures , 
and especially about an increase in costs due to a 10%  rise in customs duties on ICT products that 
had entered  into force on 1 July 2017. India had zero  tariff binding s on these items . They 
underst ood that India's action was inconsistent with its WTO binding commitments.  They also 
believe d that India's measure to raise customs duties on these products would have an adverse 
effect on India in terms of investment promotion and improvement of its business environment.  
Japan request ed that India immediately reinstate zero  duties on the ICT products  in question . 
1.14.   The representative of the United States  regret ted to have to raise this issue once again . She 
noted that India ha d continued to increase duties on telecommunication s and other ICT  products  
and that such actions appear ed to be in breach of India's WTO binding commitments.  The new 
customs duties imposed  by India as of 1 July 2017 on imports of several essential information 
technology products , including smart phones, base stations, and printer ink cartridges , pursuant to 
its Customs Notification  No. 56/2017 , as well as those im posed on other telecommunications 
equipment pursuant t o its Customs Notification  No. 11/2014 , were of particular concern . She 
reiterated that these were product categories for which India ha d undertaken a WTO  binding 
obligation to provide duty -free treatme nt. She also drew Participants'  attention to a room 
document ( document  RD/IT/26) that had been circulated by  the Secretariat  at her delegation 's 
request . She referred in particular to page 1 of that document , which highlighted a snapshot of 
India' s certified WTO  bound schedule in HS  2007 nomenclature , as reflected  in 
document  WT/Let/1072. On the opposite side of the page was a snapshot of India's  MFN tariff 
schedule posted on the website of India's Ministry of Finance.  She also direct ed Participants'  
attention to HS  subheading  8517.62 , on page  1, where  one saw that India' s binding commitment 
for this HS  subheading was zero , and that  India' s binding commitment was at the HS  subheading 
level – meaning that any national tariff line falling under that spe cific subheading ha d also to be 
bound at zero. 
1.15.   She pointed out that , on page 2, India' s MFN  applied rate for that same subheading, 
8517.62 , was inconsisten t. In India' s applied schedule , the tariff level for national tariff  
line 8517.62.90 was 10%, which was clearly inconsistent with its bound rate of zero . This was just 
one example of the inconsistencies that the US had found between India' s applied rates and its 
WTO tariff commitments, which led to a further concern for  her delegation , namely that India's 
actions lack ed transparency and create d uncertainty  for US  and global companies.  
1.16.   She said that it  was nearly impossible for traders to verify India' s recent tariff increases , 
imposed on 1 July 2017, because its official tariff schedule published on the website of India' s 
Central Board of Excise and Customs ha d not been updated since 30 June 2016. Any 
business person  looking for information on India' s tariff on mobile phones ( under  8517.12) or base 
stations ( under  8517.61), for example, would assume that India' s tariff on these products was 
zero, and would have no way of knowing that India had in fact raised the duty on these products 
to 10% pursuant to  its recent Customs Notification.  
1.17.   She stated that t he resulting effect of this lack of transparency ha d been described to her 
government by several U S companies that had indicated that , for certain products , they were 
required to refer to multiple customs notifications , issued over a decade earlier, to dete rmine the 
effective tariff rate  on their product . Large multinational companies ha d been struggling to obtain 
this information ; one could imagine how much more difficult it would be for a micro, s mall, or 
medium -sized business.  
1.18.   She underscore d that the lack of certainty and transparency in India' s actions in this sector 
not only had a negative impact  on businesse s looking to export to India, but could also negatively 
affect other sectors of the Indian economy , as well as India' s posit ion in the  global supply chain.  
1.19.   She again urge d India to revoke its Customs Notification  No. 11/2014 and Notification  
No. 56/2017, and thereby to reinstate duty -free access where India had committed in its 
WTO schedule to provide it. She also call ed upon India to up date its official tariff schedule on its 
Customs website and to notify its current MFN  applied sche dule to the WTO without delay.  
1.20.   The representative of the European Union  thank ed the United States for the circulation of  
the room document  that, using practical evidence,  illustrated the European Union 's concerns . She 
stated that her delegation  had not been convinced by the explanations that India had so far G/IT/M/67  
 
- 4 - 
 
  provided . She did not accept  the view that the products at issue were "new". She reiterate d that 
the ITA  cover ed all products that were classified in the Model List set out in document  JOB(07)/96. 
The HS  codes that define d the products covered by the agreement were fully specific at HS  6-digit 
level, or as ex -outs. When products were fully specified at HS  6-digit level, they all f ell under the 
scope of the Agreement,  whatever their description.  In addition, the latest tariffs imposed on 
products such as mobile phones affect ed the core products covered by the ITA.  To her  knowledge , 
India was the only I TA Participant that had levied duties on these products.  Significant concerns 
had been raised with regard to the systemic impact of the steps taken by India  and these concerns  
could not be simply disregarded, especially as they had been voiced by a large p art of the 
Membership, and at meetings  of various committees . 
1.21.   She therefore ask ed: (1) what consideration ha d India given to the concerns so far 
expressed, which were recently reiterated at the Committee on Market Access;  and (2) what steps 
India intend ed to take in order to remedy the situation.  
1.22.   She stated that the European Union had been disappointed by India's stance  on this issue  
and called upon India to commit itself fully  to address ing an  issue of such systemic importance to 
the ITA. 
1.23.   The representative of Norway  echoed the concerns expressed by other delegations. He said 
that, in Norway's view, this was a WTO  trade concern at the most basic level  – a Member's applied 
tariffs c ould not exceed those listed in their schedules. Technological  advancement within a 
product segment clearly d id not change that simple fact. This was a basic and self -evident starting 
point when reading  the WTO  Agreements and interpreting how Members' obligations were to be 
understood. By contrast, an interpretation that implied that a product segment could automatically 
be released from binding commitments upon technological advancement would seriously 
undermine the system.  He said that , as had already been stated in several fora, Norway held both 
an economic and a systemic interest in this issue , and it  was fundamental that all  Members abide 
by their WTO obligations.  He was looking forward to receiving further clarification from India with 
regard to this issue.  
1.24.   The representative of Canada  shared the concerns expressed by other Members over the 
implications of India's Customs Notification s No. 11/2014 and No. 56/2017.  In his view, to impose 
an increase in the applied tariff rates on tariff items under Heading  8517, as well as other items, 
was inconsistent with India's bound tariff commitments and ran contrary to the objectives of 
multilateral tariff liberalization. The increase in India's applied rates on the items at issue could 
have a negative impact upon and also hinder Canada's exports to India, particularly  for those 
products under Heading  8517.  He encourage d India to honour the commitments undertaken in its 
Schedule of Concessions and expressed particular interest in hearing India's response to the room 
document circulated by the United States.  
1.25.   The represen tative of  the Republic of Korea  also expressed his concern over India's 
non-implementation of the ITA , as already discussed at many previous meetings.  In addition, he 
understood from a consultation paper recently released by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of 
India that India was reviewing additional protectionist measures.  He hoped that any future policy  
by India , if based on that consultation paper, would  not be drafted and implemente d in such a way 
as to undermine the WTO  spirit of free trade.  
1.26.   The representative of Singapore  requested the Secretariat to place on record Singapore's 
continued interest in this issue , which had been included on the agendas of this Committee, the 
Market Ac cess Committee , and the Council for Trade in Goods , for quite some time already . She 
noted that her country had met bilaterally with officials in New Delhi and that Singapore would 
continue to closely monitor any future developments.  
1.27.   The representative of Thailand  echoed the concerns expressed by other delegations with 
regard to India's increase in duties on certain ICT  products through Customs Notifications 
No. 11/2014 and No.  56/2017.  She stated that t he increase of duties on ICT  products above bound 
levels was inconsistent with India's WTO  binding commitments.  She r equest ed India to provide a 
justification of the import duties on the products at issue in light of India's commitment s pursuant 
to the ITA and its WTO Schedule  of Concessions.  Thailand w ould continue to monitor the issue 
closely.  G/IT/M/67  
 
- 5 - 
 
  1.28.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  share d the concerns expressed by other Members 
regarding India's Customs Notification s No. 11/2014 and No.  56/2017.  She observed that t he 
imposition of customs duties on the goods i n question was inconsistent with Article  II of the GATT.  
She also noted that, in its re sponse, India had indicated that it consider ed the goods at issue to be 
new technolog y products  that therefore were not covered  either by the ITA or by India's 
WTO bound tariff commitments. In her view, the goods in question were covered under India's  
ITA commitments and ha d already been incorporated by India in both its 1996  Schedule of 
Concessions and in its current schedule of concessions.  She request ed that India eliminate the 
tariffs at issue.  
1.29.   The representative of Switzerland  expressed his delegation's concerns regarding India's 
duty treatment of certain telecommunications equipment.  He agree d with other speakers that the 
issue was directly linked to India' s bind ing commitments. For example, i n India' s latest certified 
schedule, in effect since 12 August  2015, HS  8517.62  was bound at zero. However, in India's most 
recently published MFN  tariff, the duty levied by India at the border for the same HS code was 
10%. He considered that India's recently published MFN tariff was inconsistent with India' s 
commitment s undertaken in its 2015  certified schedule s. He noted that t here were also other 
IT products for which the same situation prevail ed, such as  HS 8517.12 (mobil e phones ), for which 
India had undertaken a commitment to grant duty -free treatment under its certified schedule of 
August  2015. Therefore, to impose import dut ies on such products was inconsistent with India's 
bound commitment s. 
1.30.   The representative of Australia  share d the concerns expressed by others delegations 
regarding India's imposition of duties on certain IT  products.  
1.31.   The representative of Viet Nam  also s hared the concern s voiced by other Member s with 
regard to India's recent tariff increases on c ertain ICT  products and hoped that India would respect 
its WTO  commitments in this regard . 
1.32.   The representative of India thanked delegations  for their interventions and for their 
continued interest in India's customs duty regime on certain telecommunication s and other 
products.  He summarized that two main concerns  had been raised: first, the imposition of customs 
duties on certain IT and telecom items , by Customs Notification  No. 11/2014 ; and  second, the 
imposition of customs duties on certain telecom s products, including mobile phones, effective as of 
1 July 2017. A further issue was raised  by the United States with regard to  transparency in the 
operation of India's tariff schedule.  
1.33.   In respect of the concern on the 20 14 notification of ICT  products, India wished  to recall its 
written responses in document  G/IT/W/45 to the questions addressed to it by certain Members in 
document  G/IT/W/42.  In addition, India wished also to refer to its replies to questions addressed 
to it at the Committee on Market Acces s meetings , held in May  2017 and September  2017; and at 
the Council for Trade Goods meetings of 17 November  2016, 6 April 2017, and 30  June 2017. 
1.34.   He had understood that concerned Members wished to see India's w ritten replies as well as  
its oral statements made in the aforesaid meetings and for them to provide their additional 
comments where  they still held concerns pursuant to India's written submissions.  While noting 
that it was important to keep the technological progression of telecom munications  and IT  products  
in perspective , India would be happy to examine any specific view that delegations may have with 
regard to the technical aspects of these products , as well as their classifications.  He request ed 
other participant s' understanding in this ma tter. 
1.35.   On the issue of duties imposed on certain telecom munication products by Customs 
Notification No.  36, dated 30  June 2017 and effective from 1  July 2017, he acknowledge d the 
concerns raised by Members at this and  previous meetings of the ITA  Committee,  and also in other 
WTO committees.  
1.36.   He stated that India was fully aware of its obligations and commitments under the ITA and 
had so far been abiding by those commitments . He also indicated that extensive discussions had 
taken place among relevant Indian agencies  on the coverage of these products and India's 
ITA commitments . His authorities were of the view that these products did not form part of the ITA 
that India had signed in 1997.  Therefore, India sought inputs from delegations regarding their G/IT/M/67  
 
- 6 - 
 
  percept ions of the coverage of these products under the ITA. He added that India had signed the 
ITA in 1997 and had presented its Schedule of Commitment s, which was subsequently certified  in 
document  WT/Let/181.  India did not intend to make any commit ment beyond  the scope of its 
ITA commitment s inscribed in document  WT/Let/181.  
1.37.   On the issue of transparency of MFN  duty on certain products, he inform ed Members that 
whenever a customs duty was imposed it was immediately made available, in the public domain , 
at http://www. cbec.gov.in in terms of the customs notification itself and, simultaneously , in the 
customs section of the website , using the duty calculator , which would give an updated calculation 
of the relevant duties.  He had also noted the specific US  concern on India's notification of its 
current MFN  applied schedule to the WTO . He stated that his authorities would look into it . 
1.38.   He referred also to India's Department of Telecom 's consultation paper , as mentioned by 
Korea. He said that he would look into the matter further . However, in any case, a consultation 
paper was only useful for discussion purposes . It did not mean that any policy proposals  would be 
made effective. Actual decisions came subsequently and always took  into account India's 
international  obligations . 
1.39.   In light of the  issues raised, India request ed the Members concerned to provide their 
statements in writing  so that these could be forwarded to the authorities in Capital for their 
consideration and response.  
1.40.   The representative of the United States  thank ed India for its intervention.  However, she still 
wondered if the delegat ion of India wished to comment on the contents of the room document that 
had been circulated at the beginning of the meeting, and that clearly showed the difference 
betwee n the  higher duty rate for 8517.62.90, of 10%, versus the bound rate of zero. She 
wonder ed if India wished to comment directly on this inconsistency , which in the room document 
could clearly  be seen. 
1.41.   The representative of India thanked the delegation of the United States for having circulated 
the room document in question (document  RD/IT/26). He observed that the issue was being 
discussed in Capital by the relevant technical experts and that his delegation would , at a later 
date, perhaps revert back to the Committee with India's comments . 
1.42.   The Chairperson  thanked all those delegations that had intervened on this matter and 
suggest ed that the Committee take note of the statements made.  
1.43.   It was so agreed . 
1.2  Requests  by the European Union, Japan, Chinese Taipei , and the United States 
Regarding an Implementation Issue Concerning China  
1.44.   The Chairperson  moved to the second sub -agenda item, which was the request by the 
European Union, Japan, Chinese Taipei, and the Unites States regarding an impleme ntation issue 
concerning China.  
1.45.   The representative of the European Union  expressed her delegation's concern s regarding 
duties applied on "multi -component integrated circuits" or MCO products that had previously been 
duty-free. She thank ed China for the explanations it had already provided but remain ed 
concerned , on the one  hand, by the rise in tariff level , which was  a matter of principle , and on the 
other, by the use of the duty averaging method to calculate new duties.  She reiterate d that, in the 
WTO context,  the calcu lation of an average or weighted average tariff rate when merging different 
product lines could not lead to increased tariffs on items included in the ITA  Expansion . She once 
again request ed China to explain how its calculation was made and on what grounds  China 
consider ed it to be in accordance with the rules.  She urged China to re -instate a zero  tariff on all 
MCO product lines covered by the ITA.  
1.46.   The representative of the United States  reiterate d her delegation's concern s over the 
change in China' s applied duty rates for semiconductor products . She said that this was an issue 
that the US had previously raised in the ITA  Committee and , more recently , in the Committee on 
Market Access.  Since 1 January  2017, China ha d been imposing tariffs on a number  of G/IT/M/67  
 
- 7 - 
 
  semiconductor products that had previously been duty-free in light  of China' s bound commitments. 
However, the situation ha d changed and semiconductor shipments were now subject to a duty 
when less than a year before these shipment s would have entered duty-free. It was difficult to see 
how this situation could be considered consistent with China' s binding tariff commitments ; rather, 
it appear ed to be part of a worrying trend in support of China's "Made in China 2025 " campaign.  
She stated that her delega tion ha d emphasized to China, both in bilateral meetings and in the 
WTO Committees that , regardless of the methodology used, the results of an HS  transposition 
should be tariff rate neutral, meaning that the value of a WTO  tariff concession should not be 
impaired as a result of a change in HS  nomenclature.  
1.47.   She stated that , in response to her delegation's concerns , China had reference d a General 
Council Decision on the "Procedure for the Introduction of Harmonized System 2017  Changes to 
Schedules of Concessi ons", document  WT/L/995, as a basis for their methodology and the 
resulting tariff increases on imported semiconductors.  She pointed out that the General Council 
decision specifically state d that "[I]f the concessions of the original [HS2012 ] tariff lines are 
different, then the new HS2017  subheading/tariff line should normally be broken down to a more 
detailed level so that the file reflects fully the same level of concessions " as in the previous 
nomenclature.  
1.48.   She also note d that other ITA and  ITA Expansion participants had been able to implement 
the HS2017  transposition without difficulty and without raising tariff rates  on these  semiconductor 
products . 
1.49.   She urged China to reinstate zero  duties on all the products that had previously been 
classified under duty -free tariff lines in HS2012  nomenclature. She stated that China ha d an 
obligation to provide this duty-free treatment pursuant to its WTO  bound commitments, and 
should do so without delay.  
1.50.   The representative of Japan  joined the European Union and the United States in express ing 
its concern over the issue of China's customs duties on MCO products.  With regard to charging 
duties on MCO  products following their reclassification, China ha d explained that they ha d changed 
MCO applied tariff rates by applying the arithmetic average of the previous duty rates.  However, 
Participants had not yet received an explanation from China as to which specific tariff line and 
tariff rate they had used when calculating the current MCO  applied tariff rate. He asked China to 
circulate to Participants a core relation table that clarifie d the relationship between the previous 
rates of duty for each tariff line at issue and the current rates of duty.  At the Market Access 
Committee meeting that had been held on 22  September  2017, China had indicated that it had 
reduced its rates of duty for seven  tariff lines . For example , the duty rate on one  tariff line was 
13.3% and for the other two  tariff lines was 8.3 %. However, after transposition, the duty rate had 
been reduced to 3.4 % for all tariff lines. Since 1  July 2017, that duty rate had been further 
reduced , to 2.7 %, but his delegation could find no facts to confirm  this. Therefore, he requested 
China to provide Participants with the relevant concrete information necessary to verify these tariff 
reductions.  He also urged China to fulfil its tariff reduction commitment s under the ITA  Expansion , 
as scheduled, and including the commitment s undertaken to eliminate duties on all MCO  products 
by 2021. 
1.51.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  echoed the concerns raised by other delegates  
and requested China to reinstate a duty -free rate in accordance with the fundamental goal and 
purpose of the ITA  Expansion negotiations.  
1.52.   The representative of Singa pore register ed her country's interest in this implementation 
issue. Singapore intended to monitor the issue closely . 
1.53.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  share d the view s expressed by  the other co -sponsors  
of this agenda item . Her delegation continue d to be concern ed by the fact that, since the beginning 
of the year, China ha d imposed tariffs on MCO products at a rate that was higher than its current 
WTO bound rate and that therefore violated its obligation s under Article  II of the GATT. As the 
measure imp aired the benefits due to their industry , she requested China to justify its rationale for 
choosing a methodology that applie d an arithmetic average to previous rates of duty. She also 
request ed that the tariff rate s applied to imports of the MCO  products at issue be immediately 
reduced to zero.  G/IT/M/67  
 
- 8 - 
 
  1.54.   The representative of Thailand  share d the concerns raised by other delegations on this issue  
and looked forward to receiving a detailed explanation from China.  
1.55.   The representative of Switzerland  express ed its interes t in this issue and welcome d any 
additional details that China might be in a position to provide . 
1.56.   The representative of China  stated that they had taken note of the statement s made by the 
European Union , the United States , Japan, Korea, Singapore, Chinese Taipei, Thailand, and 
Switzerland.  She explained that , pursuant to the results of the ITA  Expansion negotiations, the 
MCO products cover ed 17 ex-out tariff lines. In accordance with the HS  Amendments of the W orld 
Customs Organization , these 17  tariff lines  had been changed to five MCO tariff lines in the 
2017 Customs Import and Export Tariff of China. As such, the new HS2017  subheadings were 
derived from several parts of HS2012  tariff lines. Due to the fact that it was impractical accurately 
to calculate th e trade allocations of these 17  ex-out tariff lines, China referred to the 
WTO document  entitled "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 , dated 21  October  2011) and  "Procedure for the Introduction of 
Harmonized System 2017  Changes to Schedules of Concessions Using the Consolidated Tariff 
Schedules (CTS)  Database" (document  WT/L/995, dated 9  December  2016),  and adopted th e 
fourth  method ology  as designated by these two  earlier documents, namely, to determine  new duty 
rates by applying the simple average of the previous duty rates. In China's view, t his was 
consistent with WTO  rules on determining duty rates for transpositio n. 
1.57.   She further explained that , technically, when determining new duty rates using the simple 
average transposition  method , the result would be an increase in duty rates for certain products 
and a decrease in duty rates for other products. In this case, alt hough the duty rates for 
10 MCO products were higher , relatively, compared to those in HS2012, the duty rates for 
seven  other MCO  products had been substantially  reduced . For example, before transposition, the 
duty rate for MCO  products under tariff line  8450.90.90 was 13.3%, and the duty rates for tariff 
lines 8415.90.10 and 8415 .90.90 were 8.3%. However, after transposition,  the duty rate was just 
3.4% for all those tariff lines, with a reduction of 74% and 59% respectively.  
1.58.   She felt that China ha d implemented its reduction commitments in all seriousness and 
would continue to fulfil its tariff reduction commitments under the ITA Expansion as scheduled. 
The li near reduction of duties on MCO  products w ould be implemented over the course of a 
five-year period.  
1.59.   The representative of the United States  thank ed China for its statement.  However, her 
delegation  remain ed unconvinced by China's justification of its use of a simple average of duties 
rather than maintaining tariff line breakouts to preserve its zero duty bound commitments , which 
would have been achieved by using end -use tariff line breakouts.  She stated that , since both the 
US and China appear ed to be reading from the same document, namely the General Council 
Decision on HS2017  transposition, she wondered if the WTO  Secretariat might be able to explain 
the normal methodology for transposing a Members' bound commitments from one HS  version to 
another, in accordance with  document  WT/L/995.  
1.60.   The Secretariat  mentioned that the document that had been  referred to was a General 
Council Decision  containing the relevant procedures for introduction of changes resulting from the 
HS2017  nomenclature into WTO  schedules of concessions. For the benefit of delegates unfamiliar 
with the transposition exercise, sh e explained that "transposition" referred to technical work 
undertaken in the Market Access Committee , where changes were introduced into the schedules of 
concessions for goods in order to update the schedules to reflect changes result ing from newer 
versio ns of the Harmonized System  nomenclature . She noted that , in the context of this exercise , 
the situation varied considerably among WTO  Members. The goods schedules of most Members 
had been certified in HS2002 and the schedules of some Members had also been  certified in 
HS2007. However, the transposition of earlier schedules to HS2012 had only recently begun,  and 
work on transposition to HS2017  nomenclature had not yet begun . As described in the procedures 
for transposition, either the Member concerned or th e Secretariat would typically prepare a 
transposition file  that was then submitted for multilateral review so that all WTO  Members received 
an opportunity to study it and also to comment  upon it  if they wished to do so . This multilateral 
review process normally took place in dedicated sessions of the Market Access Committee. If there 
were comments or changes to the transposition file , and these were introduced, a new and revised G/IT/M/67  
 
- 9 - 
 
  transposition file would then be submitted to Members for their review. Once  all changes and 
comments were cleared the transposition file was deemed approved. However, this was still not 
the end of the process because once the transposed schedule had been approved at multilateral 
level it had still to  be submitted under the  1980 Decision on Procedures for the Modification and 
Rectification of Schedules of Tariff Commitments so that it could be certified by the 
Director -General , and only then did it come into formal effect . 
1.61.   The representative of the United States  thanked the Secreta riat for the explanation provided 
but clarified that she was not asking about the procedures in the Market Access Committee  per se , 
but rather about how a concession would normally be transposed by a Member for a specific tariff 
line. She explained that th e point that she was trying to make was that, as referred to in 
paragraph  4 of Annex  2 of the above -mentioned document ( document  WT/L/995), Members 
should maintain the same level of concessions between a  transposed schedule  and the earlier 
schedule on whic h it was based . In this regard, she asked the Secretariat to comment upon the 
methodology that a Member should normally use when transposing its commitment s for a 
particular tariff line if it was not possible to make a one-to-one transposition  for that particular 
tariff line . 
1.62.   The Secretariat  thanked the US  delegation and stated that , from a technical point of view, 
the purpose of the transposition exercise was simply to transpose concessions from one 
HS nomenclature to another . Thus, in princip le, there should be no change as concerned 
concessions, be those in relation to a tariff rate, other duties and charges, or an Initial Negotiating 
Right ( INR). The purpose of this technical work was simply to update the tariff nomenclature in the 
schedules . 
1.63.   If it was not possible to carry out a straightforward transposition of  concessions without any 
changes to the type or level of concession, then the procedures provided for the Member or the 
Secretariat to choose from one of the four  methodologies that we re included in Annex  2 of the said 
procedures . So if combining different tariff lines or parts of tariff lines with different concessions  
was unavoidable  because , for example,  the tariff lines had been  merged or split to create new 
tariff lines, and where subsequently there were changes in the concessions, then the procedures 
set out that a Member or the Secretariat could choose among one of the four  methodologies that 
were included in the procedures to arrive at a new tariff rate. The Secretariat pointed o ut that, in 
the context of the WTO, it was mandatory for the transposition file to be submitted for multilateral 
review  so as to afford  Member s an opportunity to comment.  
1.64.   The Chair person  thanked the Secretariat and suggest ed that the Committee take note of  the 
statements made.  
1.65.   It was so agreed . 
2  REVIEW OF PRODUCT CO VERAGE  
2.1.  The Chairperson  recalled that, s ince the Committee meeting of  15 May 2012, and as 
requested by some delegations, the "review of product coverage" ha d been included as a regular 
agenda item.  It provide d an opportunity for the Committee to receive reports and updates from 
those participants engaged in consultations relating to the review of product coverage pursuant to 
Paragraph  3 of the Annex to the ITA.  
2.2.  The representative of Canada , speaking  as the Chair of the ITA  Expansion Group, updated 
the Committee on efforts made to implement the Ministerial Declaration on the Expansion of Trade 
in Information Technology Products  (document  WT/L/956 ). He reported that this important 
initiative had been concluded by 25 participants , representing 53 WTO Members , in Nairobi at 
MC10 in 2015 and, since then, participants ha d focused on implementing their commitments 
according to each participant's respective procedural requirements.  He informed the Committee 
that, by 1 July 2016, the majority of ITA Expansion Group participants ha d implemented their tariff 
commitments in their domestic national tariffs . Among these, 21 participants ha d submitted their 
modifications and rectifications to the respective schedule s of concessions to the GATT  1994, in 
accordance with the so -called 1980  Procedures, and these schedules ha d now been certified.  In 
summary, the implementation of the Declaration was well advanced and was on track for full 
implementation in the near future . However, work still needed to be done . For example , some G/IT/M/67  
 
- 10 - 
 
  participants ha d not yet completed all of their domestic procedures . He said that the Group 
encourage d the participants concerned to complete their domestic procedures as soon as possible.  
2.3.  He also provide d a brief update on the potential for new participants to  join the 
ITA Expansion . He said that , as explained to the Committee in previous meetings , the initiative 
was open to all WTO  Members, and all WTO  Members were strongly encouraged to consider 
participating in the ITA Expansion.  
2.4.  At an earlier meeting he had reported that, soon after the conclu sion of the ITA  Expansion 
Agreement , Macao, China had joined . He was likewise gratified on this occasion to be able to 
inform the Committee  that Georgia had officially joined the ITA  Expansion in early 
November  2017. The ITA  Expansion Group welcome d this development. He added that a few 
Members ha d informally indicated that they intend ed to join the ITA Expansion and that they 
would soon take the necessary f ormal steps. Some delegations s aw MC11 as a potential high 
profile platform from which to announce their intention to join the ITA  Expansion Group . 
2.5.  He stated that participants in the Group s tood ready to provide additional information to any 
Member wishing  to join the initiative . Based  on current trend , he expected that at its next meeting 
the Committee w ould hear further positive news in terms of the successful implementation and 
growth in participation of this important initiative.  
2.6.  The Chairperson  suggest ed that the Committee take note of the statements made and agree 
to revert to this matter  at its next meeting.  
2.7.  It was so agreed . 
3  NON-TARIFF MEASURES WORK  PROGRAMME  
3.1.  The Chairperson  turned to the Non-Tariff Measures (NTM) Work Programme  and reminded 
the Comm ittee of the mandate to address NTMs. She recall ed that, on 7 May 2015, the Committee 
had held an industry -driven workshop dedicated to NTBs affecting trade in ICT  products . The main 
issues raised at the workshop by industry representatives were: (i)  transparency; (ii)  standards for 
recognition of test results; (iii)  e-labelling; and (iv)  energy efficiency. A factual report by the 
Chairperson's predece ssor had been circulated in document  G/IT/28.  
3.2.  Following the workshop, and based on the discussions tha t were conducted at the subsequent 
meetings of the Committee, the Chair person  had been asked to continue her consultations on the 
follow -up to the ITA  NTB workshop.  
3.3.  She informed the Committee that, since its meeting of 28 June 2017, she had conducted 
informal discussion s with several delegations, including the delegation of Switzerland,  which had 
been coordinating informal consultations on NTBs among a small group of participants. During 
these informal discussions, she had requested interested delegations t o give additional thought to 
the issue of how the Committ ee should proceed in its follow -up discussion s on NTBs.  
3.4.  The representative of Switzerland  reported to the Committee that, since its last meeting, 
participants in the informal group ha d continued to hold informal discussions relating to the 
advancement of NTM -related issues in the context of the ITA  Agreement. The overview of the 
discussions provided at the June C ommittee meeting continue d to reflect the current state of play. 
For this reason, he i nvited delegations to refer to his previous statement.  He also remind ed 
Members that participation in the group was open to all ITA Participants th at were interested in 
NTM issues. If any delegation had question s regarding the work of th e group or was interested in 
participating  in it, they should not hesitate to contact Switzerland or one of the other participants 
in the group at any time.  
3.5.  The representative of the European Union  consider ed that, due to the decisive progress 
achieved by the ITA and its exp ansion in eliminating tariffs, removing non -tariff barriers ha d 
become key to further facilitating global trade in IT  products.  Her delegation was well aware of the 
challenges involved in moving towards commitment s in regulatory areas under the umbrella of the 
ITA. Nevertheless, her delegation remain ed convinced of the benefits of progress in this area.  The 
topics that had been discussed in the small group were clearly relevant to businesse s. She thought G/IT/M/67  
 
- 11 - 
 
  that it was possible for ITA  participants to agree on common lines with a view to deliver ing 
tangible results . The European Union  looked forward to further work in this area.  
3.6.  The Chairperson  suggest ed that the Committee take note of the statements made and agree 
that the Chair continue the consultations and the Committee revert to this matter as appropriate 
at its next meeting . 
3.7.  It was so agreed . 
4  EMC/EMI PILOT PROJEC T – DRAFT LIST OF TYPES OF CONFORMITY ASSESS MENT 
PROCEDURES FOR EMC/E MI USED BY ITA  PARTICIPANTS (G/IT/W/17/REV.19)  
4.1.  The Chairperson  turned to the EMC/EMI  Pilot Project  – the Draft List of the Types of 
Conformity Assessment Procedures for EMC/EMI used  by ITA  Participants . She recall ed that one of 
the outcomes of the NTM  Work Programme had been  the comp letion of a pilot project that had led 
to the adoption of the "Guidelines for Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) and Electromagnetic 
Interference (EMI) Conformity Assessment Procedures". Upon adoption of these "Guidelines", the 
Secretariat has prepared a note on the "Draft List of Types of Conformity Assessment Pro cedures 
for EMC/EMI used by ITA  Participants", as contained in document  G/IT/W/17 and its subsequent 
revisions. The note contain ed the responses to the survey and other notifications received fro m 
Participants on the type of assessment procedures for EMC/EMI that they use d. ITA Participants 
had indicated on several occasions that they had found the information contained in the document 
to be very useful , and that they wished to have it completed.  
4.2.  She indicated to the Committee that , since its last me eting, she had sent another letter to 
those Participants that had not yet  submitted a survey response nor a notification regarding the 
type of assessment procedures used by their authorities on EMC/EMI.  
4.3.  She reported that , to date , among the 53  ITA Participants, 35  had provided information 
regarding their conformity assessment procedures for EMC/EMI , as circulated in 
document  G/IT/W/17/Rev.19. The latest submissions of survey responses had been received f rom 
Egypt (circulated in document  G/IT/SPEC/Q4/32) and the Republic of Moldova (circulated in 
document  G/IT/SPEC/Q4/33). However, there were still 18  Participants that had not yet provided 
any information regarding their conformity assessment procedures.  
4.4.  She took this opportunity to once again remind the delegations concerned to submit th eir 
information as soon as possible and to contact the Secretariat should they need any further 
clarification  or information on this matter . 
4.5.  The representative of Switzerland  thank ed the Secretariat for their useful compilation , and 
Egypt and Moldova for their subm issions. Unfortunately, the speed at which Members were 
providing information remained  disappointing.  It was indeed important for importers and exporters 
to know which conformity assessment procedures were required so as to be in a position  to comply 
with them.  He urged the remaining 18  Members that had  not yet provided the necessary 
information to do so without delay.  
4.6.  The Chairperson  stated that , since the information on EMC/EMI had increased transparency 
regarding the types of conformity assessment procedures used by ITA  participants, and had 
thereby facilitated international trade in this important sector, she once again ask ed the remaining 
18 delegations that ha d not yet done so to provide this information to the Secretariat as soon as 
possible so as to enable the Committee to complete its work.  
4.7.  She asked Participants to reflect upon what steps, if any, they would be prepared t o consider 
with a view to maximizing the usefulness of the information on  EMC/EMI  conformity assessment 
procedures that had so far been provided. Participants were invited to share their insights in this 
regard with the Chair or with the Secretariat, at an y time, or with the full Committee  at any of its 
meetings . 
4.8.  She s uggest ed that the Committee take note of her comments and of the statement made . 
4.9.  It was so agreed . G/IT/M/67  
 
- 12 - 
 
  5  DIVERGENCES IN CLASS IFYING INFORMATION T ECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS 
(G/IT/14/REV.1/ADD.1 ; G/IT/W/6/REV.3; G/IT /W/33; G/IT/W/34; G/ IT/27; 
JOB/IT/12; G/IT/29, AND G/IT/W/40/ADD.1 -15, AND G/IT/W/40/SU PPL.2)  
5.1.  The Chairperson  then turned to the agenda item  on divergences in classifying information 
technology products . Under this agenda item, there we re two sub-items: (i)  the implementation of 
the Decision on 18  Attachment  B products , as contained in document  G/IT/27; and (ii)  the Note by 
the Secretariat on the classification of the remaining 37  Attachment  B items , as contained in 
document  G/IT/W/40 an d its supplements and addenda, including the Decision for the 
classification of an additional 15  items , as contained in document  G/IT/29.  
5.1  Implementation of the Decision for the Classification of 18  Attachment  B products 
(G/IT/27)  
5.2.  The Chairperson  recall ed that, on 20  July 2013, the Decision (document  G/IT/27) regarding 
the endorsement of List  IA items of document  G/IT/W/6/Rev.3, or the so -called 18 Attachment  B 
items  as reproduced in document  G/IT/W/34, had been approved. As required by th e Decision, 
each participant must reflect the ag reed classifications in its WTO  Schedule of Concessions, as 
appropriate, as per the 1980  Decision on Procedures for the Modification and Rectification of 
Schedules  of Tariff Concessions (BISD  27S/25) . 
5.3.  She stated that , as ment ioned at the Committee 's previous meetings , the Secretariat had 
been approached by five  ITA participants, namely: Guatemala; the Philippines; Japan; El Salvador; 
and Macao, China (four of which were developing country ITA participants) to assist them in th e 
modification of their schedules. In this regard, the Secretariat ha d completed work on the requests 
of the delegations of Macao, China and the Philippines. It was to be noted that the technical work 
involved in this exercise was very time-consuming and t hus c ould only be undertaken on a gradual 
basis.  In anticipation of additional requests, the Secretariat ha d undertaken a preliminary analysis 
of the remaining developing country participants. She urged these developing country participants 
to contact the Secretariat if they require d technical assistance with the modification of their 
schedules.  
5.4.  She suggest ed that the Committee take note of her comments.  
5.5.  It was so agreed . 
5.2  Note by the Secretariat (G/IT/W/ 40 and its supplements and addenda)  
5.6.  The Chairperson  moved to the Note by the Secretariat on "Divergence of Classification: the 
Possible HS2007  Classification for the Remaining 37  "Attachment  B" Items, which had been 
circulated as document  G/IT/W/40, based on the Swiss proposal for a three -step procedure 
(contained in document  JOB/IT/12).  
5.7.  She recalled that , at the Committee meeting of 31  October  2014, it had been agreed that: 
"Participants are expected to submit a communication to the Secretariat no later th an 
30 June 2015, indicating: (a)  the items that, in the participant's opinion, should be classified 
differently from the HS2007  codes listed in column  8 of the Annex to this document; and (b)  the 
HS2007  subheading(s) that, in the participant's opinion, are  relevant for the classification of the 
item in question." "The Secretariat will compile communications received in a separate document. 
On that basis, participants would then be expected to assess the next steps that could be taken to 
reduce any remaining  divergence in classification."  
5.8.  To date, comments had been received from 15  ITA participants, namely: Norway 
(G/IT/W/40/Add.1); Chinese Taipei (G/IT/W/40/Add.2); Switzerland (G/IT/W/40/Add.3); the 
European Union (G/IT/W/40/Add.4); Hong Kong, China (G/IT/W/ 40/Add.5); China 
(G/IT/W/40/Add.6); Japan (G/IT/W/40/Add.7); Canada (G/IT/W/40/Add.8); the United States of 
America (G/IT/W/40/Add.9); India (G/IT/W/40/Add.10); Macao, China (G/IT/W/40/Add.11); El 
Salvador (G/IT/W/40/Add.12); the Republic of Korea (G/IT/W/ 40/Add.13); Panama 
(G/IT/W/40/Add.14); and Thailand (G/IT/W/40/Add.15).  G/IT/M/67  
 
- 13 - 
 
  5.9.  Based on the se submissions, it appeared that there had been no objection to the proposed 
HS2007  classification of 15  ITA items, corresponding to ITA  item numbers: 129; 130; 133; 135; 
138; 139; 143; 144; 150; 153; 154; 155; 157; 169; and 191. Most of these items related to 
HS2007  subheading  8486 (Machines and apparatus for the manufacture of semiconductor boules 
or wafers) and one  item related to heading  8471 (Automatic data processing m achines and units 
thereof). Therefore, at its meeting of 18  April 2016, the Committee had adopted the "Decision for 
HS2007  Classification of 15  Additional 'Attachment  B' Products" on an ad referendum basis, which 
had been circulated in document  G/IT/29.  
5.10.   With regard to the implementation of the Decision on the 15  Additional 'Attachment  B' 
Items, she reported that the Secretariat had been approached by Macao, China to conduct a 
review of its ITA  schedule , and that the result of this review had been forwarded to the delegation 
of Macao, China on 22  September  2017 for their consideration.  
5.11.   For the remaining 22  Attachment  B items , Participants had been  asked to provide their 
comments on the proposed HS 2007 classification as listed in an updated note prepared by th e 
Secretariat (document  G/IT/W/40/Suppl.2 ). The Chairperson recalled that, at the Committee 
meeting of 1  November  2016, it had been noted that within the remaining 22  items "we are 
extremely close to finalizing the HS2007  classification of five  ITA item nu mbers, namely items: 
122; 137; 142; 168; and 194". However, she had informed the Committee that some delegations 
had expressed a need for more time in order to finalize their comments; therefore, it had been 
decided to postpone a final decision on the clas sification of the five  additional items.  
5.12.   She further reported that , at the Committee meeting of 28  June 2017, some delegations 
were still in the process of finalizing their comments ; therefore , the Committee had agreed to 
consider whether an agreement on the classification of the five  items could be reached at this 
meeting.  
5.13.   She recalled that , on 5  September  2017, in her  fax to all ITA  Participants , she had 
encouraged those participants that had not yet submitted their comments on the 
HS2007  classification of the remaining 22  "Attachment  B" items to do so by 13  October  2017. 
Following the fax, the Secretariat had received new submissions from six  Members (New Zealand, 
Mauritius, Guatemala, the Rep ublic of Seychelles, Montenegro, and the Russian Federation).  
5.14.   In the same  fax, she had also asked Participants about the possibility of reaching an 
agreement on the HS2007  classification of the five  ITA items where ITA  Participants had expressed 
no objecti on to the proposed classification, namely items 122; 137; 142; 168; and 194.  
5.15.   She reported that , with regard to items  122 and 194 there were still some outstanding 
comments; however, on items  137, 142, and 168 her understanding was that the Committee 
would be in a position to agree on the proposed classification. Therefore, she asked whether 
Members could agree to adopt the proposed HS2007  classification of items  137, 142, and 168.  
5.16.   The representative of the Russian Federation  stated that her delegation  had no objections to 
the HS 2007 classification of items  122 and 137. However, for item  142, her delegation  was of the 
view that this item should be classified not only under subheadings  8486.20 and 8686.30 , but also 
under subheading  8486.10. She believed that s ubheading  8486.10 should also be added for 
item 168. With respect to item  194, she was of the view that subheading  8471.80 should be 
added.  
5.17.   The representative of China  stated that her delegation had no comments on the proposed 
HS2007 classification of the five items. However, she clarified that , with regard to item  137, China 
would like to add the original ITA  code in HS 1996, which was ex8479.89.90, to the table in 
document  G/IT/W/40 and its sup plements, instead of ex8477.10.  
5.18.   The Chairperson  asked the Russian Federation whether it could agree to the proposed 
classification of the three  items (137, 142 , and 168) and to clarify whether she would like to have 
their comments reflected in the Secretariat Note , or rather to include the additional s ubheadings 
under the proposed classification.  G/IT/M/67  
 
- 14 - 
 
  5.19.   The representative of the Russian Federation  replied that the subheadings relating to 
items  142, 168 , and 194 were already referred to in column  9 of the table in 
document  G/IT/W/40/Suppl.2. She added that the Russian Federation had no objections to the 
approval of items  122 and 137.  
5.20.   The Chairperson  took note of the Russian Federation's comments and indicated that , since 
there was still an outstanding comment on item  122, th e Committee sho uld proceed to approve 
the HS 2007 classification of items  137, 142 , and 168  only. Based on this decision, the Secretariat 
would issue a document to that effect. She asked the Committee whether this would be agreeable.  
5.21.   The representative of t he Russian Federation  requested the Secretariat to circulate the 
comments submitted by her delegation concerning the five items  in question (items  122; 137; 
142; 168; and 194) . 
5.22.   The Chairperson  thanked the Russian Federation and proposed that the decision f or the 
adoption of the HS 2007 classification of three  additional Attachment  B items and the updated 
version of the Secretariat Note, containing the comments made by the Russia n Federation  and 
other Members, would be circulated  in due course . She encouraged  delegations to continue 
working to assess the next steps that could be taken to reduce any divergence in classification 
with regard to the remaining 19  Attachment  B items.  
5.23.   It was so agreed . 
6  DRAFT ANNUAL REPORT (2017) OF THE COMMIT TEE TO THE COUNCIL F OR TR ADE IN 
GOODS (G/IT/W/46)  
6.1.  The Chairperson  turned to the Committee's draft annual report to the Council for Trade in 
Goods . The draft annual report of the Committee was contained in document  G/IT/W/46  and 
would be updated to reflect developments from this meeting. 
6.2.  The draft annual report was approved with the inclusion of the proposed updates mentioned 
above and modifications, where appropriate, to reflect t he discussion at this meeting.  
6.3.  It was so agreed . 
7  OTHER BUSINESS  
7.1.  The Chairperson  informed the Committee that its next meeting was scheduled to take place 
in the spring of 2018.  
7.2.  It was so agreed . 
__________