RESTRICTED  
  
G/IT/M/64  
 
20 October 2016 
(16-5694) Page: 1/13 
Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in 
Information Technology Products    
 
 MINUTES OF THE MEETI NG OF 18 APRIL  2016 
CHAIRMAN:  MR ANDREW STAINES  (UNITED KINGDOM)  
INTRODUCTION  
The Committee adopted the proposed agenda for the meeting circulated in 
document  WTO/AIR/IT/ 3, dated 8 April 2016. An annotated agenda for the meeting was cir culated 
in document  JOB/IT/1 7, also dated  8 April 2016. The Chairman stated that he would take up the 
issue of the date of the next meeting under "Other Business".  
 
INTRODUCTION  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  1 
1   REVIEW OF  THE STATUS OF IMPLEM ENTATION OF THE MINI STERIAL 
DECLARATION ON TRADE  IN INFORMATION TECHN OLOGY PRODUCTS 
(G/IT/1/REV.55 AND G /IT/W/42)  ................................ ................................ ..................  1 
1.1   REQUEST BY THE EUROPEAN UNION, JAPAN, KOREA, AND THE UNITED STATES 
REGARDING AN IMP LEMENTATION ISSUE CONCERNING INDIA  ................................ ................  2 
2   REVIEW OF PRODUCT CO VERAGE  ................................ ................................ ................  4 
3   NON-TARIFF MEASURES WORK  PROGRAMME  ................................ ..............................  7 
4   EMC/EMI PILOT PROJEC T – DRAFT LIST OF TYPES OF CONF ORMITY 
ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE S FOR EMC/EMI USED B Y ITA  PARTICIPANTS 
(G/IT/W/17/REV.14)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 10 
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, AND G/IT/W/40/A DD.1 -G/IT/W/40/ADD.12 AND  
G/IT/W/40/SUPPL.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 10 
5.1   Implementation of the Decision (G/IT/27)  ................................ ................................ .....10 
5.2   Note by the Secretariat: Divergence of Classification: Possible HS2007  Classification 
for the Remaining 37  "Attachment  B" Items (G/IT/W/40)  ................................ ........................ 11 
6   ELECTION OF CHAIRPER SON ................................ ................................ .....................  12 
7   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 13 
7.1   Date of next meeting  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..13 
 
1  REVIEW OF THE STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE  MINISTERIAL DECLARATION 
ON TRADE IN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS (G/IT/1/REV. 55 AND 
G/IT/W/42 ) 
1.1.  The Chairman  informed Participants that an overview of the Status of Implementation of the 
Ministerial Declaration on Trade in Information Technology Products  could be found in 
document  G/IT/1/Rev.55 . As at previous meetings, he flagged the following two  issues: (1)  the 
completion of domestic legal procedural requirements by El Salvador; and (2)  the submission of 
the final ITA  schedule of commitments by Morocco.  G/IT/M/64  
 
- 2 - 
 
  1.2.  In addition, u nder this agenda item, a sub -agenda item was added at the request of the 
European Union, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and the United States regarding Indian Cu stoms 
Notifica tion No.  11/2014.  
1.3.  The representative of El Salvador  stated that there had been no update on the issue of the 
completion of domestic legal procedural requirements . She reiterated that her authorities would 
try to  make progress on this issue. 
1.4.  For Morocco, th e Chairman  noted that 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 his predecessor's letter to the delegation of Morocco, dated 
14 November  2011, and subsequent contact, the Committee had still not received a formal 
response. As the delegation of Morocco was not present at the meeting, the Chairman proposed 
that he and the Secretariat contact the Moroccan delegation and then revert to the matter at the 
Committee's next meeting.  
1.5.  On the question of certain recently joined participants' ITA  schedules of commitments that 
were pending rectification and modification, as required by the Decision of 26  March  1980 on 
Procedures for Modification and Rectification of Schedules of Tariff Concessions, the Chairman  
recall ed that the Russian Federation had become  an ITA  Participant on 13  September  2013; 
however, the submission of the Russian Federation's ITA  schedule of commitments to the 
Secretariat for such rectificat ion and modification was still pending. He invited the delegation of 
the Russian F ederation to make a report and update.  
1.6.  The representative of the Russian Federation  explained that its internal procedures ha d not 
yet been completed ; upon completion of thos e procedures  the Russian Federation would submit  its 
ITA schedule for rectification and modification.  
1.7.  The representative of the United States  stated that her delegation remained disappointed 
that Russia had still failed to submit its modification to its bo und schedule to incorporate all 
ITA commitments in the ITA  Schedule that was approved by this Committee in September  2013.  
She urged Russia to submit the necessary documentation to the WTO  Secretariat without delay.  
1.8.  On a separate issue, but related to the status of implementation of the ITA , she reminded  the 
Committee that ITA Participants would be approaching the 20th anniversary of the ITA next year. 
As the Committee had held symposia for both the 10th and the 15th anniversaries , she wonder ed if 
the Chair would hold consultations on a 20th anniversary event next year.  
1.9.  The Chair man thanked the delegation  of the United States and stated that he would give 
everyone a chance to reflect on the 20th anniversary . He felt  that in principle it was a sensible 
sugges tion and he wished to begin to discuss  with Participants what form such an anniversary 
event should take . 
1.10.   He again urged those Members that ha d not yet completed the procedures for the formal 
rectification and modification of schedules, as required by the 1980 Decision, to do so as soon as 
possible.  
1.11.   The Committee took note of all the statements made.  
1.1  REQUEST BY THE EUROPEAN UNION, JAPAN, KOREA, AND THE UNITED STATES 
REGARDING AN IMPLEMENTATION ISSUE CONCERNING INDIA  
1.12.   The Chairman  turned to this sub-agenda it em, which was a request by the European Union, 
Japan, the Republic of Korea, and the United States , regarding an implementation issue 
concerning India.  He referred to document  G/IT/W/42 , dated 1  April 2016 and circulated at the 
request of those delegations , inviting  them to introduce the ir request.  
1.13.   The representative of the United States  stated that t he communication transmitted by her 
delegation, along with the European Union and Japan, on 1  April 2016, outline d questions and 
provide d an explanation of their serious concerns regarding apparent inconsistencies between the G/IT/M/64  
 
- 3 - 
 
  MFN applied tariff charged on certain telecommunication s equipment in India' s MFN  tariff schedule 
compared to  its WTO  Schedule of Concessions in HS  2007 nomenclature.  
1.14.   She said that their industry had expressed its concerns about India' s tariff increase on the 
telecommunications products outlined in Indian Customs Notification  11/2014 in the summer of 
2014, when the tariffs were first  imposed. The commercial impact of the increase in customs duty 
from zero to 10% on those products –including various telecommunication switches, voice -over 
internet protocol phones, optical transport equipment, and so on –were felt immediately by their 
countries' companies shipping these products to India.  
1.15.   She hoped that India ha d come prepared to answer the questions posed in 
document  G/IT/W/42, the most important of which was how India justified  introducing a 10 % 
import duty for products falling under HS code 8517 62 in light of its binding commitment s 
pursuant to  the ITA and in light of its c oncessions in its WTO  bound schedule.  
1.16.   In addition to any answers that m ight be provided today, and given the seriousness of their 
concerns, the United States  also indicated that they would appreciate answers to their questions  in 
writing.  
1.17.   She also noted  that, unfortunately there m ight be cause for additional concern with regard  
to India' s ITA commitments . India's imposition of tariffs on telecommunications products 
apparently  covered by the ITA ha d prompted them to examine othe r ITA-covered product areas 
where India m ight similarly be imposing tariffs in violation of their binding tariff commitments. 
They therefore  reserve d their right to come back to this issue at future meetings.  
1.18.   The representative of the European Union  said t hat his delegation, together with the United 
States  and Japan, had recently submitted to India a set of questions seeking clarification of the 
classification of certain products, which were detailed in the document.  The EU was interested to 
know whether th e four  sets of products clearly listed in the advanced questions , as 
document  G/IT/W/42,  fell under HS codes  8517.6290 or 8517 .6990. If neither of these HS codes  
were applicable , India was invited to clarify under which tariff lines the products in questio n were 
classified.  
1.19.   His delegation also sought information as to the  four listed product categories subject to a 
10% duty rate.  In addition, they wished to know what India's WTO  bound tariff commitments were 
for each of the four  listed product categories  subject to Customs Notification No.  11/2014 . They 
also wished to know h ow India justified introducing a 10% import duty on products falling under 
subheading  8517.62 in light of India's commitments pursuant to the ITA, and in light of the 
concession in its WTO schedule, updated in HS2007 , which binds the whole subheading at a 
0% duty rate . 
1.20.   Should India consider that the products falling under subheading  8517.62 were not covered 
by India's commitment pursuant to the ITA, could India clearly present its reasons?  Similarly,  for 
subheading  8517.69, should India consider that the products falling under that HS  code were not 
covered by India's commitments pursuant to the ITA , could India also clearly present its reason s? 
1.21.   The representative of Japan  stated that his de legation had submitted the question s to India, 
together with the European Union , Korea, and the United States . He wished  to echo what ha d been 
said by the United States and the European Union as their concerns were  the same , and also 
wished to hear India's  responses to those questions . 
1.22.   The representative of  the Republic of Korea  wished  to associate itself with previous 
Members and underlin ed his delegation's concern over India's implementation of the ITA. In 
particular, Korea wished  to seek clarification from India as to its reasons for imposing a 10% 
customs duty on subheading  8517.6290, whose bound rate should in fact be "zero" under India's 
certified HS2007 WTO Schedule of Concessions.  Korea held commercial and systematic concern s 
on this  issue and would closely monitor and follow  up on the issue.  
1.23.   The representative of Canada  support ed the interventions made by the United States , the 
European Union , Japan,  and Korea.  Canada ha d considerable trade with India in products under 
heading  8517 and was very much looking forward to responses to the questions circulated by G/IT/M/64  
 
- 4 - 
 
  others on the imposition of duties on lines bound at zero as these were  of both commercial and 
systemic interest to Canada.  
1.24.   The representative of Norway  had taken note of India's customs notificat ion No.  11/2014, 
and studied with interest the questions from the European Union , Japan, Korea,  and the United 
States to India in that regard.  From a systemic point of view , her delegation look ed forward to 
examining India's written response s to these ques tions.  
1.25.   The representative of Australia  stated that his delegation would like to join those Members 
that ha d spoken on this issue and raised systemic concern  in relation both to any action that m ight 
see tariffs being applied above bound rates, and to the c lassification issues with regard  to the 
products mentioned by previous  speakers. Australia l ooked forward to hearing a response from 
India to the concerns raised.  
1.26.   The representative of India thanked the delegations of Japan, the United States , the 
European  Union , Korea, Canada, Norway,  and Australia,  for their interest in India's 
ITA commitments. His delegation was also thankful to all those who ha d brought some specific 
matters to their notice. He said that it wa s important to state that India t ook its 
WTO commitments very seriously. His delegation ha d carefully noted all the statements made and 
issues raised at the meeting.  India ha d also taken due cognizance of the written questions 
circulated by the delegations of the European Union , Japan,  the United St ates, and Korea,  in 
WTO document  G/IT/W/42. These written questions ha d been forwarded to the capital for 
consideration. As the matter was very technical in nature, it was currently being analysed  in the 
concerned Ministri es. 
1.27.   The Chairman  thanked those delegations that had spoke n on this sub-agenda item  and 
suggest ed that the Committee t ake note of the statements made.  
1.28.   It was so agreed . 
2  REVIEW OF PRODUCT COVERAGE  
2.1.  The Chairman  recalled that , since the Committee meeting of 15  May 2012, and at the 
request  of some delegations, "review of product coverage" ha d been reinstated as a regular 
agenda item on the Committee 's agenda . It offered an opportunity for the Committee to receive 
reports and updates from those participants engaged in consultations with regard to  the review of 
product coverage pursuant to paragraph  3 of the Annex to the ITA.  
2.2.  The representative of Japan  stated that his delegation was c hairing the ITA Expansion Group 
when it concluded its negotiations in Nairobi, and would like to report on this to  the members of 
the Committee. S ince the last C ommittee meeting , in October  2015, the group h ad intensi fied its 
negotiation s on staging and , after many rounds  of negotiations , the group had finally agreed on 
the Ministerial Declaration  (WT/MIN(15)/25) on 16 December  2016, in Nairobi.  Based on the 
Ministerial Declaration and the Ministerial Statement  (WT/MIN(15)/26) , Japan would like to 
encourage other Member s to join the ITA Expansion  Agreement . 
2.3.  The representative of Canada  thanked Japan for the update on th e successful conclusion of 
the negotiations on the ITA Expansion at MC10 in Nairobi , which w as certainly quite an 
accomplishment.  He said that , shortly after the conclusion of those negotiations , Canada had 
succeeded Japan as Chair of the ITA Expansion Group. In this capacity, he wished  to provide a 
brief update with regard to implementation and the potential for new participants.  He said that , 
since Nairobi, participants ha d focused on implementing the Ministerial Declaration on 
ITA Expansion , found in WT/ MIN(15)/25 , according to each Participant's respective domestic 
procedural requirements.  
2.4.  He highlight ed two elements to implementation : (1) participants agreed to implement their 
respective tariff commitments by 1 July 2016; and (2) participants agreed to modify their 
respective schedule of concessions to the GATT  1994 in accordance with the Decision of 
26 March  1980 on Procedures for Modification and Rectification of Schedules of Tariff Concessions , 
or the so -called 1980  Procedures.  G/IT/M/64  
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.5.  He reported that eight participants to the ITA  Expansion Agreement had already submitted 
their modification in this regard , and took this to be  a clear sign that the group was well on its way 
towards achieving a successful implementation of the Ministerial Declaration  on ITA  Expansion . 
2.6.  On the potential for new participants to the ITA Expansion Agreement , he strongly 
encourage d others to consider participation in this important agreement. He said that p aragraph  9 
of the ITA Expansion Agreement very clearly stated that the Declarat ion was open for acceptance 
to all WTO  Members.  According to him, t he benefits of joining the ITA Expansion Agreement would 
range from access to global value chains, and transfer to technology, to providing SMEs with the 
technology they would need to opera te their businesses at lower cost.  
2.7.  He told the Committee that a  few Members ha d already informally indicated that they 
intend ed to join the ITA Expansion Agreement and would very soon take the necessary formal 
steps  in order to do so . In addition, several other Members  had requested more information for  the 
purposes of  their own internal consideration of the ITA Expansion Agreement . 
2.8.  The current participants to the ITA  Expansion Agreement therefore stood ready to provide 
more information to any Member that w ould like to know more for the purposes of their own 
internal deliberations . Additionally,  the Secretariat stood ready to provide  technical assistance t o 
any interested Members.  
2.9.  He hoped that at the next meeting of th e Committee Members would hear further report s on 
the successful implementation  of and grow ing participation in this significant initiative.  
2.10.   The representative of the European Union  thank ed Japan and Canada  for their c hairmanship 
of the group. He recalled the European Union's  role of Chair for the group during the phase of 
negotiations on product coverage of the ITA Expansion Agreement . He stated that the conclusion 
of the ITA  Expansion negotiations was a success for Nairobi , and for the multilateral system  as a 
whole . It was also the most  succe ssful and important result to tariff negotiations since a very long 
while.  
2.11.   He further stated that t here was no obligation for Members of th is Committee to join the  
ITA Expansion  Agreement , but that they would basically be confronted with two  choices : the first 
would be to be a free rider ; the second would be to join the ITA Expansion  Agreement . 
2.12.   In his view, a number of countries, perhaps smaller Members or those with a significant 
level of  imports, were thinking  that they felt actually quite comfortable bei ng a free rider, because 
the tariff elimination w ould happen anyway and they would benefit in whatever way, whether they 
took part or not . 
2.13.   He said that t he other choice was to join the ITA Expansion  Agreement . In sharing the 
European Union 's experience wit h Members , he highlighted their experience in terms of the 
economic analysis of the benefits of the ITA Expansion Agreement . 
2.14.   In the first in stance, he looked at  the European Union 's eliminat ion of tariffs by itself. He 
said that , as a result of that , the EU would have more imports. At the same time, others were also 
eliminating their tariffs , which w ould l ead to more exports  from the EU . In short , the ITA was not a 
mercantilist zero sum game.  
2.15.   He further said that  the European Union  had analy sed this more de eply, through economic 
modelling, and looked at what in fact ha d happened with the first ITA . They saw that the effects, 
the elimination of duties itself, had brought a number of benefits to the m, especially because  
close to 90% of the goods on the ITA Ex pansion Agreement list were inputs to production, and 
notably  parts and machine s used for the manufacture of semi -conductors . All these products 
played a role in production itself. And by eliminating the duties on all these goods, on all these 
inputs, the industry had become  more competitive. So in this way  the European Union  saw, 
through  its modelling , a second  wave of exports based on gains in competitiveness to EU industry. 
He noted that the effect was much bigger , and that it also play ed a role in attra cting investment. 
Countries would only attract investment if the investors ha d the certainty of knowing that they 
could import the parts that they  would need and that , this commitment being bound,  they c ould 
also do so in the future . G/IT/M/64  
 
- 6 - 
 
  2.16.   He emphasized  that his  fear was that those who remained  outside the ITA or the 
ITA Expansion would essentially not attract investment. And that  was in fact the whole logic of the 
original ITA, which was that the opening up to imports of the best and the cheapest IT  hardware 
had positive spin -off effects for the whole economy.  
2.17.   He argued that if one share d this thinking one  should join the ITA. And if one share d the 
idea of the importance of  joining the ITA then it was only logical also to make the second  step and 
to become also a part of the ITA Expansion Agreement instead of staying with an outdated 
coverage that d id not cover a modern ITA.  
2.18.   He further emphasized  that all these arguments , which  he had wished  to share with other 
delegations , were merely a report of what they had found in the study . He believed that what had 
occurred in the context of  the E U economy  could also take place  in other economies, resulting in 
very similar benefits.  
2.19.   In agreeing with Japan and Canada, he encourage d all ITA Participants to become 
participants  to the ITA  Expansion Agreement . 
2.20.   The representative of  the Republic of Moldova  express ed her country's gratitude to Japan, 
Canada, and the European Union,  for their chairmanship in conducting the negotiation process for 
the conclusion of the ITA Expansion Agreement in Nairobi . She also thanked all ITA  Expansion 
participants and the Secretariat for the successful conclusion of the negotiations in Nairobi.  
2.21.   She stated that her Government wished to join the ITA Expansion Agreement 
(WT/MIN(15)/25 ), and  request ed the Secretariat to provide the necessary assistance in order to 
enable Moldova to initiate all the official procedures to join the ITA  Expansion  Agreement . 
2.22.   The representative of Switzerland  echoed the statement made by the European Union, 
praising the ben efits of the ITA  Expansion  Agreement . He thank ed Moldova for the announcement  
of their intention to join the new agreement. He encourage d all other ITA  Participants to consider 
joining th e ITA  Expansion Agreement . He further  hoped that the product coverage  for both ITA 
and ITA  Expansion would be expanded again in the future , and perhaps even more swiftly  than the 
last time.  
2.23.   The representative of Norway  joined others in encouraging Members who ha d not yet done 
so to join the ITA Expansion Agreement and there by reap all the benefits that the agreement ha d 
to offer.  She referred to the EU argument on some of the benefits that the ITA  Expansion 
Agreement could bring to participants and was pleased to hear Moldova's interest in joining the 
ITA Expansion Agreement . 
2.24.   The representative of Costa Rica  stated that his country's experience had been very 
positive . It had contributed in an important way to Costa Rican diversification and sophistication of 
production of exports , as well as the integration of an important pa rt of its economy in global value 
chains, with regard both to  information services and advance d manufactured goods.  He believe d 
that the ITA Expansion Agreement would offer substantive benefits that would go beyond the 
commercial sphere , attract investment , and democratize access to new technologies in SMEs ; it 
would also strengthen education , which would of course benefit consumers  in both developed and 
developing countries.  
2.25.   He wished  to take this opportunity to join the appeal made by other s, that as many  
Members as possible join th e ITA  Expansion Agreement . 
2.26.   The Chairman  thanked delegations that had made reports and interventions, suggest ed the 
Committee take note of all the statements made , and agree d to revert to this matter as 
appropriate at its next me eting. 
2.27.   The Committee took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting . G/IT/M/64  
 
- 7 - 
 
  3  NON-TARIFF MEASURES WORK  PROGRAMME  
3.1.  The Chairman  recall ed that, at the Committee meeting of 14  October  2013, agreement was 
reached on the Swiss proposa l to organize an industry -driven workshop dedicated to NTBs 
affecting trade in ICT  products. The workshop took place on 7  May 2015, and the main issues 
raised at the workshop by industry representatives were: transparency ; standards for recognition 
of test  results ; e-labelling ; and energy efficiency. A factual report by the then ITA  Chair had been  
circulated in document  G/IT/28.  
3.2.  Based on the discussions held at the meeting  of 14  October  2015, the Committee had asked 
the Chair to continue the consultations o n the follow -up to the NTB  workshop.  
3.3.  He recalled that he had requested those delegations interested in this topic to give more 
thought as to how they would like to see the Committee proceed in its follow -up work on NTBs, 
and on  if and  how the Committee sho uld address the issues raised in the NTB  workshop, including  
transparency, standards for  recognition of test results, e -labelling, and energy efficiency.  
3.4.  The representative of the European Union  reiterated the EU's interest  in pursuing work under 
the NTM  Work Programme . He joined the Chair in recalling the clear calls that were made at the 
workshop a year ago to try to remove NTBs in th e global ICT industry . He said that t he workshop  
had identified certain unnecessary costs , in particular in the area of con formity assessment.  The 
lack of transparency on requirements was also highlighted . The EU believe d that the Committee 
should be looking for solutions to the problems outlined by the industry.  He also mention ed that , 
in the Nairobi ITA  Expansion Agreement , there was a mandate to intensify consultations 
concerning non -tariff barriers in the IT  sector. He looked to the incoming Committee Chair to hold 
consultations and to work with Members in identifying relevant items and ways forward.  
3.5.  He further added that the EU  ICT industry was continuing its thinking process in this area 
together with other industry federations as well as in consultations with the European Commission . 
3.6.  He emphasized that reducing NTBs was important not just for industry but also consumers 
and the global trading system as a whole. The European Union  looked forward to doing further 
work in this area.  
3.7.  The representative of Switzerland  stated that his country had been a continuous and strong 
supporter of the Work Programme  on NTBs, and would cer tainly support the incoming Committee 
Chair in a continuation of  consultations on the Work Programme.  He believe d that the membership 
was reaching an interesting juncture with regard to NTBs . He observ ed that , with regard to the 
successful conclusion of th e ITA Expansion negotiations in Nairobi , and in addition to reaping the 
rewards from the hard work that went into the tariffs aspect of those negotiations, attention 
should now be given  to issues that ha d previously received less attention , such as NTBs. In 
addition, he drew the attention of Participants to the TBT C ommittee 's recent thematic session , 
held on 8 March.  He pointed out that , at that session, several Members had presented approaches 
to reduce the burden of conformity assessment procedures  and, inter alia , a reference was made 
to approaches developed in some recently agreed FTAs.  He said that it  had become clear that the 
IT sector benefitted from the attention of Members.  He noted that , at the same session, several 
Members had referred to interna tional schemes for the acceptance of test results and certificates 
in the area of electrical and electronic products.  A summary of proceedings from the thematic 
session was available in document  G/TBT/GEN/190 for interested Members to consult.  He further 
noted that a nother area that had been identified by Members was efforts to increase transparency . 
He echoed what was mentioned by the European Union  with regard to the workshop that was held, 
namely a discussion  to establish a repository of the main relevan t legislation applicable to 
IT products, and that such a repository could potentially be managed by the WTO  Secretariat.  He 
believe d that such a repository would be both valuable  in itself and would also provide a dded 
value. In addition, it would only requ ire limited resources since it could build upon existing 
WTO schemes.  He invited Members to take a fresh look at current developments, such as the 
results gleaned from the workshop, and its recent discussions and achievements by Members 
inside and outside the WTO . He looked forward to talk ing to the new Committee Chair and other 
interested Members with regard to possible outcomes in this field.  G/IT/M/64  
 
- 8 - 
 
  3.8.  The representative of the United States  thank ed the Chair for his report on 
NTB consultations . She believe d that it was important that market access issues discuss ed in this 
Committee remained relevant to and reflect ed the interest s of global industry and the challenges 
facing ICT  companies in the global supply chain.  The NTB workshop held last May brought together 
industry experts and highlighted various emerging NTB issues, one of which was  e-labelling . 
3.9.  On e-labelling, she said that the United States  was encouraged that regulators in several 
ITA Member countries ha d already embraced or were actively pursuing e -labell ing options for 
ICT devices, including  Australia, Canada, China, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, South Africa, and the 
United States.  She believe d that e -labelling was a good candidate for further work in th e 
Committee . She encourage d other ITA  Members to cons ider flexible labelling methods that would 
reduce the burden for ICT  companies to comply with conformity labelling requirements.  She 
further stated that  they stood ready to work with the Chair and other Members in exploring  future 
work in this area . 
3.10.   The representative  of Japan  emphasized that his country was also interest ed in NTB  issues . 
The Japanese  industry had also participated in last year's workshop . He felt that it was important 
to hear the global ICT industry's view. On the question of how  to move f orward , he felt it was 
important to think about the situation realistically . Japan would be h appy to talk with the new 
Committee Chair and interested Members on how best to move forward.  
3.11.   The representative of  the Republic of Korea  shared  the opinion of the  European Union , 
Japan, Switzerland, and the United States . He recogniz ed that NTBs ha d a huge negative effect on 
trade in ICT products. At the NTB  workshop last May, the Committee had heard the voice of the 
ICT industry calling for the issue of NTBs to be addressed with a view to increasing  trade 
liberalization in the ICT  sector.  Korea believe d that the NTB  agenda , including transparency, 
e-labelling,  and conformity assessment , had value and should be discussed in the ITA  Committee. 
Korea look ed forward to  working closely with other delegations with a view to making further 
progress in  the NTB area of the ICT  sector.  
3.12.   The representative of Singapore  stated that her country continue d to be interested in 
advancing work on NTBs in the Committee. She said that , in addition to issues such as facilitating 
the recognition and acceptance of conformity assessment results and transparency, which they 
continue d to be very much interested in , they also s aw value in looking into recent trends, such as 
e-labelling. She l ooked forward to working with interested participants as well as  the incoming 
Chair to advance NTB  discussions in this Committee.  
3.13.   The representative of India thanked the Chair for his report on consultations with interested 
delegations in this matter.  He recalled India's  statement from  the previous meeting , held on 
14 October  2015, and request ed that the statement be kept on the record of this meeting as well , 
as captured at paragraph  3.13 of the minutes of that previous meeting , circulated in 
document  G/IT/M /63. 
3.14.   In addition, he raised questions with regard to certain substantive as well as systemic 
issues , namely : (i)  the scope of product coverage if Participants move d ahead on NT B work in th e 
Committee ; this question was important bearing in mind the fact t hat some Participants, but not 
all, ha d recently agreed to expand the product list with regard to  tariff elimination ; and (ii) how 
the work on NT Bs in this Committee would affect or be influenced by discussion in 
NAMA  negotiations where NTBs were also an e lement up for discussion. It was important to avoid 
unnecessary duplication. It w ould also be important to keep in mind the horizontal linkages of 
NAMA with other areas of WTO  negotiation.  
3.15.   He request ed all Participants to ponder on these questions before m oving ahead. He further 
stated that his delegation also believe d, particularly in light of the NAMA  informal meeting held last 
week, on 11  April 2016, that India needed first to wait and see how negotiations on NAMA took 
shape.  
3.16.   The representative of Norway  thanked the Chair for his report on NTB consultations  and 
reaffirmed Norway's commitment to the Work Programme on N TBs. She recalled the historic deal  
of the ITA  Expansion reached in Nairobi  and called up on Participants to build on these efforts and 
positive outcome by identifying areas of future work for th e Committee, thereby keeping this G/IT/M/64  
 
- 9 - 
 
  Organization relevant and responsive to the needs of consumers and industry.  She said that 
Norway st ood ready to explore any suggestions as to how to further the work o n NTBs, including 
those topics mentioned today.  
3.17.   The representative of Canada  also thank ed the Chair for his report on the workshop held 
last year.  He said that Canada would support  continued discussion on possible advancements in 
this area on the basis of the recommendations in the Chair's report.  His country's approach to 
NTBs in terms of increased transparency and acceptance of test results was very much in line with 
the recommendations.  On the repository or database, as earlier highlighted by Switzerland , his 
delegation would be interested in hearing more before taking a firm position.  And on e -labelling, 
Canada certainly recognize d the flexibility  that e -labelling provide d for manufacturers, as it 
permit ted them to comply with local regulations without t he added cost of printing physical labels 
for each market. He looked forward to discussion in that area as well.  
3.18.   The representative of Egypt  wished  to associate his delegation with India.  He stated that 
Egypt always believe d that removing all NTBs affectin g the exports of developing  countries was 
very important for them. Therefore, Egypt, together with the African Group, was one of the 
proponents of a proposal regarding the establishment of a horizontal mechanism to remove all 
NTBs under the NAMA  negotiatio ns. He believe d that discussion of  this item in the Committee 
would face three  main issues . The first would be t he problem of product coverage , as now there 
were both ITA and ITA  Expansion . Thus, it was important to see how this Committee could discuss 
NTBs with regard to th e coverage proble m. The second problem would be the overlap between  the 
work of this Committee  and that under NAMA  , as the NTBs had also been discuss ed under NAMA  
and, although Members had not reach ed any agreement  under NAMA , proposals  were there. Egypt 
believe d that it w ould also affect th e NTB  discussions under this Committee.  Finally, Egypt felt that 
these questions needed to be answered, and that discussion in this Committee should lead to an 
increase in exports from develop ing countries. The d iscussions in this Committee on NTBs could 
not continu e if these questions were not answered.  
3.19.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  recognize d that NTBs impose d serious impediments 
to trade  and they stood ready to engage . Her delegation would therefore work closely with the 
incoming Chair on further consultations on how to address NTB  issues in the trade in IT  products.  
She also realize d that some Members may face difficulties in carrying out work in the area and 
they may have restraints in the ir resources.  Therefore, she was of the view that the so -called 
easier issues should be tackle d first. She said that Hong Kong, China,  would support the 
establishment of a "web portal" under the transparency proposal.  
3.20.   The representative of China  shared some preliminary thoughts on NTB  issues.  She thought 
that NTB s were quite an important area within the IT sector . However, China agree d with India 
and Egypt that discussion of NTBs should be pursued in a manner  consistent with the discussion of 
NTB issues in NAMA , as at the previous week's NAMA  meeting there was still no consensus on how 
to proceed with regard to  NTBs. And, as a participant both to the ITA and ITA  Expansion , for the 
moment greater focus should be given to the implementation of ITA Expansion, and to 
encouraging new participants to join the ITA Expansion Agreement . 
3.21.   The Chairman thanked delegations that had made interventions. He said that he had heard 
several pertinent suggestions as to areas where the Committee might want to think further with 
regard to  NTBs.  
3.22.   He said that he had also heard several pertinent questions or challenges with regard to the 
way in which the Committee might approach that work.  
3.23.   He stated that t here were two clear areas that ha d been discussed. Several delegations ha d 
referenced the political link to other negotiations . There was also the question of what technically 
might be done.  He suggested that the incoming Chair explore these two  areas  in discussion  with 
all Participants.  
3.24.   He also encourage d those delegations interested  in doing so  to continue their own bilateral 
discussions. That  was what the Organization was for, namely  an attempt to work out what might 
be feasible, and to talk also to those who d isagree d with you, and on that basis to  see how the 
Committee could move its work  forward.  G/IT/M/64  
 
- 10 - 
 
  3.25.   He proposed  that the Committee take note of the statements made, and also proposed that 
the incoming Chair continue his or her consultations on this matter and revert to it at the next 
meeting.  
3.26.   It was so agreed . 
4  EMC/EMI PILOT PROJEC T – DRAFT LIST OF TYPES OF  CONFORMITY ASSESSMEN T 
PROCEDURES FOR EMC/E MI USED BY ITA  PARTICIPANTS (G/IT/W /17/REV.1 4) 
4.1.  The Chairman  turned to the draft list of types of conformity assessment procedures for 
EMC/EMI used by ITA  Participants , and stated that the relev ant information for this agenda item 
was included in document  G/IT/W/17/Rev.14.  
4.2.  He recalled that one of the outcomes of the NTM  Work Programme mentioned earlier was the 
completion of a pilot project that had led to the adoption of the "Guidelines for Elect romagnetic 
Compatibility (EMC) and Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) Conformity Assessment Procedures" 
on an ad referendum  basis. Upon adoption of these "Guidelines", the Secretariat, based on the 
survey responses submitted by and notifications received f rom Participants, had prepared a note 
on the "Draft List of Types of Conformity Assessment Procedures for EMC/EMI used by 
ITA Participants" ( document  G/IT/W/17).  
4.3.  He stated that, d uring subsequent proceedings of th is Committee, Participants indicated that 
they had found the information contained therein very useful and wished to have it completed. To 
date, of the 53  ITA Participants, 28  had provided such information. Therefore , not including those 
most recently joined, there were still 22  Participants who ha d neither submitted a survey response 
nor a notification regarding the type s of assessment procedures used by their authorities for 
EMC/EMI.  He invited participants to share their comments  and updates on the draft list, circulated 
again as document  G/IT/W/ 17/Rev.14.  
4.4.  Since this information ha d increased transparency on the types of conformity assessment 
procedures used by ITA  participants, and facilitated international trade in this important sector, he 
encourage d those 22  delegations that had not yet done s o to provide this information to the 
Secretariat as soon as possible.  And importantly, should any delegation have any query, they 
should contact the Secretariat for detailed information or assistance.  In parallel, the Secretariat 
should continue to contact  those delegations, in particular those that had joined more recently, 
with a view to providing technical assistance as necessary to facilitate the preparation of survey 
responses.  
4.5.  Finally, he  asked Participants again to reflect further on what steps, if a ny, they would be 
prepared to consider with a view to maximizing the usefulness of the information available on 
conformity assessment procedures.  
4.6.  The Committee took note of the Chair's  statement . 
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, AND G/IT/ W/40/ADD.1 -G/IT/W/40/ADD.12 AND  G/IT/W/40/SUPPL.1)  
5.1.  The Chairman move d on to  the agenda item  on divergences in classifying information 
technology products , and indicated  that, under this item, there were two sub -items: 
(i) implementation of the Decision (G/IT/27); and (ii) the Note by the Secretariat on this issue 
(G/IT/W/40).  
5.1  Implementation of the Decision (G/IT/27)  
5.2.  He recall ed that on 20  July 2013 the Decision (G/IT/27)  regarding the endorsement of 
List IA items of document  G/IT/W/6/Rev.3, or the so -called 18  items (as reproduced in 
document  G/IT/W/34), had been approved. As required by the Decision, each Participant must 
reflect the agreed classifications in a WTO  Sched ule of concessions, as appropriate, and following 
the procedures set forth in the 1980  Decision on Procedures for Modification and Rectification of 
Schedules of Tariff Concessions (BISD 27S/25). Participants would then submit the relevant G/IT/M/64  
 
- 11 - 
 
  documentation in conjunction with such modification no later than 30 April 2014, as specified in 
the Decision. The WTO  Secretariat would provide technical assistance in making such modification s 
to developing cou ntry participants , upon request.  
5.3.  He said that, as mentioned a t the Committee's previous meeting, the Secretariat ha d been 
approached with requests for technical assistance by five  ITA participants, namely: Guatemala; 
Philippines; Japan; El Salvador; and Macao, China. O f these, four were developing country 
participan ts. The t echnical work in the Secretariat with regard to these requests was ongoing. He 
also noted that th is technical work was time-consuming and thus could be under taken only on a 
gradual basis. In the previous year, the Secretariat had prepared a docume nt of rectification and 
modification at the request of the delegation of Macao, China. The Secretariat ha d also helped the 
Philippines in the preparation of a rectification and modification document concerning its 
endorsement of 6 of the 18  items ( included  in document  G/MA/TAR/RS/421).  
5.4.  He also noted that, in anticipation of additional requests, the Secretariat ha d undertaken a 
preliminary analysis of the remaining developing country participants. He urged those developing 
country participants to contact the  Secretariat if they require d any technical assistance.  
5.5.  The Commit tee took note of the Chair's  statement.  
5.2  Note by the Secretariat: Divergence of Classification: Possible HS2007  Classification 
for the Remaining 37  "Attachment  B" Items (G/IT/W/40)  
5.6.  The Chairm an highlighted  to Participants that, at its meeting of 31  October  2014, the 
Committee had agreed that: "Participants are expected to submit a communication to the 
Secretariat no later than 30  June 2015, indicating: (a)  the list that, in the participant's o pinion, 
should be classified differently from the HS2007  codes listed in column  8 of the Annex to this 
document; and (b)  the relevant HS2007  subheading(s) that, in the participant's opinion, are 
relevant for the classification of the item in question." "Th e 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."  
5.7.  He noted that , by 18  April 2016, the Secretariat ha d received comments from 
12 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 (G/IT/W/40/Add.9); India (G/IT/W/40/Add.10); Macao, 
China (G/IT/W/40/Add.11); and El Salvador (G/IT/W/40/Add.12).  
5.8.  He stated that, b ased on the 12 submissions received, it appear ed that there was no 
objection to the proposed HS2007  classification of 15  ITA items, and that these correspond ed to 
ITA item numbers: 129; 130; 133; 135; 138; 139; 143; 144; 150; 153 ; 154; 155; 157; 169; and 
191. And i t was to be noted that most of these items  relate d to HS2007  heading  8486 ( which was 
machines and apparatus for the manufacture of semiconductor boules or wafers) and one  item 
related to subheadings within HS2007  heading 8471 ( which was automatic data processing 
machines and units thereof).  
5.9.  He fur ther stated that, o n 16 October 2015, he sent a fax to all ITA  Participants and 
encouraged them to write to the Secretariat by 29  January  2016, in case they had any objection to 
the classification of th ose 15  "Attachment  B" items. He said that, a s stated i n his fax of 
16 October  2015, he intended to revert back to this issue at the first  meeting  of the 
ITA Committee in 2016 , with a view to approving the classification of th ose 15  "Attachment  B" 
items where no objection ha d been expressed.  
5.10.   He reported that by that deadline there had been no objection expressed  and, therefore, 
that he would propose that the Committee approve the classification of the additional 
15 "Attachment  B" items.  
5.11.   He informed the Committee that a draft Decision  had been prepared and  circulated in 
document  G/IT/W/43 . He underst ood that Participants might not h ave had  a chance full y to review G/IT/M/64  
 
- 12 - 
 
  it. For this reason , he wished  to open the floor for any questions  with a view to understanding 
whether or not there would be any objection s to the agr eement on the classification of those 
15 items. This did not appear to be the case. He then  asked participants for comments and 
suggestions with regard to the text of the draft Decision , and as to  whether or not they would 
need more time to review it. He realize d that delegations had received less than 24  hours in which  
to review the document, although t he wording was very similar to that of the previous decision on 
this topic.  
5.12.   The representative of Guatemala  stated that , although her delegation had no objection to 
the approval, she did not have permission to agree with it at once  and would need some time in 
order to send the text  to capital for review.  
5.13.   The representative of El Salvador  wished  to associate her delegation with the comment 
made by Guatemala. S he noted that they likewise had no  objection to the classifications but 
nevertheless required the  approval to come from capital with regard to the proposed decision and 
the specific detail concerning the time -frame for incorporating these changes into the schedules, 
taking into account the experience of implementing the previous decision.  
5.14.   The Chairman  apologized for the late circulation of the draft Decision and agreed to give 
more time to delegations so as to allow them to obtain the appropriate permission  from capital. He 
propose d that the Committee agree to the Decision on an ad referendum  basis, and that 
delegations would have ten working days in which to make comments  and/or to indicate concerns, 
if any.  
5.15.   It was so agreed . 
5.16.   He further stated that, to that  effect, a new G/IT  document w ould be issued in ten working 
days, assuming that all delegations were in agreement . And with this approval, the total approved 
"Attachment  B" items would then be 33  items, and that  include d the 18  items contained in 
document  G/IT/W/6/Rev.3, as reproduced in document  G/IT/W/30 , and approved on 20  July 2013. 
He noted that  approval of 33 out of a total of 55 "Attachment  B" items was a big achievement for 
the Committee . He congratulate d delegations on this important achievement.  
5.17.   He said that , as for the remaining items, the Committee was extremely close to finalizing 
the HS2007  classification of five  ITA items, namely : items 122; 137; 142; 168; and 194. He 
suggest ed that the Committee try to agree on the classification of these fiv e items at its next 
meeting. He noted that he would ask his successor to continue to check with Participants as to any 
questions or concerns they may have with regard to these five items . He encourage d delegations 
to contact  the Secretariat and other interested Members as soon as possible.  
5.18.   He a lso encourage d delegations to continue working  to address  the remaining 
17 outstanding items  so that the Committee could revert to a discussion of these items  at the next 
meeting.  
5.19.   The Committee  so agreed . 
6  ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON  
6.1.  On the e lection of chairperson , the Chairman  stated that , since the CTG had still not agreed  
on a slate of names for CTG  subsidiary bodies , it was not possible to give the name of a new Chair 
to Participants  for approval by acclamation . He proposed to inform the Committee of the proposed 
new Chair for approval by writing in order to avoid a further meeting , if possible , and in light of the 
fact that t he CTG   was handling this at a political level.1 
6.2.  It was so agreed . 
6.3.  As this was his last ITA  Comm ittee meeting in his current role, t he Chairman thank ed all 
delegations f or their support , friendship, and cooperation over the past year. He also t hanked the 
                                                
1 On 13  May 2016, Ms  Zsofia TVARUSKO (Hungary) was con firmed as  the new Chair of the Committee 
of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in Information Technology Products.  G/IT/M/64  
 
- 13 - 
 
  Secretariat  for their support and noted  that t he Secretariat had played an enormous role in 
ensur ing that th e Committee could meet the needs of all its Members, including patiently 
counselling him in his role as Chair . 
7  OTHER BUSINESS  
7.1  Date of next meeting  
7.1.  The Chairman  stated that , although the next ITA  meeting would normally take place in the 
autumn, t here m ight be value in reconvening sooner , and he propose d that the exact date of the 
next Committee meeting be decided  by his successor in consultation with delegations.  
7.2.  It was so agreed . 
__________