RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/IT/M/40 
15 April 2005 
 (05-1562) 
Committee of Participants on the Expansion of 
Trade in Information Technology Products  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 19 OCTOBER 2004 
Chairman: Mr. F. Seppey (Canada)  
Agenda of the Meeting            P a g e  
 1.
 Divergences in Classifying Information Technology Products (G/IT/W/6/Rev.2, 
G/IT/14/Rev.1/Add.1, and G/IT/W/11) ...............................................................................1  
2. Review of the Status of Implementation of the Ministerial Declaration on Trade in Information Technology Products  (G/IT/1/Rev.32 and Corr.1).......................................4
 
             - Request by the United States to Raise an Implementation/Classification  
               Matter Concerning Chinese Taipei  
3. EMC/EMI Pilo t Project........................................................................................................5  
             - Draft Guidelines for EMC/EMI Conformity Assessment Procedures  
               (G/IT/W/12)  
4. Non-tariff Measures Work Program me (G/IT/SPEC/Q4/19/Rev.2 and 
G/IT/SPEC/Q2/11/Rev.1) .....................................................................................................9  
5. IT Symposium ................................................................................................................... ....9 
6. New Participants ............................................................................................................... ..11 
7. Draft Annual Report of the Committee (2004) (G/IT/W/13) ..........................................11  
8. Other Bu siness................................................................................................................. ....12  
  
Introduction 
 
 The Chairman  stated that the proposed agenda for this meeting was circulated in 
WTO/AIR/2399 on 6 October 2004.  With reference to  the agenda, he noted that one addition, a 
corrigendum to document G/IT/1/Rev.3 2 had been issued in the English language version only, and that 
this should be considered along with the document.  He furthermore asked if there were any matters to 
be raised under "Other Business".  He stated the re view of product coverage a nd the date of the next 
meeting of the Committee would be taken up under  "Other Business".  Upon the request of one 
delegation, item 2.D. "Divergences in Classify ing Information Technolog y Products" was taken up 
first, before item 2.A., then the rest of the age nda proceeded accordingly.  The agenda was adopted  
with these additions and modification of order.  1. Divergences in Classifying Information Technology Products (G/IT/W/6/Rev.2, 
G/IT/14/Rev.1/Add.1, and G/IT/W/11) 
1.1 The Chairman
 first provided an overview of  the status of the work in this area.  The Committee 
had before it for some time the updated overview of  the situation as shown in document G/IT/W/6/Rev.2, 
which was based on the last report of the custom s experts in document G/IT/14/Rev.1/Add.1.  The 
Committee had taken a step-by-step approach with respect to the various lists contained in that document.  In respect of List III
, this item had been sent to the WCO for their classification opinion.  He informed the 
Committee that the WCO had placed this matter on its agenda at the October session of the WCO G/IT/M/40 
Page 2  
 
Harmonized System Committee (HSC), but no discussions were held as the industry representative from the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) coul d not attend and demonstrate the product, thus the 
HSC did not engage in any discussion on the item at th at meeting.  The matter would be reverted to at 
their next meeting, scheduled in early 2005.    
1.2 With respect to Lists I (A) and I (B)
, he noted at the last meeting of the Committee there was 
agreement to try to work towards endorsement of th e classification opinions contained therein by the 
customs experts.  He noted that this discussion was deferred from the last meeting to this meeting, as there were still a few delegations that were not in a po sition to take up the matter at that time.  Since the 
last meeting he informed the Committee, for transpar ency, that he had met with those delegations that 
indicated some concern in order to  make progress on the matter.  Thus, he believed progress had been 
made and the Committee would revert to these lists after his overview. 
 1.3 With respect to List V
, he noted that there was a proposal at the last meeting to have the 
Secretariat compile a document with the issues relati ng to the items in List V in one place.  Thus, the 
Secretariat had prepared document G/IT/W/11 containing this information.  It was foreseen that this 
would aid the Committee’s first discussion on List V.  Finally, with respect to the other lists, Lists II and 
IV, there had not been any concrete discussions, and thus they remained outstanding.  He noted that List 
IV in particular, was related to pr ocedures outside the WTO, and he di dn't believe the Committee was in a 
position to take action, but rather it awaited inform ation from the parties concerned on any developments. 
 
1.4 The Chairman  proposed that the Committee first begi n the discussions on Lists I (A) and (B)  and 
made the following points before commencing – first, he noted that the Committee was trying to make progress on this important issue that has been before it for some time.  He noted that the Committee was at the beginning, not the end of a process. He hoped that the work accomplished so far would be 'captured' and that the Committee could confirm endorsement of the classification options identified by 
customs experts.  Such an endorsement would not prejudge, in any way, the discussions the Committee 
may have in the future regarding the implementation of the result of the work on classification.  Clearly that would involve another discussion.    1.5 He hoped the Committee could concentrate today purely on the technical work done by customs experts on Lists I (A) and (B).  From the title of these lists, he noted that these were products where the 
group of customs experts has come to agreement on the classifications.  List I (A) had only one 
classification option, whereas List I (B) had agre ement on two or more classification options.  He 
understood that the two lists pose some  inherent differences, and therefor e proposed to just take up List I
 
(A).  Based on the consultations he had, it appeared that two delegations still needed time to consider List 
I (A), so he proposed that the Committee endorse the classifications in List I (A) on an ad referendum  
basis.   
 1.6 Hearing no objections, the Chairman
 stated that the classificati on opinions put forth by the 
customs experts in List I (A)  were endorsed on an ad referendum  basis .  He furthermore added that there 
was an expectation that the two delegations referred to as needing more time to examine the matter,  
would inform the Committee accordingly. 
 
1.7 Turning to List I (B) , the Chairman noted from his consultations that there were still a few 
delegations that needed further cl arification on some of the items c ontained in this List.  Thus, he 
proposed that consultations continue on this and th at the Committee revert to the issue at the next 
meeting.  Hearing no objections, it was therefore agreed .  
 
1.8. Having discussed Lists I (A) and (B), the Chairman  turned to List V .  He reminded the 
Committee that there was a document prepared for this meeting by the Secretariat in order to help discussions on this matter.  Thus, delegations would likely want to focus on document G/IT/W/11.  As shown by this document, List V were items that th e customs experts could not make any more progress 
on at the technical level, as the issues were considered more of a policy issue or interpretation of the  G/IT/M/40
 Page 3 
 
 
agreement, which went beyond their expertise.  Thus , these items were referred to this formal Committee 
for action.    1.9 The delegate of the Philippines
 asked for a clarification becaus e the document prepared by the 
Secretariat indicated that those items in "bold" were still outstanding, while thos e that were not "bolded", 
were basically agreed.  In a likely scenario where there could be agreement on those bolded HS numbers,  
she asked if this list would become like a List I (A) or List I (B).  1.10 The Secretariat
 responded and explained that a numb er of these items had definitive 
classifications and understood that if  everything could be agreed that was in "bold", in addition to the 
"unbolded" ones, it woul d be like List I (B). 
 1.11 The Chairman
 noted that several delegations might still need to consult with their capitals on this 
issue.  However, in order to make progress on these items, he suggested that it would be important in a subsequent meeting for capitals to reflect on whether they had views on specific items on that list, so a 
discussion could commence.  He thought that more information and exchange was needed before going 
back to the customs experts if it was deemed necessary.  1.12 The delegate from the European Communities
 noted that he was partly responsible for the text 
that was before the Committee.  From his recollection, when the ITA was first discussed there had been consultations with industry to determine what type of machinery needed to be covered.  In some cases, 
we were able to look to these machines and to try to understand the very co mplicated processes which 
were used in order to produce the semiconductor de vice.  From the views of the customs experts, he 
understood that they had asked advice from this Co mmittee because there was a difference between the 
customs language in the Harmonised System and elsewhere in the tariff, and the language used by the industry.  In drafting the ITA, he noted that there was an attempt to translate, as much as possible, the 
industry description of the various apparatus, pa rts, and components used for the production of 
semiconductors, into a language which reflected, as near as possible, the tariff or the Harmonized System.   He noted that this was a best attempt due to time constraints, and it perhaps was not always perfect and not always complete.  Hence, the problems before the Committee today with respect to these items.  He stated that it was the intention, at least of his delegation, to cover in the ITA in a very comprehensive way – all the apparatus, parts, and accessories which were intended for manufacturing and testing of 
semiconductor materials.  For exam ple, he referred to the points and issue regarding item number 122 – 
the issue of wet versus dry processes.  No, he did not think the negotiators considered a wet versus a dry process for the production of semiconductor wafers, only that this stripping or cleaning process was 
important to cover, whether this was done with a wet or  dry process, there was no sp ecific view on that at 
the time.  Therefore, from his point of view, he hope d that the Committee could look at these issues in a 
broad context, and in the case where there was difficulty, that occasionally, and he hoped that it might 
perhaps be limited to only one or two cases, go back  to the industry and ask for more information on the 
process and how the machinery actually worked.  He hope d this proposal could be used as a guide to take 
the Committee through these complica ted issues concerning semicondu ctor manufacturing and testing 
equipment.  
1.13 The Chairman
 responded that he thought it was a reasonable approach. 
 1.14 The delegate of Canada
 noted that his delegation was still considering the List carefully at home.  
However, at this stage he indicated his capital was focussing on certain items, number 13, for example.  
He noted that his customs officials might benefit from a technical description so that they could assess the 
appropriateness of HS 852520 as a classification for this  good.  This was just one example.  He noted that 
his officials were also interested in items 14 and 15 a nd were reviewing these.  He hoped to be able to 
come back with some further thoughts at the next meeting.  1.15 The delegate of Hong Kong, China
 stated their support for a br oad interpretation of the ITA  
coverage in order to facilitate in ternational trade in these products. G/IT/M/40 
Page 4  
 
 1.16 The delegate of the United States
 stated their support for further consultations on this issue.  It 
was clear that the technical complexities were such that the Committee would be unlikely to make much progress.  He noted the relevance of the HS 2007 nomenclature changes that was mentioned by the 
Secretariat at the Symposium and its impact on classification of the se miconductor manufacturing 
equipment and asked if anyone had further detail s on how those changes might impact the work on 
classification.  He noted that it made little sense to go far ahead with the consistency with HS 2002, when 
there was going to be a change that would impact this work. 
 1.17 The Secretariat
 clarified that with respect to the first eleven items on the List, these were indeed 
semiconductor manufacturing and te sting equipment, which would be impacted by HS 2007 changes.  
However, the last items, numbers twelve through to fi fteen, were an entirely different entity, and the 
HS 2007 changes, as examined in draft form, would pr obably not help at all with respect to reconciling 
these items.  
1.18 The delegate of the Philippines
 sought clarification on how to move  forward with this work.  She 
commented that in the document there were some items where there were no HS numbers that were "bolded" anymore.  Specifically they were items 6, 8, 10, 12,14 and 15.  She noted from the cover note 
that those not "bolded" appeared to be agreed.  So, fo r example, item 14, she asked if it was necessary to 
look at all these HS numbers.   
1.19 The Secretariat 
responded that there were perhaps some inconsistent "bolding" and "unbolding". 
She noted that if one read the description underneath, the issue was explained.  In some cases, and item 
14 was probably the most difficult and illustrative of this, practically any HS number in the  nomenclature was a possible classification.  So, while these HS number listed may have been agreed by the customs experts, there could be hundreds more HS numbers  to be included depending on the Committees' 
interpretation of the question put before it.  Also, for example, item 15 has to do with the concept of either 
8523 or 8524.  These were not bolded, but potentially all of them could or should be bolded depending on 
the Committee's interpretation of th e appropriateness of 8523 or 8524.   
 1.20 The Chairman
 stated that it was important for the Committee to have a sense of the intention 
before going back to more technical discussions on these issues.  He not ed they would not fall under List 
I(A) or I (B) but they be in another list where a new approach would be needed.  In closing, he noted that 
the Committee would revert to this item at the next meeting with the hope that more progress could be 
made in capitals and those who had participated to the formation of the ITA could bring some views to 
help start the discussion in the Committee.  The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
 2. Review of the Status of Implementation of  the Ministerial Declaration on Trade in 
Information Technology Products (G/IT/1/Rev.32 and Corr.1) 
- Request by the United States to Raise an Implementation/Classification Matter 
  Concerning Chinese Taipei 
 
2.1 The Chairman
 stated that an overview of the implementation of th e Ministerial Declaration on 
Trade in Information Technology Products was contai ned in G/IT/1/Rev.32, and its corrigendum in 
English only.  This document showed the participants and the implementation issues pertaining to the WTO procedures for implementation.  Secondly, he noted that there was a sub-agenda item which involved an implementation/classification matter raised by the United States concerning Chinese Taipei.   
 
2.2 The delegate of Japan
 raised an implementation/classifi cation matter concerning Thailand.  
Japan, as well as other ITA participants, understood  that "digital cameras" was a product covered by 
the classification of "digital still image vide o cameras" which was an ITA product, and ITA 
participants treated digital cameras as duty-free prod ucts.  He noted that Thailand, even though it had  G/IT/M/40
 Page 5 
 
 
complied with the ITA and treated digital cameras as duty-free products, had started to impose import 
tariffs on digital cameras following the revision of  the Harmonized System (HS) in 2002 for HS 
classification 8525.40 which clarified that digital cameras fell under that classification.  Thailand was 
the only country which resumed the imposition of impor t tariffs following the revision.  He noted that 
the WCO was an organization which dealt with the formal aspects of classification and their revisions 
issued after the conclusion of the ITA should have no effect on the IT Agreement itself.  In other 
words, since the ITA had not been revised, the product coverage should  not have changed.  Therefore, 
he believed that the Thai practice violated the ITA.  He stressed that this kind of arbitrary practice by 
an ITA participant posed a critical problem, not only for Japan but also for other participants and the 
ITA itself.  This could not be dismissed.  Theref ore the Government of Japan, along with other ITA 
participants, wanted to reconfirm that the Thai practice was inconsistent with ITA commitments and 
requested Thailand to give a clear and full explanatio n on this issue by the next meeting at the latest. 
 2.3 The delegate of Thailand
 stated that he would report this back to his capital and would consult 
with appropriate agencies.  However, he could in form the Committee that at this time his authorities 
were consulting with the agencies concerned to r esolve this problem. He knew that the problem had 
been in existence for quite a while, but they were trying their utmost to solve this problem, and he 
would inform the Committee of  any further information. 
 2.4 The Chairman
 turned to the sub-agenda item , the request by the United States concerning an 
implementation/classification matter. 
 
2.5 The delegate of the United States  stated that his delegation and Chinese Taipei had been engaged  
in discussions concerning  the classification of 'thermistor devices' since the last ITA Committee meeting and they had continued to consult on this issue but had not been able to resolve their differences of opinion on the classification of the pr oduct.  He reported that earlier this month, the Harmonized System 
Committee of the WCO had agreed with the United States that the product in question, thermistor 
devices, should be classified in HS 8533.  He hoped that with the WCO ruling on this product, Chinese 
Taipei would recognize this product as ITA-qualifying and reconsider its decision to classify this product 
in HS 8536.  2.6 The delegate of Chinese Taipei
 had taken note of the  statement made by the US delegation.  He 
stated that this matter was still under review by his competent authorities. At this time, he reiterated their 
willingness to work closely with the US delegation with the view to address the issue in a mutually 
satisfactory way and would report to the Chairman and to the Committee on any further developments or progress, in due course.  
2.7 The Committee took note
 of the statements made. 
 
3. EMC/EMI Pilot Project 
- Draft Guidelines for EMC/EMI Conformity Assessment Procedures 
(G/IT/W/12) 
 3.1 The Chairman
 recalled that the Committee, had been focussing on this one particular NTM as 
part of the wider NTM Work Programme and gradua lly progress had been made.  In this respect, he 
noted that at the last meeting the Committee had agreed to proceed with drafting the so-called 
‘Guidelines’.  As a basis for such  Guidelines, there was a paper from Canada (G/IT/24 + Corr.1) to 
initiate these discussions and the Committee would submit input to the Secretariat in order to compile 
a first draft by this meeting.  He recalled that a fax was sent to all participants on 24 June requesting 
input by 8 September 2004.  At that time, only two participants had sent in input, and thus a reminder 
fax was sent to all participants on 14 September.   To date, the Secretariat had received no further 
input and so had prepared the draft ‘Guidelines’ on the basis of the two submissions received.  Thus, 
the Committee had before it document G/IT/W/12 for discussion at this meeting.   G/IT/M/40 
Page 6  
 
 3.2 The delegate of China
 thanked the delegation of Canada  for their input for the draft 
"Guidelines".  He reported that he had recently r eceived instructions from capital and his delegation 
had the following observations – first, China a pplied compulsory EMC/EMI related conformity 
assessment on IT products since August 1989.  This  was retained after the National Compulsory 
Certification System came into force in 2001 and China currently applied third-party certification for 
EMC/EMI related conformity assessment on IT products.  Furthermore, when doing EMC/EMI 
conformity assessment, China merged it with electrica l safety certification into one procedure, so the 
procedure required application sampling tests and pa yment for certification only once.  This was in 
contrast to some other WTO Members and ITA participants, where there were two separate 
procedures, so everything had to be done twice.  In order to facilitate international trade in ITA 
products, and based on the current situation of Chin a in respect to EMC/EMI conformity assessment, 
China supported the suggestions made by Canada and also incorporated in draft Guidelines, that the 
types of conformity assessment procedures used by ITA participants should be limited to the six procedures listed in Section I.  Secondly, as concerned ITA participants that had at present no 
mandatory conformity assessment procedures, he noted  that they should be encouraged to maintain 
the status quo.  Thirdly, ITA participants that  had, at present, mandatory conformity assessment 
procedures should simplify those procedures according to  those listed in Section I.  Concerning the 
last suggestion, which was 'that every ITA particip ant should aim to use one of the SDoC procedures 
in list I', given the differences of participants' eco nomic development, legislative status on SDoC,  
credibility of enterprises, and sense of self-disciplin e, China suggested that in deciding whether to 
introduce SDoC, each participant should be allowed to make that determination based on its own 
particular situation.  3.3 The delegate of the European Communities
 welcomed the proposal that had been compiled by 
the Secretariat and was based on the  Canadian input.  He thought this went in the right direction.  
Recalling the presentations at the IT Symposium where there were interventions and a very interesting 
presentation by industry, he noted the calls for su ppliers' declaration of conformity as the most 
appropriate way for conformity assessment of IT pr oducts.  His delegation endorsed this conclusion, 
because as they had stated many times before, the IT  products concerned were low risk products and 
they already had a very good experience with the application of SDoC.  He suggested one small 
amendment to the paper that referred to para graph 4 of Section II of the Guidelines – the 
recommendation that 'every ITA participant should ai m to use one of the SDoC procedures listed in 
Section I' and thought it would be helpful to comp lete that sentence with a reference to the SDoc 
procedures under Section I (f) as the preferred option for SDoC.  3.4 The delegate of Canada
 made a few comments on the draft Guidelines.  First, with respect to 
Section III on Transparency, he expressed agreement w ith the suggestion in this paragraph, that it 
would indeed be useful to have a list in which pa rticipants could identify the type of conformity 
assessment procedure which they currently used.  However, his delegation did not want the creation 
of such a list to hold up the adoption of the Guidelines.   Therefore, he thought it useful to take this 
forward once the Guidelines had been accepted by the Committee.  Another point under the same 
section was in respect to the second to last se ntence, whereby it made reference to "urge ITA 
participants whose procedures are (a) or (b) to ch ange them to (c) and (f)".  In the view of his 
delegation, he thought it would suffice to indicate that any of the "SDoC" processes listed in Section I would be encouraged, and therefore perhaps it should read "(c) through (f)".  With respect to Section 
II, he noted the comments from China and the EC in respect to item 4 and hoped that this could be 
worked on to find a solution.  He noted that the pr oblems appeared easy to solve, perhaps with some 
new drafting.  Finally, noting the EMC/EMI Workshop was the genesis of the Guidelines, and it took 
place in April 2003, he hoped that the Committee woul d be in a position at its next meeting to endorse 
the Guidelines and encouraged the Chairman to complete whatever remaining consultations would be 
necessary in order to do so.     G/IT/M/40
 Page 7 
 
 
3.5 The delegate of Japan  stated that, in the context of the Guidelines, they had proposed to draw 
up a list of ITA participants categorised by the t ype of assessment procedure for transparency, and to 
urge the participants to adopt the appropriate proced ure, which was in Section III.  With regard to the 
concern raised, noting the statement of China, he r ecalled that this was not a mandatory requirement, 
so he hoped that this language would be acceptable.   Furthermore, Japan supported the Guidelines as 
currently drafted. 
 3.6 The delegate of the United States
 supported much of what had already been stated by the 
other delegations concerning their comments on the document.  He thought it was a useful discussion, 
and specifically, he thought that the Guidelines we re very good.  He supported the suggestion by 
Canada that the Committee should move towards formal  adoption of the Guidelines, so he encouraged 
those participants that had either not had the time to consider the document or were in the process of 
contemplating it, to move in a direction whereby at  the next meeting, the Committee would be able to 
adopt the Guidelines.  
3.7 The delegate of Hong Kong, China
 thanked Canada for their input in this work.  His 
delegation found the draft Guidelines for EMC/EMI C onformity Assessment Procedures very useful 
and supported the draft.  He considered that su ch Guidelines would help facilitate trade in IT 
products.  3.8 The delegate of Chinese Taipei
 thanked the Canadian delegati on and others for contributing 
to the development of this paper.  He recalled that in the previous meeting some delegations expressed 
views that the proposed Guidelines should bear no obligations to participants and also no legal 
implications in the WTO context.  His delegation also  shared this view.  On this basis, his delegation 
supported the draft Guidelines.  Ho wever, he sought clarification with respect to Section III, the 
Transparency Section, as it stated that a list of ITA participants should be drawn up and the 
Secretariat would draw up such a list based on the pa rticipants input.  He asked if it meant that all  
participants were expected to submit the relevant information to the Secretariat once the Guidelines 
were adopted?  3.9 The Chairman
 responded to Chinese Taipei and noted that one input that could be used in this 
respect was the responses to the Survey that was unde rtaken more than two years ago.  He believed 
that for those participants who ha d submitted responses, the information was sufficient to draft such a 
list.  He noted, that not all participants had submitted a response yet.  So, in order for the Secretariat to 
be able to issue such a list should the Guidelines be adopted by the Committee, the Secretariat would 
need to have cooperation from those who had not ye t responded to the survey.  Furthermore, he noted 
that although some participants had submitted respon ses to the Survey in the past, their situation had 
changed, and therefore it would be necessary for tho se participants to submit updated information.  
The important thing to note was that such informa tion already existed to a large extent, but that it 
could be presented in a condensed way for the benefit of all participants. 
 3.10 The delegate of the Philippines
 stated that her question was basically answered, as it related to 
the Chairman's response to Chin ese Taipei.  She noted that the Committee wanted to have some 
Guidelines, but she admitted that not all particip ants had submitted a reply to the Survey.  So, she 
thought, at this stage, it was too early to go ahead  as it depended on those other ITA participants who 
had not been able to submit their reply to the Surv ey.  She suggested, as a fi rst step, to check with 
those that had not supplied a response to the Su rvey to see if they had any problems with the 
procedures in Section I, (a) through (f).  For tho se who had already replied to the Survey, maybe the 
situation had changed, and therefore, only after th e Committee had a full picture of all the conformity 
assessment procedures in place among IT participants  could it proceed to the next step of the 
Guidelines.  This was to give a comfort level to a ll the IT participants because she thought that it was 
the only way to move forward.    G/IT/M/40 
Page 8  
 
3.11 On a second matter, she asked a question in respect of Section II of the Guidelines.  She 
referred to paragraph 2 and recalling the Philippine reply to the Survey, she thought the Philippines 
had no mandatory conformity assessment procedur es in place, so the Gu idelines suggested to 
maintain the status quo.  However, item 4 stated th at every ITA participant should aim to use one of 
the "SDoC" procedures listed in Section I, and, based on the intervention from the EC, maybe "SDoC 
type 4".  She wanted to understand how these tw o issues related, as there appeared to be a 
contradiction in the Guidelines.  3.12 The Chairman
 commented on the first point made by the Philippines regarding the Survey.  
He recalled that those who had not yet responded to the survey were also participants of the 
Committee and there may have been a variety of r easons why they had not submitted a response.  He 
thought that the transparency section (Section III) wa s an add-on to the core of the Guidelines which 
were outlined in Section II.  He noted that the question for the Committee was to determine if it was 
necessary to have all the information to complete  Section III before the Committee could endorse the 
Guidelines  He thought that not having all the respons es to the survey did not necessarily constitute an 
impediment for the Committee to endorse the Guid elines.  Concerning the second question, which 
was the relationship between para graphs 1 and 4, he thought from his perspective it seemed that 
paragraph 1 was defining what was the universe of  conformity assessment procedures that existed, 
while paragraph 4 provided a sense of direction.  As noted by the delegate of Chinese Taipei, these 
were Guidelines that were not legally enforceable but  were a set of best practices or principles that 
participants were encouraged to follow.  In othe r words, to the extent possible, and up to each 
participants' specific situation, could there be a move towards a simpler solution.   
 3.13 The delegate of India
 awaited instructions from capital but sought clarification, especially the 
second sentence of Section III on transparency, wher e it seemed that participants whose procedures 
were (a) or (b) should change them  to (c) and (f).  It seemed that th is point was in fact related to 
paragraphs 3 and 4 of Section II, rather than being related to tran sparency as such, because it indicated 
what participants should do in terms of the six  procedures listed in Section I.  Secondly, regarding 
what others had said in terms of moving down th is hierarchy, perhaps moving down to (f) which was 
the last point, he thought this suggested a kind of hierarchy and thus it was important to take into 
account what China had said about flexibility.  It was important to consider whether one complete 
hierarchy was suggested, or whether some  flexibility was envisioned. 
 
3.14 The delegate of China  supported the suggestion by India in respect his first point.  He 
furthermore suggested deletion of the second half  of the penultimate sentence of Section III. 
 3.15 The delegate of Malaysia
 appreciated the draft Guidelines, a nd noted that they were the result 
of the survey responses as well as what was ac complished in the Workshop.  She noted some 
excellent responses to the survey, with 24 respondents,  but realised that at the time of the survey, 
some participants perhaps did not realise how important it was to respond to the survey.  Therefore, she supported the Philippines statement to give more  time for those delegations that wanted to 
respond to the survey.  She thought it was worth wa iting and seeing if there was anything new in the 
survey responses, and if not, then there would be confirmation that this was basically the universe of 
conformity assessment options.  For Malaysia, she was not sure if (a) to (f) represented something 
within the parameters of what their authorities were actually doing.  She thought it would be useful to 
give more time to look again at this document and th en it would be possible, together with the results 
of any new survey responses, to come back and see if  there was a need to revise the document, and if 
not, then the document could be adopted at the next  meeting.  She noted there were some comments 
made by participants to revise G/IT/W/12 to add or  delete some words, so she suggested a revised 
document would be useful to look at before the next meeting.  3.16 The delegate of Thailand
 reported that he did not have a response from capital, but he 
understood the respective agency was still examining the draft Guidelines.  He want ed to revert to this  G/IT/M/40
 Page 9 
 
 
at the next meeting.  Regarding the comment by the China, he thought this was a valid point to look at 
further.  3.17 The Chairman
 stated that he thought the Comm ittee had a good initial discussion, and was 
grateful to the participants for their comments.  There was quite positive comme nts in what was trying 
to be achieved with these Guidelines, and there were  useful suggestions in terms of drafting.  He 
noted that some delegations felt they needed more time to consider the document in capitals, so he 
suggested the Committee revert to the paper at the next meeting, and in th e meantime he would have 
informal consultations to explore the issues that ha d been raised by delegations, in order to make 
progress.  He did not exclude the possibility that discussions at the next meeting could take place on 
the basis of a revised paper and de legations would have another opport unity to provide comments.  He 
thought the work was moving in the right directi on in order to make progress on the pilot project, 
given the efforts that had been put into this.  3.18 It was so agreed
. 
 
4. Non-tariff Measures Work Program me (G/IT/SPEC/Q4/19/Rev.2 and 
G/IT/SPEC/Q2/11/Rev.1) 
4.1 The Chairman  recalled that this has been a standing agenda item of the Committee for some 
time, and had led to the EMC/EMI Pilot Project .  The Committee had before it the overview of 
proposals to the NTM Work Programme in documen t G/IT/SPEC/Q2/11/Rev.1, and the overview of 
Survey Responses in G/IT/SPEC/Q4/19/Rev.2.  He not ed from the discussions earlier this year, that 
the general intent seemed to be to focus work on the EMC/EMI Pilot Project as a first priority, and 
then move ahead to address one or two other NTMs, as necessary.  At this time, it seemed that the work was in the final stages with r espect to the EMC/EMI Pilot Project. 
 
4.2 As there were no interventions, the Chairman pr oposed that this item be kept on the agenda and 
that the Committee take note of his statement.  It was so agreed
. 
 
5. IT Symposium 
5.1 The Chairman  recalled the discussions that took pl ace at the Symposium over the past day 
and a half.  He noted that at the last meeting th ere was agreement to proceed with the IT Symposium 
this year as some funding had been made available.   Thus, the Symposium was held during the past 
day and a half and he believed that it had accomp lished much of what had been set out in the 
objectives.  As with the EMC/EMI Workshop, he thought it useful to provide a brief summary of the events for the benefit of transparency and informing the formal Committee.   
 
5.2 The Chairman stated that it  was an extremely useful event, if only because it brought together 
private sector, academics, government officials, regulat ors, and others in various countries to help 
bridge the digital divide; so in terms of diversity of participation and in te rms of geographic diversity, 
it was a successful event.  In terms of the issues ra ised in the presentations, the subsequent discussions 
during the interactive question and answer period,  and the small group dialogues it was clear that 
there was a need to have such an event five  years after the first IT Symposium in 1999. 
 
5.3 The symposium was useful to take stock of the status of the IT sector, examine its relationship 
to the Committee's work and the wider WTO work of  further enhancing trade, and using trade as a 
way to enhance social and economic development.  There was a lot of information contained in the 
presentations, and it was difficult to summarize, but he thought there were four major themes that 
came out of the Symposium that he found interesting.   
 5.4 First, there was the state of the IT sector, and the dynamics of how fast it was evolving.  Some 
presentations demonstrated that in this category of  products, the life cycle was very short and delays G/IT/M/40 
Page 10  
 
in getting to the market could have a significant impact on the trade in the IT sector.  Another aspect was the importance of the challenges posed by the digital divide and the contribution of IT to 
economic and social development.  This might put in context the work undertaken on trade policy. 
 5.5 The second theme was the implications of IT in  terms of trade policy as several presentations 
demonstrated elements that could stimulate or impe de the further expansion of trade in IT products.  
In respect to trade barriers that could impede trade,  there were presentations that indicated a series of 
NTBs in existence for IT products.  On the othe r hand, there were presentations that questioned 
whether the right products were covered in the ITA,  or could the ITA be broadened for effective duty-
free access for IT products.  Another area, and one th at could impede further trade expansion, was the 
HS classification or HS related issues.  As had b een demonstrated with the work on divergences in 
classification, this had the potential to raise many qu estions as the industry often used different terms.  
There were also regulatory issues, as illustrated by the work with the EMC/EMI Pilot Project.  If there 
was anything that could be done on improving or f acilitating conformity assessment procedures, or to 
encourage more harmonized standards, this would ha ve an important impact on facilitating trade.   
 
5.6 Thirdly, there was the whole dimension of development.  If the trade issues effected 
companies in the global world, there were defi nitely additional challenges faced by developing 
countries and their companies.  There was a need to  find a balance between enabling all participants 
with trade and IT on the one hand, and on the othe r hand, allowing countries to fully take advantage 
of the opportunities of what IT had to offer in  terms of helping their development goals.   
 
5.7 Finally, there was the role of the ITA Co mmittee, and the WTO more generally, in addressing 
the challenges posed by information technology and the issues related to it.  In the future the 
Committee may want to be inspired by some of the po ints that were made.  It was clear that some of 
the points and challenges raised in the Symposium we re simply too big and involved more than just 
trade; issues such as education, research, etc.  He thought it would be important to concentrate on 
what could be undertaken in a WTO context, and in  the context of this Committee.  If conclusions 
could be drawn and could inspire proposals for wo rk in this Committee, then he thought that the 
Symposium would have achieved its objectives.    5.8 The delegate of Japan
 expressed gratitude to all the people who put efforts into the 
Symposium the Chairman, the Secretary, participatin g Members, and those from industry.  He agreed 
with the observations of the Chairman as he  thought it was a great success because it helped 
participants, including non-ITA participants to understand the rapid and dynamic development of 
information communication technolog y.  He thought the panellists a ppropriately addressed some of 
the key challenges facing the ITA.  He was quite sh ocked to hear Mr. Verma pointing out that the ITA 
itself was becoming an NTB to trade, namely product classification, and that it was important for the 
participants to hear this.  Some other panellists explained ITA-product conve rsion with other products 
conventionally regarded as non-IT products, and th en becoming IT products.  He encouraged all 
participants to think how to go forward to improve  the current ITA so it would not become obsolete. 
 5.9 The delegate of the United States
 agreed with the points menti oned by the previous speakers. 
However, she wanted to emphasize a few points from th e perspective of her delegation.  First, she saw 
IT as a crucial and critical input to the development of many other sectors.  As it was a quickly evolving sector, the challenge to the Committee was to try and keep up, a nd if the Committee could 
not keep up, other solutions outside the WTO would n eed to be explored.  Some of the issues raised 
were issues of classification that were impeding the ability of  producers to trade freely.  As a result, 
they would have to examine these and see how to best work on these issues, and what role the 
Committee could play to address these concerns.  Fi nally, she asked the Committ ee to think what role 
it wanted to play as it related to the intersection of the ITA mandate and the NAMA negotiations, which provided for the elimination and reduction of ta riffs and NTBs.  As things proceeded, there was 
a need to be observant and determine how th is process could best be managed given those 
negotiations.  G/IT/M/40
 Page 11 
 
 
5.10 The delegate of the European Communities  endorsed what had already been said by the 
previous speakers.  From his view, the IT Sympos ium was very useful and very instructive.  His 
delegation had learned a lot and it was emphasized, once again, how important it was to keep up the 
dialogue with industry for a sector that moved so quickly.  In addition to what had already been 
stated, he noted the concern raised by industry re presentatives with regard to customs processes and 
procedures, i.e. trade facilitation.  With regard to the topic of HS classificati on, he thought that this 
was one of the biggest challenges to be handled in the ITA Committee.  It occurred to him that there 
was a need to use the tool of 'the day before yester day' in order to solve problems for the future.  But 
it was important not to give up, and continue  with the work on customs classification. 
 
5.11 The delegate of Egypt  expressed appreciation for the Symposium as it was very timely and 
useful.  He noted agreement with the assessment of  the previous speakers but thought it useful to 
emphasize the development aspects that had been rai sed in some of the discu ssions as they opened the 
door, meaning there was much more work that n eeded to be done for the benefit of developing 
countries.  He saw a lot of potential for continued thinking in that direction, like linkages with the 
development aspects of the Doha Work Programme.  He recalled that when preparing for the 
Symposium, the issue of trade and transfer of technology was raised, but there were also other development dimensions that coul d easily be expanded upon to further the capacity of developing 
countries to liberalize their trade of IT products.  5.12 The delegate of the Philippines
 expressed appreciation for the Symposium, especially the 
financial assistance that was extended to the particip ants from developing countries allowing them to 
attend.  She noted the small group discussions on NT Bs, and thought it might be worth examining at 
the NTBs that had been identified by the private sector in the small group dialogue to see what the 
Committee could do to address them.  She thought a positive effect of the Symposium discussions would be to keep the momentum going.  Furthe rmore she noted that development was really 
exploding, and the issue of IT product coverage was a common theme that was linked to the NAMA 
negotiations.  5.13 The Chairman
 thought it was very useful to have such  a discussion or 'post mortem' when the 
event was still fresh in peoples' minds and it was important to keep the momentum.  The purpose of 
the Symposium was to inform and see how the stat e of the IT industry matched with the work 
programme of the Committee.  There was mention by several participants today of NTBs, and maybe 
it could be one issue to consider for the future, fo r example, if the Committee could examine in more 
detail what came out of that small group discussion.  Fu rthermore, it was also important to reflect how 
to take up issues that had been raised in the Sympos ium in future meetings and it would be beneficial 
to have suggestions in that re gard made by delegations.   
 
5.14 The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
 
6. New Participants 
6.1 The Chairman  stated that this item was placed on the agenda in case there were any new 
schedules that would be forthcoming and for anyone to make a statement with respect to this aspect of the 
work of the Committee.  However, at this point in time, there were no new schedules, nor any new 
participants to consider.  Therefore, he suggested to move to the next item on the agenda, as there were no requests for the floor.    6.2 The Committee took note
 of the Chairman's statement. 
 
7. Draft Annual Report of the Committee (2004) (G/IT/W/13) 
7.1 The Chairman  stated that the Committee reports annually to the Council for Trade in Goods 
(CTG).  Due to timing conflicts betw een the last meeting of the CTG in  2004 and the last meeting of this G/IT/M/40 
Page 12  
 
Committee in 2004, it was necessary to take up this matter at this m eeting.  Thus, a draft had been 
prepared in G/IT/W/13, which would obviously have to be updated to take into account the developments 
at this meeting.    7.2 The delegate of the Philippines
 requested that the Secretariat follow the normal procedure, by 
transmitting the updated version of the report to delega tions for comment in advance, and if there were no 
comments by a certain date, it would be issued and forwarded to the CTG.  7.3 The Chairman
 confirmed that such practice would be followed and the updated report would 
be faxed to all delegations and th ey would have an opportunity to comment on the draft before it was 
forwarded to the CTG in its fi nal form.  It was so agreed.  
 
8. Other Business 
8.1 The Chairman  stated that the issue of the review of product coverage continued to be a matter 
under consultation, and he encouraged dele gations to continue their efforts.   
 
8.2 Furthermore, he proposed that the Committee's next regular meeting be held on 9 December 2004, subject to further confirmation.   
 
__________