RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/IT/M/47 
27 March 2007 
 (07-1268 ) 
Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in 
Information Technology Products  
 
 
  
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 31 OCTOBER 2006 
Chairman: Mr. Martin Pospíšil (Czech Republic)
 
Agenda of the Meeting           P a g e  
 
1. Review of the Status of Implementation of the Ministerial Declaration on Trade 
in Information Technology Pr oducts (G/IT/1/Rev.38) ..........................................................2  
2. EMC/EMI Pilot Project - Draft List of the Types of Conformity Assessment 
Procedures for EMC/EMI used by ITA Participants (G/IT/W/17/Rev.3)...........................2  
3. Non-tariff Measures Work Program me (G/IT/SPEC/Q4/19/Rev.2 and 
G/IT/SPEC/Q2/11/Rev.1) ......................................................................................................... 3 
4. Divergences in Classifying In formation Technology Products 
(G/IT/14/Rev.1/Add.1, G/IT/W/6/Rev.3, and G/IT/W/11).....................................................4  
5. Follow-up Discussions from the IT Symposium.....................................................................7  
6. Proposals from the United States Concerning Product Coverage of the Current 
ITA ............................................................................................................................ ...............12  
7. New Participants ............................................................................................................... ......16  
8. Draft Annual Report of the Committee to the Council for Trade in  Goods 
(2006) (G/IT/W/24) ............................................................................................................. ....17  
9. Other Bu siness................................................................................................................. ........17  
 
Introduction 
 
 The Chairman  stated that the proposed agenda for th e meeting was circulat ed in WTO/AIR/2922 
on 20 October 2006.  With reference to the agenda, he asked if any delegation wish ed to raise any matter 
under "Other Business".  He stated  that under "Other Business", he would raise a matter concerning a 
request received on 26 Oct ober 2006 from Global ICT Industry As sociations, includ ing EICTA, CEA, 
JEITA and ITI.  He also stated that the review of product coverage and the date of the next meeting of the Committee would be taken up under "Other  Business". The agenda was adopted
 with these additions.  G/IT/M/47 
Page 2  
 
  1. Review of the Status of Implementation of the Ministerial Declaration on Trade in 
Information Technology Products (G/IT/1/Rev.38) 
 
1.1 The Chairman
 stated that an overview of implementation of the Ministerial Declaration on 
Trade in Information Technology Products was c ontained in document G/IT/1/Rev.38.  This 
document showed the participants the implementa tion issues pertaining to the WTO procedures for 
implementation.  He looked forward to any up dates or comments concerning these implementation 
matters.  
 1.2 The Chairman
 recalled  that at the last Committee meeting under this agenda item the 
United States delegation distributed a paper (G/IT/ W/21) on product coverage under the existing ITA.  
On 19 October 2006, the United States submitted an other paper (G/IT/W/23) on the same issue and 
requested a separate agenda item to be listed for this Committee meeti ng. He therefore, informed the 
participants that the issue was being put as a separ ate Agenda Item and woul d be taken up later on.  
 
1.3 The representative of Japan  stated that his Government and the Government of Indonesia had 
conducted bilateral consu ltations between senior officials on th e issues of customs duties on still 
image digital cameras with moving image record ing capability. Based on the instruction from his 
authorities, he informed the Committee that both parti es reached an amicable conclusion.  He said that 
in response to Japan's request, Indonesia was now  committed to gradually eliminate, on an MFN 
basis, the customs duties on the products that are currently classified under “8525.40.30.00” or “Other 
digital cameras” from January 2007 and to be comple ted in January 2009. Japan welcomed the mutual 
agreement based on the understanding that the ITA commitment, in particular ex. 8525.40, covered 
still image digital cameras with moving image recording capability. 
 1.4 The representatives of Indonesia
 also informed the Committee that after a long discussion in 
capital and Geneva, both parties finally reached an am icable solution as reflected in the minutes of the 
meeting agreed on 28 July 2006. Therefore, as agreed , tariff elimination for digital camera classified 
under HS8525.40 would be gradually eliminated on the MFN basis from January 2007 and to be 
completed in January 2009.  1.5 The Committee took note
 of the statements made. 
 
2. EMC/EMI Pilot Project - Draft List of the Ty pes of Conformity As sessment Procedures 
for EMC/EMI used by ITA Participants (G/IT/W/17/Rev.3).  
2.1 The Chairman  recalled that at the Committee meeti ng on 24 February 2005 , he referred to 
Section III on Transparency of the Guideline for EMC/EMI Conformity Assessment Procedures 
(G/IT/25), which suggested that a list of ITA partic ipants should be drawn up and categorized by the 
type of assessment procedure adopted. In this conne ction, he raised two issues for the Committee to 
discuss, 1) information availability, and 2) structure/ format of such a list. With respect to the first 
issue, it was agreed to encourage those participants who had not s ubmitted a survey response to do so, 
and for those whose situation has changed to ame nd their previous submission. On the second issue, 
the Secretariat was asked, as per Section III of the Guideline, to draw up a list based on the 
information available, indicating for each ITA pa rticipants which type of conformity assessment 
procedure it used.  
 
2.2 The Chairman  updated the Committee in this regard as being reflected in G/IT/W/17/ Rev.3, 
including the information provided by China at th e last meeting concerning its conformity assessment 
procedure for EMC/EMI which was certified by 3rd party, which was the small letter (b) in document 
G/IT/25. As there was no request for the floor and no new piece of information from the participants  G/IT/M/47 
 Page 3 
 
 
  at the meeting, the Chairman suggested that he would write to participan ts who had not submitted a 
survey response, to urge them to provide the information concerning the conformity assessment 
procedure for EMC/EMI as soon as possible so as to enable the Committee to complete this exercise 
in the near future.    
2.3 The Committee took note
 of the Chair's statement and agreed  that he would write to those 
delegations that had not submitted a survey respon se and to urge them to provide the information 
concerning their conformity assessment procedures for EMC/EMI as soon as possible.  
3. Non-tariff Measures Work Program me (G/IT/SPEC/Q4/19/Rev.2 and 
G/IT/SPEC/Q2/11/Rev.1) 
3.1 The Chairman
 turned to the issue of the Non-tari ff Measures Work Programme, and recalled 
that the Committee at the meeting of 20 October 2005 already had some discussions on what the Committee should do next in addition to EMC/EMI. Ho wever, as some participants would need some 
time for reflection, it was agreed to revert to this matter at its future meetings.   
 
3.2 The representative of the United States
 welcomed the views of other participants on the more 
general questions of how the ITA Committee might wo rk to advance its related NTBs notification to 
NAMA. He thought that it was important for the ITA Committee and the NGMA to continue to inform each other on the progress of work accomplished so far. He also thought that it was important 
for negotiators of the ITA Committee and the NGMA to  be aware of NTBs-related work in the area of 
electronics that might be going on in other fora su ch as APEC. He said that a number of informal 
discussions on NTBs affecting the electronic indus try had been held at the margins of NAMA 
meetings. Governments were faced with the challe nge of how to achieve public policy objectives in 
terms of protecting the health and safety of the co mmunity while keeping regulatory intervention to a 
minimum. It appeared that reducing regulatory barri ers to trade in electronic and IT products was an 
issue of interest to industry.  He said that the EU  had already tabled a proposal on this issue and his 
authorities were reviewing it with interest.  He indi cated that the US was working on a proposal that 
had many similarities to the EU proposal and woul d address certain regulatory barriers identified by 
the electronic and IT industries.  He said that the US proposal was envisaged to build on the WTO 
TBT agreement and on work already done in the ITA Committee on the draft guidelines for EMC/EMI conformity assessment procedures, and in  APEC on a work programme with an end-goal 
of reliance on common standards and acceptance of s uppliers declaration of conformity. The proposal 
being developed by the US was designed to increas e and facilitate trade through the prevention and 
elimination of unnecessary NTBs to trade so as to promote innovation and competition in the electronics sector and to provide benefits to consum ers in a form of lower costs and greater choice of 
products.  He hoped to be in a position to table this proposal when the NAMA negotiations resumed.  
 
3.3 The representative of Canada
 said that his delegation did support the consideration of NTMs 
in this Committee and was open to consider the IT  NTMs that were put forward by others in the 
NAMA negotiations.  He referred to a paper that his delegation had put forward on Import Licensing 
in 2005 as an example. Canada supported the contin uous expansion of the work of this Committee in 
this area.  
 
3.4 The Chairman  thanked both delegations for their contributions and information, and 
suggested the Committee revert to th is issue at its next meeting. 
  3.5 It was so agreed
. 
 G/IT/M/47 
Page 4  
 
  4. Divergences in Classifying Information T echnology Products (G/IT/14/Rev.1/Add.1, 
G/IT/W/6/Rev.3, and G/IT/W/11)  
-  List V of G/IT/W/6/Rev.3 – Items and Specific Questions Referred to the 
Committee to be addressed (G/IT/W/15)   
-  Updated Summary of Discussions – List V (G/IT/W/20) 
- Communications from WCO Concerning the Classification of Set Top Boxes 
(G/IT/W/26 and G/IT/W/26/Add. 1) 
 
4.1 The Chairman
 mentioned two sub-items regarding classification divergences, i.e. List V and 
List III.  He said that in response to a request by several delegations at the Committee meeting of 
20 October 2005, the Secretariat prepared an upda ted summary of discussions, collating the comments 
from various delegations on all 20 items of List  V in document G/IT/W/20.  The updated summary 
included both discussions at the meetings of 24 February and 25 May 2005 as well as written 
submissions received thereafter.   
4.2 On List V of G/IT/W/6/Rev.3 – classification divergences , the Chairman
 stated that before the 
summer break, when the Committee met on 21 Ju ly 2006, the Committee was posed with the 
following questions for the reflection by the particip ants: How to move the di scussion on List V items 
forward? What structure the participants would like to use? What new questions could be posed on those 
issues? What would be the expected outcome of the participants?   
4.3 The Chairman
 recalled that some participants pointed out at previous meetings in both formal 
and informal settings, that these items in List V were  no longer technical, as technical experts were not 
able to resolve them and thus they were policy i ssues. In the Chairman's consultations with some 
delegations early this year, as well as at the last formal meeting of the Committee, a suggestion was made that in order to narrow the difference the Committee could perhaps divide these issues under List V into 
two categories: one category for the easy issues  for which convergence towards consensus was 
foreseeable and could be achieved, if necessary by po sing some new questions that might help to achieve 
consensus; the other category for the more difficult ones, where no majority position or no consensus could be achieved.   4.4 The Chairman
 stated that the Secretariat, as requested, had prepared a draft room paper trying to 
categorize the 20 items in List V based on their prospect of finding a consensus or a common 
interpretation.  It also tried to narrow or isolate those items where consensus was less foreseeable.  
 4.5 The Chairman
 commented on the question of silence an d stated that as pointed out by the 
Secretariat in document G/IT/W/20, the updated summ ary of discussions on List V only reflected the 
views of seven participants, while many others were st ill silent with no comments being made.  He hoped 
that the room paper prepared by the Secretariat, though still a draft, could be used by the delegations to send to their capitals for verificati on and confirmation as suggested by one of the delegations at the last 
Committee meeting. The objective of this exercise was to enable the Committee to move as many items as possible from List V to List I of G/IT/W/6/Rev.3. 
 
4.6 The Chairman
 requested the delegates to note that the two columns related to HS2002 and 
HS2007 in the annexed table to the draft room paper we re left blank.  He explained that it was mainly 
because of the differences which emerged from the disc ussions at the informal meeting of the Committee 
on 9 October 2006 on whether or not and to what ex tent the process of transposition from HS96 to 
HS2002 and then from HS2002 to HS 2007 could solve those problems related to classification 
divergences. The Secretariat needed more time to reflect on this.  
 4.7 The representative of Hong Kong, China
 thanked the Secretariat for the room paper and 
viewed it as a better format for his capital to further analyse the 20 items in List V. He said that his  G/IT/M/47 
 Page 5 
 
 
  delegation's initial thinking was that it could s upport the format of dividing these 20 items into 
two categories which certainly would facilitate the an alysis. He would certainly discuss these different 
items with his capital experts and put forward their comments as soon as possible.  4.8 The representative of the Philippines
 thanked the Secretariat for the room paper and felt that it 
would help experts in the capital to focus on what de legations in Geneva shoul d be expected to do at 
some future time.  She said this was an issue th at had been haunting the participants for a good 
number of years, and with the evolution and deve lopments of information technology, a solution 
should be found. She said that it would be incumben t on delegations to ensure  this room document be 
forwarded to their experts and hopefully, at the next meeting her delegati on would be in a better 
position to respond to the questions posed in the appropriate columns. 
 
4.9 The representative of the United States  also thanked the Secretariat for the room paper and 
viewed that it pointed the way forward.  He had th e impression that participants lost some momentum 
on the issue and it was clear that a different approach was necessary if they were not just to have this 
become a standing item on the agenda for which no progress was possible.  He would take the issue 
back to his authorities, and indicated that at some point, in an informal meeting, perhaps before the 
end of the year, his delegation might be in a position to discuss this issue further and see if it was on 
the right track and if other things were necessar y or if it was even possible to move toward a 
conclusion on some of them. He mentioned that the is sue of set top boxes was also under this agenda.  
 
4.10 The representative of Japan  joined other delegations in thanking the Secretariat for the room 
paper and felt that it could be a very good starting point to restarting the discussions on these long-standing issues. He found that it was a quite reasonable assessment by the Secretariat to group these issues into two categories, category A and categor y B. He believed that it was quite important to 
refresh the memory of the ITA participants and their e xperts of what were really the issues.  He stated 
that Japan was prepared to move quickly on the pr oducts that were under category A and encouraged 
other participants to join the discussions for quick resolution of those products.  He said that Japan 
also was prepared to discuss category B products in de tails if other delegations  were prepared to do 
so.  4.11 The representative of Korea
 felt that the room document could be a good basis for further 
discussion. She was satisfied with the format and st ructure, however, her capital was still considering 
the content. She hoped that her delegation would pr ovide its detailed comments at the next meeting. 
She urged other participants who had not submitted their comments to do so as soon as possible.  In 
her view, having comments from only seven partic ipants was far from reaching a consensus. 
 
4.12 The representative of Chinese Taipei  also thanked the Secretariat for the room paper. In his 
view, it was a very important document and could be  used for further discussions. He said that he 
would send it back to his capital for careful review and to see whether his delegation can make more contribution. He then requested the Secretariat to explain why the columns for HS2002 and HS2007 in the draft room paper were left blank.   
4.13 The representative of the European Communities
 stated that it would be great if the 
participants could close the chapter called "diverge nces in classification".  He said that delegations 
spent too much time in Geneva discussing this issue.  Therefore, he welcomed this approach from the 
Secretariat to hopefully, close this issue. He made  two comments. First of all, he highlighted the 
question of overlap. He said that one would fi nd the same product in both Attachment A and in 
Attachment B. In his view, that was part of the IT A and that was why when participants talked about 
some of these products one should carefully consid er whether one did actually have a problem. It 
might be a non-problem at the end of the day.  Secondly, customs had to apply the HS nomenclature so when they interpreted the HS  nomenclature they did interpret that nomenclature. They did not 
interpret it in what the ITA envisaged to do or no t to do.  This was one of the issues that was G/IT/M/47 
Page 6  
 
  mentioned several times, and that was in the ITA.   One had parts for machines, for certain products, 
which were related to 8466. He said that the problem  was that 8466 referred to parts and accessories, 
but that the ITA only referred to parts.  He furthe r said that any customs officer would then say, "if 
something is an accessory, it's not covered by the IT A". For him this was a question of how to correct 
an "error" which was made when the ITA was draf ted if the desire of the Committee was that both 
parts and accessories should be cove red. He believed it was an oversi ght, but there would be practical 
implication of this for a customs officer because sh e or he would have to distinguish between parts 
and accessories.   4.14 The Secretariat
 responded to the question raised by Ch inese Taipei. He stated that, as it was 
explained in the Chairman's introductory remarks, the Secretariat found it difficult to put any codes in 
both columns for HS2002 and HS2007, mainly b ecause of the differences which emerged from the 
discussions at the informal meeting of the Commi ttee on 9 October 2006 on whether or not and to what 
extent the process of transposition from HS96 to  HS2002 and then from HS2002 to HS2007 could solve 
those problems related to classifica tion divergences.  The Secretariat wo uld need more time to reflect on 
this.  He further indicated that even in the column  for HS96, not all issues were resolved and thus, it 
would be more difficult to find corresponding codes for these unresolved  issues for HS2002 and 
HS2007. He said that the Secretariat would have to consult with other collea gues in the Statistics 
Section of the Economic Research and Statistic Divi sion and in the Market Access Division in charge 
of the Market Access Committee.   
4.15 The Chairman
 stated that it seemed that delegations were  satisfied with the format of the draft 
room paper but that they needed more time to cons ider its content. Some delegations considered some 
additions that were welcomed by the Chairman.  The Committee heard an appeal, which the Chairman 
supported very much, that those delegations that were in a position to insert some new ideas and had 
not yet done so were asked to do it as soon as possi ble. The Chairman suggest ed the Committee take 
note of statements made and proposed that the Committ ee revert to this sub-item at its next meeting.  
 4.16 It was so agreed
. 
 4.17 On List III of G/IT/W/6/Rev.3 – classification of set top boxes , the Chairman
 recalled that on 
23 January 2004, the Chair of this Committee forw arded this item to the WCO requesting the HS 
Committee to provide its opinion on classification of “set top boxes which have a communication 
function: a microprocessor-based device incorporatin g a modem for gaining access to the internet, and 
having a function of interactive information exchange”.   The participants were also recalled that in 
November 2005, the Deputy Director of Tariff and Trade Affairs Directorate of the WCO Secretariat informed the Committee of the WCO HS Committee's decision on this issue, which was reproduced 
and circulated as G/IT/26.  At the Committee meeting of  21 July 2006, the participants were invited to 
consider whether this item could be moved from List III to List I.  4.18 The Chairman
 again recalled that on 14 September 2006, the Director of the WCO Tariff and 
Trade Affairs Directorate informed the Committee that the WCO HS Committee decided to classify 
the apparatus as reception apparatus for televisi on, in heading 85.28 (sub-heading 8528.12) by 
application of General Interpretative Rules 1 a nd 6.  However, it remained for the WCO HS 
Committee to determine where the product would fall  to be classified in the HS2007 edition since the 
heading and sub-heading texts would change on 1 Jan uary 2007. This question was on the agenda for 
the 38th Session of the WCO HS Committee, which took place from 2 to 13 October 2006.  
 
4.19 The Chairman  stated that on 16 October 2006, another communication from the Director of 
the WCO Tariff and Trade Affairs Directorate was received, indicating that at its 38th Session which 
ended on 13 October 2006, the WCO HS Committee ag reed by consensus that the same set top box 
would be classifiable in subheading 8528.71 in 20 07. However, it also stated that: "Pursuant to 
Article 8 of the HS Convention, Contracting Parties may enter a reservation on the decision of the  G/IT/M/47 
 Page 7 
 
 
  Committee for two months from the beginning of November 2006. A reservation would normally 
cause the matter to be sent back to  the Committee for reconsiderati on. In the absence of any such 
reservation, the corresponding change to the Cl assification Opinion will become effective on 
1 January 2007."  
4.20 The Chairman
 suggested the Committee postpone its c onsideration on this item to the next 
meeting when the two-month r eservation period would be over. 
 4.21 It was so agreed
. 
 5. Follow-up Discussions from the IT Symposium 
 - List of the Changes due to the introducti on of HS2002 Nomenclature in Relation to 
the ITA products (G/IT/W/22) 
 - Possible event to commemorate the 10-year anniversary of the ITA     
5.1 The Chairman
 recalled that at the meeting on 20 Oct ober 2005, the Secretariat, as requested 
by the Committee, made a presentation in re lation to the on-going exercise of the HS2002 
transposition and explained the changes due to th e introduction of HS2002 nomenclature in reaction 
to the ITA products. A technical note prepared by the S ecretariat to that effect was also circulated.  It 
was reproduced as document G/IT/W/22 at the request  of the Japanese delegation. It was suggested 
that the Committee would discuss this issue again in an informal setting before a formal meeting of 
the Committee, if possible, with the par ticipation of the capital-based experts.  
  5.2 The Chairman
 informed the Committee that on 9 October 2006, an informal meeting was 
convened which provided an opportunity for participants to express or explain their respective views 
on this very important and complicated subject. At that  informal meeting, questions were also raised on 
whether or not the ITA products were covered in the on-going exercise of the HS2002 transposition by 
the Secretariat, and how these products were being treated.  He also said th at while transposing the 
ITA products was part of the overall exercise of th e transposition process, the question of what role 
this Committee should play was also raised at the informal meeting on 9 October 2006. He then called 
upon the participants to consider how the tran sposition of the ITA products should be handled.  
  
5.3 The representative of Japan  introduced a paper (G/IT/W/25) in relation to the transposition 
exercise mentioned by the Chairman. He explai ned that the paper was intended to present a 
straightforward approach to keep the list of produc ts attached to the ITA Declaration in 1996 updated 
to reflect the developments that happened since 1996. He said that while the original products 
coverage of the ITA was defined with HS96 head ings, the HS was revised in 2002 and the next 
revision would be coming into effect in January 20 07. He also said that the works on Attachment B 
had made progress to narrow the classification divergences on many of the products contained therein. However, he stated that despite these developmen ts, the list of products covered under the ITA had 
never been revised and these developments had ge nerated a great uncertainty as to which product 
were covered under the ITA. He said that in Para graph 4 of the paper, in order to preserve the 
effectiveness of the ITA, his authorities felt that it was urgently necessary to enhance transparency 
and predictability of the product coverage of the ITA. The ITA Committee should develop systematic 
and comprehensive approach as described in Items (a) a nd (b) of the paper. He stated that in Item (a), 
his authorities proposed to update the ITA product li st directly through the transposition exercise from 
HS2002 to HS2007 in three steps: (i) ITA participants should submit their own list of ITA products under HS2002 as well as HS2007 together with conver gence tables to the ITA Committee as soon as 
possible with a specific timeframe decided by the ITA Committee; (ii)  the Secretariat should prepare a 
compilation of the revised lists submitted by th e participants on which basis the ITA Committee 
should work promptly on any divergences which might be found, with the aim to preserve integrity of 
the coverage of the ITA; and (iii) once the ITA Committee reached a consensus, the ITA product list G/IT/M/47 
Page 8  
 
  should be revised with new HS codes.  On Item (b), Japan suggested to accelerate the on-going work 
on Attachment B, in particular List V. He said that  it was necessary to complete the work as soon as 
possible, and the products in Attachment B, which had already been agreed on should be incorporated 
in the revision of the ITA product list under the a bove-mentioned Item (a), and the remaining products 
should be duly incorporated as soon as they would be settled.  He further stated that throughout the 
process the ITA Committee should work closely with  the WCO. He said that these actions were 
already envisaged in the text of the ITA as embodied in  Paragraph 5. In conclusi on, he believed that it 
was imperative for the ITA participants to work seriously and urgently to preserve and enhance the 
effectiveness of the ITA as originally envisioned.  Therefore, he proposed the ITA Committee decide 
on concrete actions as suggested by  his delegation with precise time frame with a view to completing 
the work without further delay.   
 5.4 The representative of the United States
 thanked Japan for the paper, and felt that Japan was on 
the right track and that it would not make sense to leave the IT nomenclature in an outdated form.  He 
said that as the HS revisions continued to come al ong, the original nomenclature became less and less 
useful as a guide to any of the actions in this  Committee. He pointed out that, it seemed to his 
delegation, that there was some over lap between wh at was being done in the Statistics Section with 
respect to the HS2002 version, and what the pa rticipants would now be discussing within the 
Committee on the HS2007 procedures. He said that  it would seem that on an ideal basis what the 
Secretariat did when it updated the HS96 nomenclature to HS2002 nomenclature should be relatively easy to extract.  He stated that after all, the schedules that the Secretariat was preparing for developing 
countries and that in most cases developed countr ies prepared on their own, with subsequent 
multilateral verification, constituted participants' lega l commitments in the WTO.  He said that the US 
certainly did not want to wind up with any sort of product where an update of the ITA and the HS2002 conversion for the wider purpose of ITA schedules, were in any way in conflict. He said that the US supported this initiative and that there ha d to be some communication between this Committee 
and the Statistics Section as to whether they could come up with an initial draft that would then be 
reviewed, and then follow the process laid out by Japan, to go through these things to discover 
divergences and come up with a revised ITA product list.  In his view, this would make sense. 
However, he thought that the starting point was the work that the Statistic Section had done and for 
participants to see how far down the road they had gone in achieving this ultimate goal.    
 
5.5 The representative of Hong Kong, China
 thanked Japan for its paper and said that he would 
forward it to his capital for detailed study. After briefly looking at the paper and listening to the 
explanation by Japan, he found these suggestions re asonable, particularly the one to update the ITA 
product list with the new HS codes.  He was also very supportive of completing the ongoing work on 
Attachment B as soon as possible.  
 
5.6 The representative of the Philippines  thanked Japan for its paper and stated that what the 
participants were looking at was a very complicat ed problem as HS96, HS2002 and HS2007 were all 
coming while in the WTO participants were just moving into HS2002. She said that it might be useful to hold an informal meeting to consider all these as a whole so everyone could be educated on how to 
get things done in this regard. She thought that so me of the ideas presented by Japan could also be 
done by the Secretariat since the Statistics Section of the ERSD was helping developing countries to 
convert their commitments into HS2002. Therefore, she suggested that an informal meeting under the 
auspices of the Chair be held to consider all these issues together. 
 
5.7 The representative of Chinese Taipei
 also thanked Japan for its paper and thought that the 
issue of updating the ITA product coverage was a ve ry important one. He said that he would send it 
back to his capital for careful consideration. He noted that as mentioned in document G/IT/W/22, only 
eleven items of Attachment A were affected by  the transposition from HS96 to HS2002. However, 
when one looked at Japan's proposal it seemed that the participants would have to submit the whole 
list of ITA products together with the conversion ta bles, and this sounded like a large amount of work.  G/IT/M/47 
 Page 9 
 
 
  However, in reality the work might not be that tedious, because only a few numbers and items were 
affected in document G/IT/W/22. He posed a ques tion to Japan on how Japan would view the entire 
work would be done, and whether this work woul d consume a lot of resources. He also supported 
what was mentioned by the Philippines of hol ding informal meetings to consider this. 
 
5.8 The representative of Japan  thanked all those who had commented on the paper and stated 
that after reflecting on the comments made at this meeting, he was planning to transform this room 
document into a formal proposal to the Committee.  In response to the qu estion posed by Chinese 
Taipei, he said that it was quite right that only a small number of items were affected by the 
transposition from HS96 to HS2002. He said that alt hough it would not take a great amount of time to 
transpose from HS96 to HS2002, the primary purpose for it was transparency, to show which items 
were really covered, and to make sure that the participants were in the same mindset that they 
considered the same items covered under the ITA.  However, he warned that at this stage a greater 
number of products were affected by the trans position from HS2002 to HS2007, so a greater amount 
of time and resources would be devoted to the tr ansposition work, which would directly imply that a 
greater amount of uncertainty would be created by this transposition exercise. Thus, it was more 
important to start this transposition exercise with a timeframe as proposed by Japan in the paper and 
such a timeframe should be specified by a deci sion of the Committee. He  emphasized that the 
participants could not spend hours and many years on th is matter but rather they should get it done in 
a proper manner. He then turned to the comment s put forward by both the US and the Philippine 
delegations. In his view, the US raised a very impor tant issue that it was important for the Statistic 
Section to work together with the Secretariat of th e ITA Committee. He encouraged the Secretariat, if 
it was agreeable, to work together rather than to  duplicate the ongoing work, and to mutually support 
the work that was ongoing elsewhere and in the ITA Committee.  5.9 The representative of Singapore
 thanked Japan for its useful contribution and for the paper. 
He said that he would send it back to his Capital fo r further comments, and saw possible merits of the 
Japanese proposal.  It seemed that the work on HS transposition was rather urgent and perhaps, the 
participants might want to take a special focus in the Committee.  However, this would be subject to 
discussion among the participants. He also shared the point that was voiced by the US delegation that 
there was already ongoing work within the Mark et Access Committee and it was very important for 
the participants of this Committee to think what work they would decide to take on in the ITA 
Committee so as to avoid any unnecessary duplication.  In  this regard, he felt that the suggestion made 
by the Philippine delegation was very useful which w as to have some sort of informal meeting where 
the participants could actually understand a bit more  about this HS transposition exercise and perhaps 
identify the magnitude of the problem in front of the participants.  
5.10 The representative of the European Communities
 emphasized his knowledge of the 
background for HS2007 as he had attended both WCO a nd WTO meetings and had participated in the 
process for the update of HS. He told the Committee that the HS2007 update was focussed very much 
on IT products and gave two examples.  He said th at some products had been moved out of the 84721 
heading into headings which were referred to wh at was normally called a specific function.  One was 
"communication", one was "monitors", and the third w as "printers". According to him, that created a 
challenge in transposing the pa rticipants’ tariff schedules. Anot her element in HS2007 was the 
specific heading "semiconductor manufacturing equipm ent", but not the testing equipment.  He 
emphasized that only the manufacturing equipment was created for 8486, so there would be quite a lot 
of changes.  He mentioned that there would also be a change on the "multi-chips" due to the multi-
chip agreement.  He further said that a lot of thi ngs would be happening on 1 January 2007, and it was 
certainly the hope of the Community that all HS cont racting parties were ready for the big bang, ready 
to apply the new HS from 1 January 2007.  He  said that the EC was ready and had done its 
transposition. This meant that the EC was processi ng the necessary information to tell others what its 
tariffs would look like from 1 January 2007.     G/IT/M/47 
Page 10  
 
  5.11 The representative of the European Communities
 stated that he would certainly circulate the 
Japanese paper back in Brussels and he raised a numb er of questions. His first question related to the 
annex to the Singapore Ministerial Declaration. In that annex, in Paragraph 7, there were foreseen 
consultations between parties as it was the case for Japa n with Indonesia about the scope of one of the 
ITA concessions. He then asked Japan whether it was pl anning to raise the same issue with the rest of 
the participants while discussing the HS2007 transpositi on. He said that the EC and other participants 
did not know what kind of product Japan and Indonesi a were talking about, and all they knew was 
that Japan and Indonesia had talked and discussed the classification of a particular product and they wanted to put it in the ITA.  He said that the rest of the Committee might not come to the same 
conclusion if they were asked.  He emphasized th at when participants discuss the product scope, the 
Committee should work by consensus not by bilate rals. He said that the way to expend the ITA 
should not be by finding a delegation who had want ed another delegation to agree that something 
should be in the ITA.  He also raised the question re garding the  scope of  the ITA.  He said that the 
process to expand the ITA was foreseen in Paragraph 3 of the Annex to the ITA. He reminded the participants that there was  ITA II, which in his vi ew was not dead and was lying on the shelf, and the 
participants were still waiting to see what would happen.    
  5.12 The representative of the European Communities
 then referred to the comments made in the 
Japanese paper and asked whether Japan did foresee that  there would be an indirect expansion of the 
ITA. He said that meant products which Japan, by hi ndsight, might have wanted to include in the ITA, 
but which were not mentioned specifically in the ITA.   He pointed out the conflict between what was 
mentioned by the US delegate and what the EC woul d do in this regard. He said that the US delegate 
used the term of ITA nomenclature. However, the EC  did not classify on that basis. In the EC, ITA 
products were classified on the basis of the HS no menclature. In other words, the EC would first 
classify the product and then to determine what woul d be the economic consequences. He said that in 
the EC, Customs did not first look at the duty rate an d then classify the product, and that was not the 
way of how Customs worked. He then repeated the qu estion to Japan whether in their paper they were 
envisaging an expansion of the product coverage.   
 5.13 The representative of the European Communities
 raised the third question of classification 
divergences. He stated that the ITA was 10 years old but the participants were still struggling to 
conclude the classification divergences, and had not reached a conclusion. He said that a number of 
cases, because of evolution of technology, might  pop up through such a so-called transposition 
exercise.  However, the participants might have too many issues on the table that it would not be 
realistic to put in a timeframe. He indicated that many classification divergences had yet to be discussed and that was because the participants ha d only discussed the Attachment B issues. The 
participants had not discussed other classification divergence issues under Paragraph 3 of the Annex 
to the ITA. The participants had not discussed them  in this Committee. He further asked whether the 
participants would have to wait another 10 years to conclude how the ITA schedules would look like 
if more issues came up that needed further discussi ons. He said that that was part of his delegation's 
concerns and some clarifications were sought fro m Japan on these items. He would like to know how 
Japan would foresee the further process. He said that it was not of help to the economic operators that 
if the participants for 10 years or 20 years were not  able to reach an agreement on what was in and 
what was out. He said that when he referred to ec onomic operators, he meant not only the big firms 
that were organised in federations like EICTA, th e American Electronics Association, and JEITA, but 
also the SMEs. He felt that one had to take all commercial interests into account. In conclusion, he 
found that the Japanese paper effectively opened up a much broader issue than just the one about the 
HS2007 transposition. 
 
5.14 The representative of Japan
 stated that the EC was right in describing the transposition from 
HS2002 to HS2007 as a big bang, which could provide some ideas about the kind of magnitude that would be involved in the transposition exercise a nd the uncertainties that could be created for the 
business operators, including SMEs. In response to the first question from the EC on whether Japan  G/IT/M/47 
 Page 11 
 
 
  would envisage bilateral consultations to solve any di vergences that would occur, he stated that in the 
Japanese paper, laid out in step 2, each participant would submit an ITA produc t list and if there were 
any divergences on the ITA product coverage, it wo uld be addressed by the ITA Committee, which 
should work promptly on these divergences. He claime d that he did not know yet if there would be 
divergences or not.  He said if there were any di vergences, then the primary place to discuss them 
would be the ITA Committee. He did not yet know if there was a necessity to get into bilateral 
consultations or not.   5.15 The representative of Japan
 answered the second question from th e EC and stated that  Japan's 
paper did not propose for any expansion of the ITA.  He also said that he di d not really understand the 
idea of indirect expansion of the ITA as referred to by the EC. He emphasized that the idea of the 
paper was just the transposition from HS96 to HS2002 and then from HS2002 to HS2007 based on 
the ordinary procedures adopted in the Market  Access Committee, which was never described as 
expansion of the commitment nor as contraction of  the commitment.  He understood that it was only 
the transposition exercise according to the newest version of HS.  
 
5.16 The representative of Japan  further stated that following th e same line as the general practice 
of the transposition of the whole concession table, the transposition of the product coverage of the 
ITA was just a transposition exercise without expansion of the coverage of the ITA.  He said that on  
the timeframe, it would not be affordable for business operators to wait for 10 years or more to  settle  
the standing issue. He emphasized why it was necessary  to act promptly and urgently, as indicated in 
the conclusion section of Japan's paper, for the Comm ittee to keep the integrity and the effectiveness 
of the ITA. He urged that it was necessary to move  quickly forward to get into a transposition exercise 
in three steps as laid out in the paper.  He said that  for step 1, the participants of the ITA were to 
submit their own list which would not be difficult in itself, rather the difficult part might be or might 
not be the resolution of the divergences, but he di d not know yet until all participants submitted their 
own list of products. He emphasized again that partic ipants should quickly embark on this exercise to 
settle this issue as quickly as possible.  5.17 The Chairman
 stated that he would consult with the Secretariat and with interested 
participants on how to proceed with the Japanese  paper as several delegations asked for time to 
consider its substance.    
5.18 The representative of Australia
 indicated that his delegation wished to be included in the 
consultations with interested partic ipants and also wanted to consul t with its capital on the implication 
of the Japanese paper.  He said that even if th e HS2002 transposition seemed to be quite easy, at least 
with regard to the Attachment A products, it seeme d that there would be more work involved with 
HS2007 and thus, he was reluctant to commit to furt her work.  He asked to consider the possibility 
that there might be other participants that were not  present at the meeting who were also concerned at 
being drawn into further work. 
 
5.19 The Chairman  shared the same concern as Australia.  He described a technical meeting that 
took place in the previous year on HS transpositi on under the Market Access Committee, and said that 
when they got to collapsing items, half of the dele gations collapsed themselves.  He was afraid that 
they might ask for something which they would regret when they got it.  He told the participants that 
he would check with the Secretariat to organise another technical meeting, specifically for ITA 
participants. He stated that the other part had the silent majority and that they were supposed to do 
something, but for different reasons they preferred to stay out of doing things.  He said he was not 
speaking for any particular participants.  He furthe r stated that if one called for submissions from all 
participants, then one was heading for trouble as it was the case with the EMI/EMC exercise, thus one 
had to be careful.  He indicated that he would cons ult with the participants and the Secretariat, and 
suggested the Committee take note of the statements made and agree to continue this discussion at the next meeting. G/IT/M/47 
Page 12  
 
  5.20 It was so agreed
.  The Committee also agreed to discuss again other issues contained in 
document G/IT/W/15 at its next meeting.    5.21 The Chairman
 referred to the issue of organizing a symposium in 2007 to commemorate the 
10-year anniversary of the ITA in view of the in creasing importance and the rapid development of the 
IT sector. He said that it was discussed at the l ast Committee meeting and the reactions were very 
positive.  He indicated that in his recent consulta tions with certain delegatio ns, in particular with 
regards to timing, form, and possible funding, the r eactions were very supportive. He suggested that 
the symposium would be a one-and-half-day, follo wed by a half-day meeting of the Committee, 
taking advantage of the presence of many developi ng country delegates from their capital.  He 
proposed it be organized in March 2007. He said th at he was going to undertake further consultations 
with the participants and the Secretariat as there might be a need for some additional funding while 
the main sum should come from the TA budget.   5.22 He said that the main purpose of this event was to: a) conduct a review of the operation of the 
ITA over the past decade with the increased participation of developing countries; b) provide an 
overview of the status quo or the dynamics of the IT sector, taking into account the latest developments in technological convergence and the impact of globalisation; and c) highlight the 
prospects for and challenges to further expansion of trade in IT products with a view of ensuring that 
the original objective of the ITA is  maintained. He said that there would be elements of past, present, 
and future in the Symposium.  
  
5.23 The Chairman
 further stated that the meeting would be open to all WTO Members, including 
ITA Participants. He thought of inviting some in ternational organisations, such OECD, ISO and 
certainly WCO.  He also wanted to invite the private sector and the business community.  He agreed 
that the IT businesses were run mainly by multinati onals but as it was mentioned before, they were 
not the only ones operating.  He said that there was also a mass of SMEs and the question was how to 
get them on board.  He asked for suggestions on so me flagship speakers to start the commemorative 
event.  He also asked for people who could provide  updates on the latest developments in the IT 
sector. He suggested the Committee take note of his st atement and agree to hold this event tentatively 
in March 2007 with specific dates and programme to  be determined through consultations with the 
delegations during the following weeks. 
 
5.24 It was so agreed . 
  
6. Proposals from the United States Concerning Product Coverage of the Current ITA 
6.1 The Chairman  reminded participants that at the last Committee meeting, the US delegation 
distributed a paper (G/IT/W/21) on product covera ge under the existing ITA, and on 19 October 2006, 
it submitted another paper (G/IT/W/23) on the same s ubject matter and requested a separate item to be 
listed on the agenda for this meeting.   6.2 The representative of the United States
 emphasized the importance of the elimination of 
duties on ITA products on fostering trade as both im porters and exporters re lied on the maintenance 
of duty-free treatment for these products. He said th at when the product coverage for the ITA was 
finalized almost ten years ago, it reflected products that were available in the marketplace and on the 
forefront of technology at the time.  Now, ma ny of those same ITA products became more 
sophisticated as they incorporated new technologies or  additional functions that might also be found 
in other information technology products. He was surprised at how many ITA covered products over 
the past ten years had incorporated such new te chnologies or functions. He expressed his concern over 
the overly narrow interpretation of ITA product cove rage which limited duty-free treatment to only 
older, less sophisticated versions of the ITA produc ts that were no longer available on the market 
because technology had advanced. He felt that th e overly narrow interpreta tion would decrease the  G/IT/M/47 
 Page 13 
 
 
  range of products eligible to receive duty-free tr eatment under the ITA.  He understood that there 
were already several technologically advanced versi ons of ITA products that were at that point or 
might be in danger of no longer receiving duty-free tr eatment.  He felt that the Chairman should be 
conducting informal consultations on such products. He also felt that this was not an issue of 
expanding the ITA to cover additiona l products, but rather the maintenance of the current ITA product 
coverage so that the ITA could provide real ma rket access opportunities for products on the market. 
 6.3 The representative of Japan
 shared the US concerns and al so expressed the concerns over the 
possible reclassification of products covered under th e ITA due to the technological development of 
those products. He pointed out that the digital came ra was one of the typical products in danger of 
such nullification and impairment of ITA commitment because of possible reclassification. He indicated that since 1997, ITA participants had cl assified the digital camera into ex8525.40 (digital 
still image video cameras), in Attach ment A. He said that certain participants currently sounded their 
interest to reclassify digital cameras as video cameras or camcorders on the ground that moving image 
recording functions were added to them. In his view , this was contrary to the common practice of ITA 
participants that digital cameras with moving imag e recording functions should be classified into 
ex8525.40.  He said that practically, all the existi ng modules of digital cameras with some exceptions 
such as the single lens deflect digital cameras had moving image recording functions. He, therefore, 
argued that if digital cameras with moving image re cording functions were to be classified as video 
cameras, or camcorders, their commitment under the ex8525.40 could be empty set. He was of the 
view that this was against the common practice as  well as the intent of the participants clearly 
declared in Paragraph 1 of the ITA: "each par ties trade regime should evolve in a manner that 
enhances market access opportunities for IT products ". He then provided some pieces of factual 
information to back up the classification of dig ital cameras with moving images recording functions 
into ex 8525.40. He gave an example and emphasi zed that the objective characteristics of digital 
cameras with moving image recording functions an d the main use for which it was intended were 
those of digital cameras but not of the video camer as. He said that moving image recording functions 
were clearly of only secondary or less importance. He added that the current mutual agreements 
between Japan and some participants on the classification of digital cameras supported the 
aforementioned understanding. He said that this concern on possible reclassification was not only 
limited to digital cameras. He felt that the evol ution of technological development of ITA products 
such as convergence of technologies and the additi on of new functions as continuously updating the 
previous version of these products, had put other produc ts in danger of de-classification. He gave a 
further example, flat panel displays which were lis ted in Attachment B of the ITA, and which were 
quoted duty-free treatment.  He said that they were sometimes reclassified as video monitors on the 
ground that they were also capable of receiving vi deo signals although they were mainly used as 
automatic data processing machines.  He then gave another example, digital multifunction machines 
with combined functions of network printer, facsi mile, scanner and digital copier. He said that these 
were typical products of technological convergence, but  were sometimes reclassi fied as copier due to 
their limited copying function even though they were mainly used with computer network. He invited 
all ITA participants to work together to preserve th e integrity of the ITA and to ensure that the ITA 
evolved in a manner that enhanced market access op portunities for IT products and not the other way 
around. He also asked the ITA Committee take  necessary initiative for that purpose. 
 6.4 The representative of Chinese Taipei
 felt that it was important for the Committee to address 
the proposals from the US concerning product cove rage of the current ITA.  He said that for 
participants exporting prod ucts described in the two proposals, the loss of duty-free treatment due to 
reclassification could do great harm to the ma nufacturers, while the consumers and down-stream 
manufacturers in the importing participants could al so suffer. He said that given the ever-evolving 
nature of the IT products as a result of continui ng technology developments, trade negotiators should 
consider a way to address this issue without havi ng to renegotiate the whole agreement every few 
years.  Regarding ways of dealing with the issu e of product coverage, he supported the US proposal, 
and requested the Chairman to hold  the informal consultations, and requested that his delegation be G/IT/M/47 
Page 14  
 
  included. He said that it might be helpful for the discussions if the US and other concerned 
participants could share information about the produ cts that they thought were in danger of losing 
duty-free treatment, for example by means of cataloguing these products.  He felt that this would allow participants to consult their respective dom estic constituents and have a more meaningful 
discussion on this matter. 
 
6.5  The representative of Singapore
 welcomed the submissions by the US, and said that they were 
both timely and useful. He said that the US proposals highlighted some of the difficult challenges faced by the participants and provided good constr uctive ideas on how to address them. He made four 
points: 1) the ITA agreement came into force in 1996, and since then technologies had evolved at an 
incredible pace as well as the convergence of some of these technologies. While recognising the 
progress that the Committee had achieved, he said th at all participants needed to work more 
expeditiously to match up the speed of technolog y advancement and to ensure the spirit of the 
agreement; 2) while technological development was th e feature of IT trade, participants should be 
careful that measures taken to address it did not frustrate the objectives of the ITA. He said that there 
might have been attempts to reclassify IT products  which have evolved, and in doing so there was a 
danger that products would fall outside the ITA cove rage, thus prejudicing th e intended re-shaper of 
the agreement. Therefore, particip ants needed to factor in these ne w technological changes, so as to 
ensure that the ITA product coverage was maintained ; 3) the US proposal could elaborate more on the 
informal consultations that they had envisaged as far as the notification system that they had 
suggested. If the informal consultations were to take place, Singapore wanted to be updated by the 
participants concerned, or at least, the Committee should be kept informed of the progress made, as 
well as of the products under discussion. On the notif ication system itself, Singapore wanted to know 
if the US envisaged that only the participants c oncerned should notify or a ll participants under this 
Committee should notify; and 4) Singapore was wonderi ng if this Committee also wanted to consider 
the formalization of some of these procedures so that a more outcome-orientated approach could be 
taken. 
 6.6 The representative of Malaysia
 thanked the US proposals and agreed to the process of 
consultation provided that it was open to all interest ed participants without prejudice to their position. 
She referred to Paragraph 5 of G/IT/W/21 and said that Malaysia was still studying the matter, and it 
should form part of the consultation as her delega tion had no formal position yet on this matter.  She 
supported the suggestion by Chinese Taipei for the US to share the details of the products concerned. 
 6.7 The representative of the Philippines
 thanked the US and Japan for bringing to their attention 
of this potential problem. She said what was important  to them to bear in mind was that participants 
should enhance market access opportunities for IT pr oducts and this could not be achieved if there 
was a danger because of reclassification. She found th at there was a merit in convening, as suggested 
in Paragraph 5 of G/IT/W/21, informal consultations.  She suggested that it would be useful if the participants be kept informed. Sh e agreed with the suggestion by Chinese Taipei, that participants 
should have concrete examples indicating there w as a dangerous slope beginning to see so that her 
capital and the stakeholders would be fully informed.  
6.8 The representative of Korea
 also welcomed the US proposals, and appreciated both the US 
and Japan for producing more detailed information on products which were in danger of loosing the 
duty-free treatment. She felt that this had greatly helped their understanding for the importance of this 
issue. She indicated that Korea had no objection to having informal consultations on this issue but they would need further reflecti ons on how to proceed, on what would be discussed in the informal 
consultation, and on how it would lead to the work of the Committee. 
 6.9 The representative of Hong Kong, China
 thanked the US for its papers and shared with other 
speakers that these papers reflected the possible challenges faced by the Committee in view of 
technological advancement.  He welcomed the continuous discussions on the various scenarios  G/IT/M/47 
 Page 15 
 
 
  concerning this matter and also felt that more deta ils regarding the scope and depth of these issues 
would be useful.  He said that the papers only lis ted some items such as set-up boxes, computer flat 
panel display, etc. He wondered whether there were  some other products which were of concern to 
other participants and what would be the possible impact on classification. He supported the Chair to 
hold informal consultations for more effective exch anges among the participants on the issue and for  
a possible solution. 
 6.10 The representative of Canada
 stated that he had taken interest in Japan's statement about 
digital cameras being able to take pictures and ha ving moving image functions in them. He said that 
he had one for about three years but he had just fi gured out how to do that, thus he hoped that video 
cameras never got classified as digital cameras because he would never be able to take pictures again. 
He said that Canada supported the US proposal , contained in G/IT/W/23, requesting for some 
informal consultations with concerned participants.  Canada was also  interested in product coverage 
and in hearing examples of products affected by these changes.  
6.11 The representative of the European Communities
 thanked the US for its proposals and 
thanked other delegates for their comments, partic ularly for the Canadian comment.  He said that 
cameras and video cameras were typical examples of  what was in and what was out.  In his view, a 
digital camera was in, but a digital video camera recorder was out, so it was difficult to determine 
whether it was A or B, and that might have b een the reason for some people talking about the 
orientated interpretation.  He said that while  some people might have talked about a dynamic 
interpretation of the ITA others might have spoken about a dynamic interpretation of the 
nomenclature.   He stated that in the EC they we re not allowed to have a dynamic interpretation of the 
nomenclature, because their Court of Justice forbad e it. He said that it was unlike other places, where 
one might change the way to classify a product by a ch ange in the dictionary for example. He felt that 
there might be a mix up of the two issues. Accordi ng to him, the first issue was Paragraph 5 of the 
Annex to the Agreement, which dealt with the classification divergences, and if the Committee felt 
that the customs experts should expand their work on classification divergences, it was not a problem.  
He said that the EC could accept that the particip ants had further discussions under Paragraph 5 of the 
Annex to the Agreement itself.  He thought that the comments made were related to Paragraph 3 of 
the Annex to the Agreement. He then quoted the whole text of Paragraph 3.  He said that he heard the 
word reclassification. He came back to the camera example and said that according to what he had 
heard at the meeting, they were not necessarily ta lking about classification divergence, it could have 
been a request to review the product coverage a nd expand it. He said that he was not making that 
comment out of the blue.  He then referred to IT A II, and said that as it was suggested to expand the 
ITA, there was a reference made to ex8525.40, sa ying "still image video cameras, other digital, and 
other video camera recorders", and there was a footnote saying "ITA I = digital still image video 
cameras". He indicated that as far as he knew, s till image video cameras no longer existed in the EC; 
they were off the market; they had disappeared, but  that the EC had interpreted them as digital 
cameras out of the kindness of their heart. He said that he was walking on the border line between Paragraph 3 and Paragraph 5 of the A nnex to the ITA,  and urged that the participants took that into 
account in the informal consultations. He said that the EC wanted to discuss classification divergences 
under Paragraph 5. He also indicated that ITA II was on the table if others wanted to talk about the 
expansion of the ITA.   
 
6.12 The representative of the United States
 responded that they would be happy to provide more 
information about certain products that they saw or  thought might be in danger of loosing duty-free 
treatment.  He also said that they had already me ntioned four specific products. He said that in an 
earlier paper in July, they suggested the notificati on procedure, where if there was a product that was 
receiving duty-free treatment in the ITA and there was a proposal, either a customs classification 
proposal or another proposal, by a participant to end duty-free treatment for such products, the US 
wanted this to be discussed by the Committee so that the necessary tr aders could be informed about 
what was being discussed.  He also emphasized, re ferring to Paragraph 3 on  the incorporation of G/IT/M/47 
Page 16  
 
  additional products and to the EC comment that the products referred to by the US were those 
products already covered in the current ITA and the fact that they had new functions or features did 
not change the primary use of these products.  He said that his delegation was ready to discuss the different opinions through informal consultations. He also said that if others were claiming that these 
products were no longer in the market and could be  applied under certain categories like digital still 
image video cameras, then this should have been  raised and discussed with the Committee. He was 
concerned about hearing that there was nothing on the market but got the duty-free treatment 
available. He felt that it sh ould be open for discussion. 
 6.13 The representative of the European Communities
 said that if he understood correctly, the US 
idea was that if one had a problem with a new pr oduct emerging on the market one should go to this 
Committee and ask for its views on classification. He  stated that the EC thought it was not a good 
idea. He believed that the US would not agree to it because the US had a panel on selected customs 
matters where one of the criticisms was that it took too long for the EC to d ecide on classification of 
products. He said that the EC had no problem of informing the US a posteriori whenever but this 
information was already public and available. He indicated that the EC did not make secret 
classifications, but that it had to classify products, and that process should not be blocked by the idea 
of putting any classification issues before this Committ ee. He then referred to the set top boxes as an 
example and said that some people in industries beli eved that all set top boxes were covered by the 
ITA.  He stated that the EC did not interpret it in this way.  He quoted the ITA text of what was the 
minimum standard for a set top box.  He emphasize d that it would not be eligible if there was no 
modem in a set top box.  He said that at the moment there was a discussion on whether having the 
hard disc present, meant that one changed the category, and in his view it did.   6.14 The representative of Japan
 commented on the character of the digital camera issues. He said 
that he did not understand the meaning of the "dyn amic interpretation" as referred to by the EC, but 
mentioned that the concern on digital cameras was quite simple. He also mentioned Paragraph 5 and 
said that since there existed a divergence among IT A participants in classifying IT products, in 
particular the digital cameras, participants shoul d achieve a common classification for these products. 
He, therefore,  believed that the concerns with di gital cameras and also with  other products were not 
an issue of the dynamic interpretation, but rather of common classification, or a common coverage of 
ITA products.  
6.15 The Chairman
 felt that there was a wide support for consultations to be held on the basis of 
the US paper.  He said that there were some requ ests for further information from the US  and the US 
delegation was willing to offer a list or character istics for those products. He proposed to hold 
informal consultations on how to proceed the discuss ions and on the US paper itself.  He suggested 
the Committee take note of all statements made and agr ee to revert to this issue at its next meeting. 
  6.16 It was so agreed
. 
 
7. New Participants 
7.1 The Chairman  recalled that at the Committee meetin g on 21 July 2006, the delegation of the 
United Arab Emirates indicated that they would soon submit their revised draft ITA schedule of 
commitments. However, so far, the Secretariat was waiting to receive the draft of the UAE ITA schedule for circulation. There had also been no other ne w participants, nor new schedules to consider.  
 7.2 The Committee took note
 of the Chairman’s statement. 
  G/IT/M/47 
 Page 17 
 
 
  8. Draft Annual Report of the Committee to the Council for Trade in  Goods (2006) 
(G/IT/W/24)  
8.1 The Chairman  reminded participants that the Committee reports annually to the Council for 
Trade in Goods.  The draft report for this year had been circulated in G/IT/W/24. The report was a factual summary of the work undertaken in the Committee during the year, and it would likely need to be 
updated in light of the discussions in the Committee today.  
 8.2 The draft annual report was approved
 with the updates in light of the discussions in the 
Committee meeting today.  
 
9. Other Business 
9.1 The Chairman  stated that on 26 October 2006, he received a joint request from EICTA, 
Consumer Electronics Association, Information Technology Industry Council, and JEITA for a 
meeting with the participants of the ITA Committee.  As indicated in the request, the goal of this 
meeting was to: a) reiterate the benefits and objectiv es of the ITA; b) address participants' concerns to 
ensure that the integrity of existing ITA commi tments was maintained; and c) review existing 
mechanism under the ITA, which was designed to en sure constant review and updating of the ITA. 
He said that he had consulted with some delega tions, and suggested the Committee agree that he 
would respond to them positively and propose such  a meeting to take place on 7 December 2006 in 
the form of a workshop, initiated by himself. He also suggested the Committee agree that this meeting 
would be open to all interested IT industry associati ons. He reminded participants that as early as last 
December, during the WTO Ministerial in Hong Kong, China WTO Members had already received a 
message from the Global ICT/Electronics Industry which was much broader, representing 12 IT industry associations, including the MIT of India and the SEIPI in the Philippines.    9.2 The representative of the European Communities
 felt that some caution would be required 
towards the letter, as this group of companies, repr esenting both customer electronic people and the IT 
people wanted to discuss three things: first of all, to reiterate the benefits of the ITA; that was fairly 
neutral thing to discuss; secondly, they would addr ess participants concerne d to ensure that the 
integrity of the existing ITA commitments was maintain ed. He felt that for this, the participants were 
already walking into a minor mine field because one would have to explain to them the mechanisms 
in the agreement itself; thirdly, they would get to review existing mechanism under the ITA designed 
to ensure constant review and updating of the ITA.  He felt that there was a need to consider this 
carefully.  He wondered whether they were suggesti ng in fact to rewrite the Annex to the ITA which 
had the modalities and Attachments A and B. He requested to have some clarifications from them on what they wanted, in particular relating to Paragra phs 3 and 5.  He emphasized that the ITA did have a 
mechanism for sorting out classifi cation divergences, did have a m echanism for updating the ITA, and 
did have a mechanism in the Agreement itself for consultations. He saw no reason to reinvent the 
wheel and hoped the Committee would agree with him.   9.3 The representative of the Philippines
 said that she was not quite cl ear what was the  suggested 
course of action that the Chairman proposed regardi ng the said letter. In view of the content of the 
letter, she was wondering whether it could be taken up in the commemorative event that the 
Committee would also be organising next year. She fe lt that there might be merit to put all of these 
things together with a wider participation.  She ask ed the Chairman to clarify his course of action with 
regard to this letter.  9.4 The Chairman
 explained that this group of associations was a selective one, and they wanted 
to have an opportunity to speak with the participan ts of the ITA, and thus the Committee had to react, 
either to refuse or to accept. He said that he had c hosen to react positively so that such dialogue could 
take place, and proposed directly to the delegations to consider the possibility of having a workshop.  G/IT/M/47 
Page 18  
 
  He explained that the workshop would be a forum th at could be used outside of the Committee as it 
would not be a meeting of the Committee, it would be separate and distinct. It would be a meeting 
between participants and interested industries. He pr oposed that this event be open to other industries 
not just these four and those 12 associations that ha d signed the previous letter mentioned earlier. He 
said that there could also be others that were not s ubscribers to the first letter, which should be invited 
too. He said that this was one of the reasons he saw this exercise different from the Symposium. The 
Symposium would be open to all WTO Members while this event would only be open to the 
participants.  He said that this event could be orga nised more quickly and should be more technical in 
nature.  He indicated that the industry associations  should come and explain what they wanted, which 
could give input to delegations.  He said that th ere would be no link between the industries and the 
Committee directly. 
  
9.5 The representative of the Philippines
 thanked the Chairman for his explanation, and said that 
she would not block the consensus, if there was a consensus to have this workshop, but she just  
hoped that the participants should know wh at they were getting themselves into. 
 
9.6 The Chairman  said that he would follow the course of action and proposed that he would 
respond to them that he was ready to organise a work shop.  He would propose a date, and at the same 
time, he would try to contact others to see if they  would be ready or willing to join the Committee in 
that exercise.   
 
9.7 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. 
  9.8 The Chairman
 proposed that the Committee's next mee ting be held immediately following the 
conclusion of the Symposium and the exact date to  be settled in consultation with delegations.  
 
9.9 It was so agreed . 
 9.10 The meeting was adjourned. 
__________