RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/IT/M/43 
6 September 2005 
 (05-3878) 
Committee of Participants on the Expansion of 
Trade in Information Technology Products  
 
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 25 MAY 2005 
Chairman: Mr. F. Seppey (Canada)  
Agenda of the Meeting            P a g e  
 
1. Review of the Status of Implementation of the Ministerial Declaration on Trade in 
Information Technology Pro ducts (G/IT/1/Rev.35)...........................................................1  
 - Request by the United States to Rai se an Implementation/Classification  
  Matter Concerning Chinese Taipei 
2. EMC/EMI Pilo t Project........................................................................................................2  
 - Report by the Chairman 
3. Non-tariff Measures Work Programme (G/IT/SPEC/Q4/19/Rev.2 and G/IT/SPEC/Q2/11/Rev.1) .....................................................................................................3
 
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)........................................................................................3  
 - List V of G/IT/W/6/Rev.3 - Items and Specific Questions Referred to the  
  Committee to be addressed (G/IT/W/15) 
 - Summary of Discussions - The First 11 Items of List V (G/IT/W/16) 
5. Follow-up Discussions from the IT Symposium.................................................................9  
6. New Participants ............................................................................................................... ..12 
7. Other Bu siness................................................................................................................. ....12  
8. Election of Chairperson......................................................................................................12  
 
Introduction 
 
 The Chairman  stated that the proposed agenda for this  meeting was circulat ed in WTO/AIR/2571 
on 13 May 2005.  With reference to the agenda, he aske d if there would any delegation wish to raise any 
matter under "other business".  He stated 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.   
1. Review of the Status of Implementation of  the Ministerial Declaration on Trade in 
Information Technology Products (G/IT/1/Rev.35) 
- Request by the United States to Raise an Implementation/Classification Matter 
Concerning Chinese Taipei 
 
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.35.  This 
document showed the participants and the implem entation 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. 
 G/IT/M/43 
Page 2  
 
 1.2 The delegation of Japan
 raised an implementation/classification matter concerning Indonesia.  
He asserted that Japan understood that digital s till-image camera was covered by digital image video 
cameras, which were agreed to be the ITA products .  However, Indonesia classified almost all the 
digital cameras in its classification as HS code 852540.30, which levied 15 per cent import tariffs on 
digital cameras.  He stated  that in whichever means Indonesia would classify digital cameras, they 
were ITA products and Indonesia had to treat them as duty-free products.  He noted that although 
bilateral consultations had being held with the Indonesian authorities, Indonesia did not provide Japan 
a clear explanation on the reasons of why 15 per cent duties were levied.  Therefore, he stated that 
Japan would demand Indonesia to correct their pract ice concerning digital cameras immediately and 
give a clear and full explanation on this issue by the next meeting. 
 
1.3 The delegation of Indonesia  noted that there were two problems in respect to Japan’s concern 
on tariffs imposed on digital still-image cameras, ex. HS 852540.  Firstly, based on its commitments under the ITA, Indonesia should reduce the tariff le vel of the product of digital still-image video 
cameras, ex. HS 852540 from 5 per cent to 0 per cent.  He stated that this had been under discussion 
in the capital and hopefully would be done soon.  S econdly, with respect to other digital cameras, ex. 
HS 852540.30, the tariff was 15 per cent.  In th e view of Japan, these were ITA products and 
consequently those tariffs had to be reduced as appropri ate.  In this context, he believed that there had 
been a misunderstanding between both countries.  He dr ew participants' attention to the fact that under 
the current Indonesia’s tariff nomencl ature, there were four tariff lin es for HS code 852540: i.e. HS 
852540.10, digital still-image video cameras; HS 852540.20, other still-image video cameras; HS 
852540.30, other digital cameras; and HS 852540.40, other video camera recorders.  However, only 
product of digital still-image video cameras, ex . HS 852540 was covered under the Indonesia’s ITA 
commitments.  Therefore, other products were still outside Indonesia’s commitments, where the 
tariffs level in place was 15 per cent and Indonesi a had no obligation to reduce or eliminate them 
under the ITA.  Nevertheless, the Indonesian delega tion would be pleased to have another informal 
consultation with Japan to further clarify this matter and seek a mutually satisfactory solution. 
 1.4 The Chairman
 suggested the Committee to take note of the information provided and turned 
to the sub-agenda item, the request by the Unite d States to raise an implementation/classification 
matter concerning Chinese Taipei.  
1.5 The delegation of the United States
 reported that the United States and Chinese Taipei 
continued to be engaged in discussions on the classi fication of thermistor devices. He urged Chinese 
Taipei to recognise and comply with the WCO decision that recognised this product as ITA-
qualifying, so that two parties could quickly and expeditiously resolve this issue.  
1.6 The delegation of Chinese
 Taipei  reported that this issue had been under discussion by the US 
Government and US companies concerned and his au thorities.  He noted that several meetings had 
been held in Taipei and his authorities had received a proposal from a company that was under 
internal evaluation.    1.7 The Committee took note
 of the statements made. 
 
2. EMC/EMI Pilot Project  
  - Report by the Chairman 
 
2.1 The Chairman  recalled that at the Committee meeting 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 c onnection, he had raised two issues for the Committee 
to discuss, i.e. (1) information availability, and (2) st ructure/format of such a list.  With respect to the  G/IT/M/43 
 Page 3 
 
 
 first issue, it was agreed to enc ourage those participants who had not submitted a survey response to 
do so, and those whose situation has changed to amend their previous submission.  On the second 
issue, the Secretariat was asked, as per Section III of  the Guideline to draw up a list, indicating for 
each ITA participants which type of conform ity assessment procedure it used based on the 
information available.  In this regard, he reported th at the preparations of such a list by the Secretariat 
was currently underway and once the Secretariat had prepared a draft, it would be circulated to 
participants for verification of th e accuracy of the information.  
 2.2 The Chairman
 proposed that, pending the completion by the Secretariat of such a draft, the 
Committee would revert to this matter at the next meeting.  It was so agreed . At the same time, he 
encouraged once again those participants who had not  submitted a survey response to do so, and those 
whose situation has changed to amend their previous submission. 
 
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  recalled that the Committee agreed at its meeting of 24 February 2005 that he 
would send a letter to the Chairman of the NGMA, informing the NAMA of this Committee's work on NTMs by providing factual information on the work  done so far in the ITA Committee, and also the 
accomplishments that had been realised.  He reported that on 20 April 2005, he forwarded the letter to 
Ambassador Stefan Haukur Johannesson, Chairman  of the NGMA.  Before doing so, as agreed, a 
draft of the letter was faxed to all delegations fo r comments on 15 April 2005.  He noted that his letter 
to the NGMA Chair had been issued as JOB(05)/67. 
 3.2 Concerning the need to consider whether th e Committee could usefully undertake any other 
matter in this regard with the completion of th e EMC/EMI Pilot Project, he suggested that the 
Committee would revert to this item at the next mee ting.  He urged delegations to reflect and review 
based on the interventions made over the previous tw o meetings, and to see if the participants could 
build on these discussions and identify what useful  work this Committee could undertake on the non-
tariff measures work programme in the future.  3.3 It was so agreed
. 
 
4. Divergences in Classifying Information Technology 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 – Item s and Specific Questions Referred to the 
Committee to be addressed (G/IT/W/15)   
-  Summary of Discussions – The First 11 Items of List V (G/IT/W/16) 
 
4.1 The Chairman  provided an update of the work in this area, as  he believed important progress had 
been made.  He noted that at the last meeting, the Committee completed the review for the first 11 Items of List V. He drew the attention of the delegations to the summary note prepared by the Secretariat, 
which showed the first 11 Items of List V of docu ment G/IT/W/16, including the original questions 
posed, and the corresponding summary of the discussion s.  He noted that both the discussions at the 
meeting of 24 February 2005 and wr itten submissions recei ved thereafter were used to produce the 
summary as delegations had until 11 March 2005 to su bmit comments in writing.  Thus, the summary 
note consisted of the contri butions of six participants; four were active in the discussions at the meeting 
and two submitted written comments thereafter.   
4.2 The Chairman
 noted that in order to facilitate the discussions, the same sequential numbering of 
the first 11 items listed in List V of G/IT/W/15 and G/IT/W/6/Rev.3 was repr oduced in this summary 
note for ease of reference.  He also noted that classifi cations indicated in bold were still outstanding issues G/IT/M/43 
Page 4  
 
 noted by the Customs Expert Group, whereas those not bolded were essentially agreed by the Customs 
Expert Group at the technical level.  He recalled that at the last meeting, the Committee had agreed to take up the remaining 9 items of List V for discussions at this meeting, and if time would allow, the first 11 items would also be reverted to.   
4.3 With the above introduction, the Chairman
 proposed that the Committee would proceed, firstly, 
in the same manner as last time, with the remaining nine items of List V. He suggested to continue to use document G/IT/W/15 as the basis for these discussion in this meeting. Furthermore, he noted that the 
delegation of Japan had provided another room docume nt with their responses to the questions which 
other delegations should also find useful to these disc ussions on the remaining nine items of List V.  He 
proceeded sequentially down the List, starting with item number 12
.  
 4.4 The delegation of Japan
 referred to item number 12, and be lieved that not only semi-finished 
products and components but also finished products we re meant to be covered by this description.  
Thus, complete monitors, flat panels, and display units/devices were all covered by this description. 
 
4.5 The Chairman  suggested the Committee to take note of  the above statement as well as that 
submitted in writing by Japan on this item, and turned to item number 13 .  
 4.6 The delegation of Japan
 stated that paging alert device had two functions, both sending and 
receiving alert.  He believed that the description cove red ‘two-way pagers’ and would be classified in 
852520. 
 4.7 The delegation of China
, contrary to Japan stated that ‘t wo-way pagers’ should not be covered 
by this item.  
4.8 The Chairman
 asked China to clarify whether in China' s view that it should not be classified 
under 852520 or ‘two-way pagers’ was not to be covered by the ITA description. 
 4.9 The delegation of China
 said the instructions he had were simply one sentence, that he was 
advised that the machines in this description should not cover items that were called two-way pagers.  
So it was his understanding that for this item,  # 197, only one-way page r should be covered. 
 
4.10 The Chairman  took note of the statements and turned to item number 14 . 
 4.11 The delegation of Japan
 believed that the comprehensive approach was more appropriate.  
This issue was only an issue of classification, sin ce printed circuit assemblies were falling under this 
agreement as ITA products no matter whichever item th ey were classified into.  Therefore, giving 
priority to the user-friendliness for the importers a nd exporters, he believed that it was appropriate to 
interpret the coverage of the description in a comp rehensive manner, so that they could grasp the 
whole range of PCA-relevant items.  4.12 The delegation of the European Communities
 agreed with Japan and indicated that the EC put 
this issue in the ITA when the EC negotiated this ag reement in an attempt to cover all sorts of printed 
circuit assemblies.  The EC approached  this issue in a way better safe than sorry. When the EC did the 
negotiations, it was not really sure whether all th e products that had been listed in Attachment A 
would also cover these printed circuit assemblies; hence this was the reason why the EC had put them in Attachment B.  Participants were here confr onted with a precision heading, which the EC would 
also see as a comprehensive one. 
 4.13 The Chairman
 thanked the EC for its clarification of the intent of the negotiations and turned 
to the item number 15 . 
  G/IT/M/43 
 Page 5 
 
 
 4.14 The delegation of Japan  believed that the associated media was meant to be covered by the 
description whether it was included in the device or not.  However, Japan could consider associated 
media as not being covered by this description, si nce all associated media covered by this description 
were already covered in Attachment A.  
4.15 The delegation of the European Communities
 shared Japan’s view.  
 4.16 The Chairman
 then turned to the item number 16 . 
 
4.17 The delegation of Japan  indicated that 'encapsulation' wa s a process for packaging chips to 
protect them from physical damages and impacts.  The ways for 'encapsulation' were different 
according to the materials used and the machines used were also differe nt according to the materials.  
The examples of the materials for packaging chips were such as ceramic and epoxy.  Thus, the ITA 
covered all different types of machines for each mate rial that performed encapsulation, regardless of 
the material.  
 
4.18 The delegation of China  believed that encapsulation by all different types of materials should 
be covered by this description.  4.19 The delegation of the European Communities
 agreed with both Japan and China in this case. 
 
4.20 The Chairman  turned to item number 17  and noted that answer to the question under number 
16 above would determine the outcome of this item, so  he proposed the Committee to take note of the 
statements made under number 16 were equally applying for this item.  It was so agreed .  With 
respect to item number 18 , he noted it posed the same question as number 16, he suggested that the 
same assumption could be made for this item. It was so agreed . He then turned to item number 19 , 
which posed the same question as number 16, so on ce again he suggested the Committee to take note 
of the statements made under number 16. It was so agreed .  He further turned to item number 20, 
which concerned electric amplifiers.  4.21 The delegation of Japan
 noted that in the informal meeting of custom experts 
(G/IT/14/Rev.1/Add.1), He recognized that some of the products covered by this description were 
being discussed at an ongoing court case and the issu e of certain repeaters would be taken up at WCO 
HSC.  He would like to further consider this i ssue based on those results, and appreciated if any 
information concerned would be provided.  4.22 In this regard, the Chairman
 suggested the Committee to agree on a deadline of 17 June 2005 
to allow delegations, which had not participated in  this morning’s discussions but wished to submit 
their comments in writing.  For those delegations  wishing to come back to submit comments in 
writing on these items or to complement or supplemen t the oral statements they had made, they could 
do so until 17 June 2005 and they should provide thei r submissions to the Secretariat by that time. 
 4.23 It was so agreed
. 
 
4.24 The Chairman  then suggested the Committee to revert to  the first 11 items that were discussed 
at the last meeting.  He felt the Committee had a good discussion last time on these items, and noted that a summary of the discussion was produced an d as well as the recently issued minutes contained a 
fairly detailed description of the discussions that to ok place at the last meeting on those items.  He 
further noted that the Committee was also made available with a new room document from Japan, 
providing answers to the new questions regarding these first 11 items. He proposed the Committee to 
go through the list of items from 1 to  11 and delegations that would ha ve any further views to express 
were invited to do so. He first turned  to the new question under item number 1
 regarding apparatus for 
stripping or cleaning semiconductor wafers, #122.. G/IT/M/43 
Page 6  
 
  
4.25 The delegation of Japan
 stated that on the understanding that the apparatus for wet stripping 
and the apparatus for wet cleaning were covered by #142 and the apparatus for dry-etching were 
covered by # 123, Japan could agree that the d escription covered 'dry' process and the products 
covered by the description would be classified in HS 845699 and 847989. 
 
4.26 The delegation of the United States  supported the Japanese answer to this question. 
 4.27 The delegation of the European Communities
 stated the EC could go along with both 
interventions. 
 
4.28 The Chairman  turned to the question related to item number  2. 
 4.29 The delegation of the United States
 viewed that if the ITA required that parts of certain 
apparatus be given ITA treatment, and then, the parts in subheadings 846610 to 846630 should be 
included.  He said that he had a long explanation here of why the US thought that was so and if this 
was an issue that others had questions  on, he could circulate this text. 
 4.30 The Chairman
 thought it could be useful and enlightening for the capital-based 
representatives when their views were sought.  
4.31 The delegation of China
 was of the view thus far that the machine had to perform all the 
functions, but the explanations from the US would help.  4.32 The delegation of the European Communities
 also welcomed the idea to know more about the 
thoughts of the US delegation, so he would be gratef ul to receive this information.  For the rest, he 
emphasised again what his delegation had already said in the previous meeting.  He thought it was the 
EC’s aim in the ITA to cover all these machinery an d really to capture the whole production process 
of semi-conductors.  In that context, the EC might have forgotten that in the nomenclature sometimes 
there was a differentiation that had been made  between parts and accessories.  Anyway, he 
emphasized on the fact that in the mind of the EC , the EC saw the accessories when they were used 
for the production of semiconductors as being covered in the ITA. 
 
4.33 The Chairman  turned to items number 3 , number 4  and number 5  and sought confirmation 
from those delegations who had intervened of wh ether the discussions just had on item 2 would be 
equally applicable to these items.  It was so agreed .  He then moved to item number 6,  regarding  
#139 . 
 
4.34 The delegation of Japan  disagreed that the both types of machines were to be covered 
classified exclusively in HS codes 842839 and 842890.  While the machine for transport could be classified in 842839 and the machine for handling could be classified in 842890, the machine for 
storage and the machine which has more than two of  the three functions of transport, handling and 
storage could not be covered by these two HS lines.  Therefore, Japa n believed 847950 and 847989 
were necessary for the classification of the items concerned.  Under these items, he had distributed 
some pictures, which were exactly machines that ha d three functions: transport, handling and storage 
for semiconductor manufacturing process.  With these machines, Japan believed HS codes 847950 
and 847989 would be appropriate.  
4.35 The delegation of China
 made a correction.  He stated that  his answer to the previous question 
was the actual answer to this item.  On item numb er 2, China’s view was that accessories should not 
be covered at this moment. So to repeat, China be lieved for # 139 that the item had to perform all the 
functions.   G/IT/M/43 
 Page 7 
 
 
 4.36 The Chairman  took note of China’s view that accessories should not be part of item number 2.  
He also took note of China’s view on item number 6.  4.37 The delegation of the United States
 believed that # 139, articles that were classified there 
should be in heading 8428 which provided for other li fting, handling, loading or unloading equipment.  
The fact that the heading did not cover storage did not mean that these automatic machines were 
excluded.  Any device that was handling, loading or unloading must be able to temporarily store the products being handled.  He furt her believed that the subheadi ngs under heading 8479 were not 
appropriate.  Robots for handling these ITA articles were dedicated to this purpose and were not 
general purposed robots of subhead ing 847950.  Machinery for storing these articles incorporated 
devices to load and unload the storage unit and thus  was more specifically provided for 8428 rather 
than 847989.  He supported that both types of machin es, either ones that perform all three functions or 
ones that perform only one or two functions, woul d be covered and were classified in 842830 and 
842890.  
4.38 The Chairman
 suggested the US delegation to share th e text with all participants given the 
technical nature of the issue.  4.39 The delegation of the European Communities
 added his voice to those who believed that all 
types of machines, whether they performed the three or only part of these handlings should be 
covered.  For the moment, he was not in the positi on to give any advice with regard to the proper 
classification of these machines, but he thought the discussion under these issues here in List 5 was 
much more of a kind where participants wanted to cl arify what their intentions were, what they had in 
mind, what they wanted to cover. He thought in this regard the EC’s position was clear and the EC felt that many of these machines might also be in a modular way, that meant one did have to combine one or two, perhaps even three, parts to create a whole chain which then performed the work which 
had been described here under # 139,  so in short, he was of the view that this item should cover the 
machines whether they performed  all the three functions or only part of the functions. 
 4.40 The Chairman
 reminded all participants of the overa ll purpose of this discussion and felt that 
the real value-added of the Committee was to describ e or inform the customs experts of what was the 
intent or the policy rationale behind, including that wording in the Ministerial Declaration, so that 
they could continue examining and taking anothe r look at items that were on List V and then, 
reflected on the classification issue. He felt it was useful to have views that included classification, but for those delegations that might not have views on the classification per se  but had a view in terms 
of the intent, what was intended to be covered by the ITA, this would be extremely useful as well. 
 
4.41 The delegation of Malaysia
, with reference to # 139, automa ted machines, stated that her 
delegation held a view at the last meeting that automated handling systems could be customised and 
could be configured to perform part of the func tions during the initial installation.  The machines 
could then be upgraded to perform all the func tions.  Having said that, she reminded that her 
delegation then made another statement regarding th e classification, as reflected in paragraph 4.18 of 
G/IT/M//42.  She said that at this point, Malaysia was still reflecting on the actual classification and so 
did not hold this view that 842839 and 842890 were the appropriate classifications.  Thus, Malaysian 
delegation was reflecting on what would be the ev entual appropriate classification for this item. 
 4.42 The Chairman
 stated that the idea would be to upda te what was the main document of the 
Committee for the consideration of List V which w as the summary of discussion, to update it as a 
result of the discussion this morning and that would provide a precision to address, to correct, or to 
indicate that the Malaysian delegation was still reflecting in that regard. 
  G/IT/M/43 
Page 8  
 
 4.43 The Chairman
 turned to item number 7  and asked those delegations  that had intervened if 
their statements regarding number 6 would also a pply equally to this item.  It was so agreed .  He then 
moved to item number 8  and noted that there was concurrence from participants and could consider 
that the discussions just had under item number 6 would apply here as well. It was so agreed . 
 
4.44 On item number 9 , the Chairman  assumed that the participants would agree what had been 
said under item number 2 could still apply here.  It was so agreed .  He then turned to item number 10 . 
 4.45 The delegation of Japan
 disagreed that this description covered only wafer prober tips 
classified in HS 853690.  He indicated that as a co mmercial practice, ‘wafer probers’ meant not only 
the ‘tip’ but also the whole apparatu s including the ‘tip’.  He distributed  the picture of this apparatus.  
The industrial people called the whole apparatus as ‘wafer probers’, thus, it was inappropriate to 
interpret that the description covered only ‘tip’, which was only a part of the apparatus.  Since it 
would cause unnecessary confusion to the importers a nd exporters if such interpretation would be 
adopted, Japan believed that #166 covered th e whole apparatus as well as the ‘tip’.  
 
4.46 The delegation of the United States , with respect to #166, wafer probers, stated that he could 
agree that this description covered only the wafer prober tips.  That might not be a very impressive 
justification for this position, because that was how the US implemented its obligations under the ITA  
So, he would pass along to Japan some more detail ed comments on this, but for the moment that was 
where the US was.  
4.47 The delegation of the European Communities
 indicated that he had already expressed the 
EC’s view at the last meeting and just to summari se that, initially the EC also thought when it had 
implemented the ITA into its schedule that only parts were covered by this head ing, by wafer probers.  
It was later that the EC found out that it also  concerned the whole machine and so the EC had 
corrected its schedule accordingly, hence the EC wo uld see here also a broad coverage, covering the 
machine and the tips as they were called.  He also said that the EC had appreciated very much from 
the side of the Secretariat that the summary of di scussions was issued so rapidly and also that the 
minutes of the last meeting were issued so rapidly.  He felt this helped enormously in the discussion 
of these very specific and technical issues. The EC would very much welcome if this practice could also continue with regard to the discu ssion, which the Committee was having today. 
 
4.48 The delegation of China
 joined the EC in thanking the Secretariat and believed that only the 
apparatus were covered under this  item. He felt the discussions of the Committee would be reflected 
carefully in his capital.  
4.49 The Chairman
 then turned to item number 11 and assu med that the interventions made under 
item number 2 would apply here as well.  It was so agreed .  
 4.50 The Chairman
 felt the initial discussions of this morning on items 12 to 20 were very useful 
as well as on the first 11 items. He suggested that if  delegations would have fu rther elements or views 
to provide on the first 11 items, they should do so as well by 17 June 2005, and they should submit 
that information to the Secretariat.  Then th e Secretariat would update the summary document, 
G/IT/W/16, and issue it as rapidly as possible so  that at the next meeting the Committee could 
continue the useful dialogue. He believed that perh aps, on the basis of the summary and the minutes, 
participants would all be able to extract more  views from the capitals. He further felt that the 
proceeding in such fashion would be able to make some progress in terms of deepening the 
Committee’s understanding of the policy issues which ev entually could help to return those items to 
the customs experts so they could provide the Co mmittee with their legendary wisdom in terms of 
classification opinions.  4.51 It was so agreed
.  G/IT/M/43 
 Page 9 
 
 
 5. Follow-up Discussions from the IT Symposium 
5.1 The Chairman  recalled that at the last meeting, the Committee had a good discussion on the list 
of the issues containing in document G/IT/W/14. As the discussion provided some further ideas for the 
Committee, he suggested this matter be reverted to this meeting.   
5.2 The delegation of Japan
 referred to number 6 regarding the issue on the products of HS 
classification and raised a concern with regard to th e classification of ITA products.  He stated that 
when the ITA products list was agreed was still in HS 96 classification but the real world was moving 
toward HS 2007.  He noted that the list and the real world were diverging and this issue might get 
very complicated which might harm the effectiveness of the ITA, especially when bearing in mind the 
transition to HS 2007 in the near future.  Therefore,  Japan believed that it would be helpful to make a 
list of ITA products on the basis of classification of  HS 2002.  Such a list would make the ITA more 
transparent and easy to understand for those who we re new to the ITA, including industry people as 
well as Members considering of participating in the ITA.  To that end, he asked the Secretariat to 
make such a list of items whose ITA classifications were specified in Document A and for the items 
which were on List 1A and List  1B which participants had specified HS classification in the 
classification exercise.  5.3 The delegation of Hong Kong, China
 indicated the items in the list, which were of interest to 
Hong Kong, China.  These would include: item 2, which was how to address the new technologies in 
the ITA; item 4, extension of ITA coverage; ite m 5, a possible new input for the Committee's NTB 
work; and item 7, which related to customs proc esses and procedures.  These items were mainly 
related to market access is sues.  He stated that Hong Kong, China would also have no problem to 
discuss other items on the list.  He felt that in view of the considerable items on the list, perhaps the 
Committee should take up the issu es in a progressive manner, which meant that the Members could 
consider prioritising the issues and taking them up in stages. 
 
5.4 The delegation of the United States  referred to item 1 on the Secretariat's list and supported 
further dialogue on this issue in the Committee, particularly where developing countries could offer 
further examples of how participating in the ITA ha d helped to spur economic growth and industrial 
development.  With respect to item 4, on product co verage, his delegation wished to hear from other 
delegations on how best to proceed on this issue.  He stated that the US did support the work on this 
and how the work of this Committee might comp lement what was going on in the NAMA group.  
With respect to item 6, he felt the suggesti on by Japan to update the ITA list to HS 2002 
nomenclature, and then presumably HS 2007 once that exercise was completed was a good one.  He suggested the Committee to invite the Economic Resear ch and Statistics Division to give a report at 
the next meeting about what the feasibility of doi ng this. He understood that the Economic Research 
and Statistics Division had done this work for many  developing countries and it might be a relatively 
simple issue for them to come up with what  the changes were between HS96 and HS2002. 
 5.5 The delegation of the European Communities
 commented on the suggestion put forward by 
Japan.  He was wondering what would be the value- added for that suggestion. In his view, when 
participants had negotiated the ITA of course it was in the nomenclature, which was in application at 
that moment of time, that was HS96.  Then, furthe r down the road participants had been confronted 
with the change in nomenclature to HS 2002, and quite a number of Members here had translated these commitments into their schedul es accordingly.  With regard to another part of the Membership, 
he stated that in another Committee, in the Mark et Access Committee last year Members agreed and 
found a budget for the Secretariat to put the CTS in to HS2002. He emphasized the fact that each and 
every Member who was participating in the ITA had of course incorporated the ITA products in their 
schedule.  He felt what Japan was asking alread y existed and when it came to HS 2007, Members 
would have to apply the similar procedure to put al l commitments and bindings of a Member into this 
new nomenclature, whether these would be ITA produc ts or any other products.  So he believed what G/IT/M/43 
Page 10  
 
 was being asked here was already available, or woul d be made available in the near future once the 
Secretariat had completed its work with regard to the transposition of the CTS into HS 2002. 
 5.6 The delegation of the Philippines
 referred to the similar query by the EC.  She stated that 
while she saw some merit in the Japanese proposal , which was asking to convert the participants’ 
present ITA schedule, which was in HS 96, into HS 2002.  She said that if her understanding was 
correct, some work was already star ting in this area. So she felt that until the Secretariat had finished 
the whole project of converting HS 96 schedules into HS 2002, Members should give the Secretariat some time to finish this exercise.  But she want ed to be clear on the Japanese proposal, wondering 
whether it was proposing to convert the present IT A schedule, which was in HS96, into HS2002. 
 
5.7 The Chairman
 stated that his understanding was not that to do a conversion exercise, but it 
was rather just for the information of participants , the Secretariat would do a kind of concordance list 
of what, for example, for those items where th ere was an HS96 code in Attachment A of the 
Ministerial Declaration of 1996, plus List 1A and 1B where participants  had agreed at the last meeting 
on classifications, where participants had resolved so me of the classification divergences, so that for 
these items that were in HS96, the Secretariat woul d produce a list that would just show what was the 
corresponding numbers, HS2002 item numbers.  He then requested Japan to confirm his 
understanding.  5.8 The delegation of Japan
 confirmed that understanding was exactly the right one.  He said that 
his delegation was just asking for a concordance list from HS96 to HS2002, which was only needed 
for Attachment A of the ITA and also the items from List 1A and 1B.  5.9 The delegation of the United States
 felt the point made by the EC was quite correct and this 
was not something that would affect the partic ipants directly because the participants were 
accomplishing the conversion to HS2002.  In his view , this exercise would not have any effect on the 
participants’ schedule and they were being put in to the appropriate nomenclature, whether it was 
HS2002 or HS2007, and what was in the original HS96 list was the basis for that, so updating the HS96 list would not have any effect on the participan ts.  Where he saw this having some benefit was 
for those WTO Members that were not ITA participants  and that were contemplating to join the ITA.  
If these annexes were in the appropriate nomenclature,  then it just made it easier for them when they 
went ahead and joined up to know exactly what they  were joining up to and what the specifics were, 
and the same would apply for countries that we re acceding to the WTO that did not have any 
schedule, that were going to have to produce a sched ule in the appropriate nomenclature, and this was 
just an easy way to make sure that the commitment s that they would take on were consistent with 
those that existed in the original HS96 version of the annexes. 
 
5.10 The delegation of the European Communities
 reacted to what just had being said by Japan.  
He said that if Japan was looking for a concordan ce list, it existed already.   The WCO had issued a 
concordance list from HS96 to HS2002, so it was suffi cient to look up in the HS96 nomenclature of 
the ITA products where one could find the concordance into HS2002.  
5.11 The delegation of Malaysia
 stated what the EC had said was absolutely correct regarding this 
concordance, but it would be very useful if the Secretariat could pick out those items where there were differences between the HS96 and HS2002.  Although she did have a long list of the 2002 
classifications, perhaps this would help some of the ca pital people. She noted that some extracts of the 
differences between the two, just for ITA items, w ould be useful.  She agreed with the Japanese 
suggestion just on the annex and 1A and 1B, not the w hole list, but just for the participants to know 
where the differences were.  There would probably not be very many, but if these differences could be 
highlighted that would be very useful.  Secondly, she referred to other issues of the indicative list of 
the ITA symposium and noted that some Members had e xpressed some interest in issues 4, 5, 6 and 8.  
She agreed with the US on issue number 1 which wa s a very important issue and that to have greater  G/IT/M/43 
 Page 11 
 
 
 integration of other Members into the ITA this t opic would be of much importance for this Committee 
so as to enlarge the participants to this group.  Re garding the topics 4 and 5, she believed that 4 and 5 
had to be done together with 8.  Item 4 was on the right products covered by ITA, and could the 
coverage be expanded, and 5 was on the NTBs, so  if the Committee was going to discuss 4 and 5, it 
should also discuss these together with 8, whic h was on intersection of issues with a mandate on 
NAMA.  Malaysia did not try to duplicate what  was happening in NAMA, but the Committee should 
at least try to complement our discussions in th e NAMA negotiations.  Of course the work of the 
Committee would progress faster than NAMA, but if not , it was useful to keep both together on the 
same page, and therefore she saw it as useful to have discussions, as Hong Kong, China had 
suggested, in some sort of progressive manner.  She stated that Malaysia had no particular preference 
although Malaysia believed that issue number 1 s hould take precedence, and perhaps the Committee 
could then take up 4, 5 and 6, and then 4, 5 and 8,  either later or perhaps even at the same time. 
 5.12 The delegation of Japan
 responded to the EC comments, having heard also the comments 
from Malaysia.  He said that unfortunately, and fo r him personally, he was not aware of the work, 
which was already done by the WCO and he would n eed to take a look at it, but he presumed that 
work was covering the whole list, concordance tables  of the whole HS classification, which would be 
difficult for some developing countries to take a look at.  So, he agreed with the US suggestion for information purposes, that it would be useful to ha ve a kind of ITA-focused concordance.  He also 
raised another issue regarding the classification problems deriving from Attachment A of the ITA, and in this context he referred to the dispute that Jap an had with Indonesia over th e digital cameras, where 
there was already an HS96 classifications number, but the ITA covered only part of it.  He felt 
although the WCO might have the ki nd of concordances already, the exercise he proposed could have 
some added value to the work of this Committee.   Having heard the comments made by Hong Kong, 
China and Malaysia's, he felt the Committee needed some prior decisions on how to proceed on this 
issue.  He believed since the technical work takes some time, the Secretariat, if possible, could get 
started on some technical exercises to create a concor dance list, which he felt w ould be useful for later 
discussions by the Committee.  5.13 The Chairman
 proposed possible approach regarding item 6, under which Japan had raised 
the very relevant issue of how to  keep track of the changes and am endments to the nomenclature, and 
based on the suggestion made by the US, that the Committee would benefit from having a 
presentation by the Economic Research and Statisti cal Division just to remind or enlighten all 
participants of what had been the changes that  had taken place from HS96 to HS2002, and perhaps to 
give us a preview as well of HS2007, that woul d affect IT products. Such a presentation by the 
Economic Research and Statistical Division could also inform all participants of what was going on in 
the broader sense, and this was a point made by the EC, as part of this larger exercise that had been 
going on for quite some time, the transposition of  schedules from HS96 to HS2002.  He felt the 
question raised by Japan was a very relevant one  in the context of the ITA, which was great 
importance for candidates to accession, but at the same time it was linked to other activities taking 
place in this house. In this regard, he suggested  the Committee to invite a representative of the 
Economic Research and Statistics Division to the next  meeting to make a presentation on all these 
issues. He believed then the participants would be better equipped to take a decision as to what work 
the Secretariat or the Committee could undertake further on that issue.  He felt  that was an issue for 
those who participated at the ITA symposium last autumn and had a real bearing on the operation of the trade in that sector.    5.14 It was so agreed
. 
 
5.15 The Chairman  also welcomed the supplementary comme nts made by delegations with respect 
to the other items on the indicative list, and felt that  participants were getting a better sense of what 
could be the areas on this list that could be undertak en in the future by the Committee.  He suggested G/IT/M/43 
Page 12  
 
 the Committee to keep this item on th e agenda for the next meeting and so as enable all participants to 
decide what would be the potential areas of future work for the Committee.   
 5.16 The Committee took note
 of the statements made and would revert to this item  at the next 
meeting. 
 
6. New Participants  
6.1 The Chairman  stated that this item was placed on the agenda in case there were new schedules 
forthcoming and for anyone to make a statement with respect to this aspect of our work.  However, at this 
point in time, there were no new schedules,  nor any new participants to consider. 
 
6.2 The Committee took note  of the Chairman’s statement. 
 
7. Other Business 
7.1 The Chairman  stated that the issue of the review of product coverage continued to be a matter 
under consultation, and he encouraged de legations to continue their efforts. 
 7.2 Furthermore, he proposed that the Committee’ s next regular meeting be held tentatively on 4 
October 2005, subject to  further confirmation. 
 
8. Election of Chairperson 
8.1 The Chairman
 stated that the Committee normally el ected a new chairperson on an annual 
basis.  This matter had been placed on the agenda of the February meeting, however, there had not 
been agreement on a new Chairperson at that point in time, and thus the matter was deferred to this 
meeting.  Pursuant to consultations by the Chairm an of the Council for Trade in Goods, a consensus 
had been informally reached on the election of Mr . Simon S.M. Chan (Hong Kong, China) as the new 
Chairman of this Committee.  The Chairm an proposed the election of Mr. Chan.  
 8.2 The Committee elected
 Mr. Chan as the new Chairman of the Committee of Participants on 
the Expansion of Trade in Informati on Technology Products by acclamation. 
 8.3 Mr. Chan assumed
 his role as Chairman of the Committee.  
 
8.4 The outgoing Chairman  (Mr. Seppey) expressed his thanks to Members of the Committee, of 
the Secretariat, and the new Chairman.  8.5 The incoming Chairman
, Mr. Chan, expressed his appreciation to the outgoing Chairman, Mr. 
Seppey.   
__________