WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/TBT/W/278 
18 October 2007 
 (07-4514) 
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade Original:   English 
  
 
TRANSITIONAL REVIEW MECHANISM IN CONNECTION WITH PARAGRAPH 18  
OF THE PROTOCOL ON THE ACCESSION OF THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA 
 
Questions and Comments from Japan to China
 
 
 
 The following communication, dated 15 October 2007, is being circulated at the request of the delegation of Japan
. 
_______________ 
  
1. Japan notes with appreciation China’s efforts in relation to the implementation of the 
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade ("TBT").   Japan would especially like to highlight the 
continuing alignment of China’s domestic technica l regulations and standards with international 
standards, as well as its constructive and rapidl y increasing presence in the realm of international 
standardization.  Bilateral cooperation between Ch ina and Japan in TBT-related fields has also 
progressed steadily, and Japan hopes for a fruitful continuation of this trend. 
2. The Transitional Review Mechanism ("TRM") is a useful method for confirming and 
furthering these efforts, and it is a pleasure for Japan  to contribute to this process.  In accordance with 
Paragraph 18 of the Protocol of Accession of the Peopl e’s Republic of China, which states that "China 
shall provide relevant information to each subsidiary body in advance of the review", Japan requests 
that China provide, on the occasion of the meeti ng of the TBT Committee, responses and relevant 
information with regard to the following concerns . 
I. CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT 
3. Conformity assessment bodies ("CAB") of foreign countries had not been allowed to engage 
in certification activity in China according to the Ar ticle 13 of the regulations of the People's Republic 
of China on Certification and Accreditation, pe rmitting only Chinese CABs to conduct such activities. 
However, in this regard, we have  obtained information that China has opened the certification market 
to foreign-owned CABs in China for to certifica tion activities for exports. Japan would like to express 
its appreciation for such positive developments. 
4. On the other hand, no foreign CAB has yet been  allowed to engage in certification activities 
under the CCC system. Pursuant to the provision in Article 6.4 of the TBT Agreement and the 
commitment in Paragraph 195 of the Protocol of Accession, Japan would like to request that local 
foreign-owned CABs, as well as foreign-based CABs , be eligible for accreditation under the CCC 
system without discrimination. 
II. STANDARDIZATION 
5. As far as Japan understands, China’s domestic sta ndardization system cons ists of four levels, 
namely National Standards, Sector Standards (als o known as Industrial Standards), Local Standards, 
and Enterprise Standards.  National Standards, S ector Standards, and Local Standards can each be G/TBT/W/278 
Page 2  
 
  further subdivided into non-compulsory and com pulsory types.  The former, known as Recommended 
Standards, are distinguishable by the “/T” suffix at the end of the standard code (e.g., GB/T xxxx, 
JB/T xxxx). Those without “/T” suffixes are kno wn as Compulsory Standards and function as 
technical regulations of a mandatory nature (e.g., GB xxxx, YD xxxx). 
A. E
FFECTIVE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN COMPULSORY STANDARDS AND RECOMMENDED 
STANDARDS  
6. Paragraph 181 of the "Report of the Working Party on the Accession of China" 
("Report")(WT/ACC/CHN/49) mentioned a con cern among WTO members regarding China’s 
interpretation of the terms "technical regulations" and "standards" as defined in Annex 1 of the TBT 
Agreement. In Paragraph 182, China responded that it would adhere to the definitions in Annex 1 for 
the purpose of notifying the TBT Committee. (It is Japan’s understanding that China treats 
Compulsory Standards as "technical regulations" and Recommended Standards as “standards” with regard to the said definitions.) 
7. However, Japanese industry has reported numerous instances whereby administrative 
measures were taken when Recommended Standards we re not met.  These incidents have caused a 
certain level of confusion regarding the effec tive difference between Recommended Standards and 
Compulsory Standards.  As a result, many Jap anese companies have come to the unfortunate 
conclusion that it would be prudent to assume that all Chinese standards are in fact compulsory, 
thereby hindering trade between the two countries. 
8. Japan, in recognition of the commitment in Para graph 182 of the Report, urges China to make 
a clear differentiation between "technical regula tions" (including Compulsory Standards) and 
"standards" (including Recommended Standards), not ju st in the notification process but also in actual 
implementation and enforcement. Pursuant to this concern, Japan would like to ask for clarification 
from China on the following points: 
(a) Would it be correct to assume that companies are not legally bound to adhere to 
standards with “/T” suffixes, i.e. Recommended Standards? 
(b) If there are standards with “/T” suffixes that companies must adhere to on a 
compulsory basis (perhaps through citation in a separate law), Japan would like to ask 
China to provide a list of such standards. 
(c) In such cases, would it not be more appropriate to remove the “/T” suffixes? 
B. T
HE SCOPE OF COMPULSORY STANDARDS  
9. Under the Chinese standardization system, Compul sory Standards are created in response to a 
need for the protection of human health and safety, property, or the environment.  Japan urges China 
to maintain this principle and to avoid the crea tion of Compulsory Standards that cover unrelated 
topics such as generic performance requirements. 
C. STANDARDS AND SPOT INSPECTIONS  
10. Spot inspections of products in China are governed by the "Rule on the Monitoring of the 
Quality of Marketed Products" (the "Rule"), Article 11 of this Rule stipulates that the "quality criteria 
of spot inspections and monitoring are to be ba sed on the relevant National Standards, Sector 
Standards, Local Standards and Enterprise Standa rds".  In addition, Article 26 stipulates that 
companies must immediately stop the sales of products which do not pass the quality criteria.  G/TBT/W/278 
 Page 3 
 
 
  11. It can be inferred from these articles that all Chinese standards, encompassing all four levels, 
and regardless of whether they are Compulsory  Standards or Recommended Standards, serve as 
quality criteria for the spot inspections.  Given th at such spot inspections entail administrative 
measures such as a ban on sales, and in some cases,  forced recalls, the Rule effectively makes all 
Chinese standards compulsory. 
12. Spot inspections of products in China are a serious concern for Japanese industry.  Japan 
would like to ask China for clarification on the Rule and that spot inspections be undertaken in a more 
focused manner. 
III. THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE CONTROL OF POLLUTION CAUSED BY 
ELECTRONIC INFORMATION PRODUCTS 
13. It is Japan’s understanding that China’s regula tion on the "Administration of the Control of 
Pollution Caused by Electronic Information Products" (the "Regulation") stipulates that electronic and 
IT products listed in the "Heavy Control Catalogue for Pollution Caused by Electronic and Information Products" must undergo mandatory c onformity assessment through the CCC scheme.  
Japan urges China to provide a sufficient comment period in accord ance with the TBT Agreement to 
secure transparency in the development of this lis t and the standards for such conformity assessment 
procedures. 
14. Article 3.3.4 of the Regulation prohibits "the  import of electronic and information products 
that do not meet the national or industrial sta ndards pertaining to the restriction of hazardous 
substances in electronic and information products."   As it is difficult for Japanese companies to 
understand from this text which are the standards that  must be met, Japan requests that China be more 
specific and provide a list of the sta ndards referred to in this article. 
IV. CHINA’S REGISTRATION SYSTEM FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 
ON THE IMPORT AND EXPORT OF TOXIC CHEMICALS 
15. Japan has continuing concerns with regard to  this issue.  The Chinese State Environment 
Protection Agency, SEPA, released a revision of "Highly Restricted Imported and Exported Toxic 
Chemicals" on 28 December 2005, with an entry into force date of 1 January 2006.  158 chemicals were recently added to the revised list of toxic ch emicals, some of which are widely used in the 
chemicals industry.  The "Regulations System for Environmental Management on the Initial Imports 
of Chemical Products and the Import and Export of Toxic Chemicals" (the "System") requires 
companies to pay US$10,000 to SEPA in order to ob tain a Registration Certificate for exporting the 
chemicals on the list to China. 
16. Firstly, according to China, under the "System", the Registration Certificate is valid for two 
years per contract.  Japan is concerned about the rationale for such an amount and validity period in 
terms of consistency with the TBT Agreement.  Japan therefore requests China to provide the 
calculation basis for the sum of US$10,000 as well as the rationale behind the two-year validity 
period. 
17. Secondly, Japan would like to know how China intends to implement this regulation in the 
near future. Japan is interested in knowing what would happen at the end of the two-year validity 
period.  A large number of Registration Certificates will expire in January 2008, and any uncertainties 
for foreign companies would cause an adver se effect on China’s trade in chemicals. 
18. Lastly, Japan would like to enquire about the progress of a new system for the import and 
export of chemicals.  A draft regulation entitle d “Import and Export Registration Regulation of 
Dangerous Chemicals” was released by SEPA in September 2002, and Article 33 of this draft G/TBT/W/278 
Page 4  
 
  regulation clearly stipulates the abolition of the present “Regulation for En vironmental Management 
on the Initial Imports of Chemical Products a nd the Import and Export of Toxic Chemicals” 
simultaneously with the enforcement of a new regulation. Japan would strongly welcome the 
immediate implementation of such a new regulation.  Japan would like to enquire again regarding the 
schedule for the implementation of the new regulatio n, as it did not receive a response from China in 
the last TRM. 
__________