RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/IT/M/52 
18 April 2011  
 (11-1968) 
Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in 
Information Technology Products  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 11 NOVEMBER 2010 
 
Chairman: Mr. Tomohiro Kaneko (Japan)  
  
 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.43) ...................................................................1  
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.4) ..................................2  
3. Non-tariff Measures Work Programme (G/IT/19, 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) ..............................................................................................5  
5. Proposal from the European Communities Con cerning the Review of the Information 
Technology Agreement (ITA) ....................................................................................................7  
6. New Participants ............................................................................................................... ..........7  
7. Draft Annual Report of the Committee (2010) (G/IT/W/32)......................................................7  
8. Other Business ................................................................................................................. ...........8  
9. Date of the ne xt meeting....................................................................................................... ......8  
 
_______________ 
 
Introduction 
 
 The Committee adopted  the proposed agenda for the meeting which was circulated in 
WTO/AIR/3652 on 27 October 2010, with an addition to take up the "review of product coverage", 
and the "date of the next meeting" under "other business".  An annotated agenda for the meeting was 
also contained in JOB/IT/1 dated 28 October 2010.   
 The Committee agreed
 with the European Union that the item regarding the EU proposal for 
the review of the ITA be taken in an informal mode.   1. Review of the Status of Implementation of the Ministerial Declaration on Trade in 
Information Technology Products (G/IT/1/Rev.43) 
1.1 The Chairman
 stated that an overview of implementa tion of the Ministerial Declaration on 
Trade in Information Technology Products was c ontained in document G/IT/1/Rev.43.  This 
document showed the Participants and the issues pertaining to the WTO procedures for G/IT/M/52 
Page 2 
 
 
  implementation.  He pointed out that as indicated in the document, the completion of domestic legal 
procedural requirements for El Salvador is still  pending.  Moreover, further contact with the 
delegation of Morocco would be required to acc elerate the process of submitting their formal 
documentation.  He said that he would keep the Par ticipants informed of any new development in this 
regard.  He looked forward to Participants' updates or comments concerning these implementation 
matters. 
   
1.2 The Chairman  urged those participants that had not  followed the procedures for the formal 
rectification and modification of schedules as required by the Decision of 26 March 1980 on 
Procedures for Modification and Rectification of Schedules of Tariff Concessions, to make their 
submissions as soon as possible.  He said that the S ecretariat would be available for any help if so 
required.  
 
1.3 The Committee took note  of the statement made. 
 2. EMC/EMI Pilot Project - Draft List of the Ty pes of Conformity Assessment  Procedures 
for EMC/EMI used by ITA Participants (G/IT/W/17/Rev.4) 
2.1 The Chairman
 recalled that at the end of 2000, the Committee approved a Work Programme 
on Non-Tariff Measures (NTMs) with the objective of identifying impediments to trade in ITA 
products.  One of the outcomes of that exercise was the completion of a pilot project which led to the 
adoption of the "Guidelines for Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) and Electromagnetic 
Interference (EMI) Conformity Assessment Procedur es" on an ad referendum basis. He noted that 
upon the adoption of these "Guidelines", the Secretar iat, based on the survey responses submitted by 
and notifications received from the Participants, prep ared a note of the "Draft List of Types of 
Conformity Assessment Procedures for EMC/EMI u sed by ITA Participants" (G/IT/W/17/Rev.4).  
During the proceedings of the Committee, the Partic ipants found the information contained therein 
very useful and wished to have it completed.  Ho wever, he further noted that at the moment, among 
the 46 Participants, still 22 of them, including t hose recently joined, had not submitted any survey 
response or notification regarding the type of assess ment procedures for EMC/EMI that were used by 
their authorities.  He invited the delegations to  update the information as contained in document 
G/IT/W/17/Rev.4.   
2.2 The representative of the European Union
 stated that though they had answered to the survey, 
the EMC/EMI pilot project gave extremely intere sting information on the conformity assessment 
regimes that had been in place in different count ries.  The EU fully supported the work and the 
attempt by the Chair to gather all Participants' information on their regimes.  However, it was so 
disappointing that after so many years, still 22 out of 46 Participants had not provided their 
information on this.  He suggested, for Chair's consid eration, that if after so many years, for those 
Participants who were still not in a position to  provide such information on their EMC/EMI 
conformity assessment procedures that the Secretar iat should look into this, and collect such 
information from other sources and publish it.  
 
2.3 The representative of Japan  shared the same concern by the EU and believed that it is 
important for the ITA Committee to complete the EMC/EMI pilot project.  His delegation would like 
to ask those Participants that had not submitted th eir answers to the survey  questionnaire prepared by 
the Secretariat to do so as early as possible. 
 
2.4 The representative of Canada  said that he agreed with the comments made thus far. His 
delegation also saw the value in this exercise, a nd encouraged those Participants who had not yet 
provided survey responses to do so at the earliest po ssible opportunity.  He felt that the suggestion put 
forward by the EU perhaps was worth considering.   G/IT/M/52 
 Page 3 
 
 
  2.5 The representative of China  said that his delegation also jo ined the previous speakers in 
encouraging those Participants that had not submitted such information to do so as soon as possible.  
He suggested the Secretariat contact those Particip ants and find out their difficulties or reasons why 
they had not submitted such information. 
 
2.6 The Chairman  stated that Participants who had not responded to the survey questionnaire and 
faced difficulties in responding, should contact the S ecretariat for detailed information, clarification, 
or assistance.  In this regard, he said that, if th e Committee so agreed, he would write again to those 
Participants that had not submitted a survey res ponse or a notification urging them once again to 
provide the information concerning their conformity assessment procedures for EMC/EMI so as to 
enable the Committee to complete this work.  
2.7 It was so agreed
. 
 
3. Non-tariff Measures Work Programme (G /IT/19, G/IT/SPEC/Q4/19/Rev.2 and 
G/IT/SPEC/Q2/11/Rev.1) 
3.1 The Chairman  recalled that at the previous meetings of the Committee, several delegations 
emphasized the importance of the Committee's work on NTBs in the ITA sector and reported the 
developments in NAMA negotiations, where two de legations had made their proposals on NTBs in 
the electronic sector, concerning barriers such as: non-r ecognition of international standards;  lack of 
transparency and openness in domestic standard ization processes; and unnecessary burdensome and 
duplicative conformity assessment procedures.  He invited these delegations to update the Committee 
on this matter.   
3.2 The representative of the European Union
 stated that the EU, as one of the two delegations, 
attached great value to the NTB work programme, wh ich has been in the ITA since its inception.  The 
ITA has a mandate on NTBs.  The work programme was launched on 13 November 2000 and with its 
10th anniversary being celebrated the day after th is meeting.  However, the result of the work 
programme so far has been very disappointing.  Th ere had been three phases of  the work programme.  
The first phase was to identify NTMs, which had b een done only to some extent as could be seen 
from the previous discussions.  Then, the seco nd phase was to examine the economic and 
development impact of these measures, which had al so been done to a very limited extent.  Phase 
three was to consider the outcome which was still u nder consideration without any actual result.  The 
real problem was that there had been some inform ation but no actual progress had been made in terms 
of establishing the disciplines on NTBs.  Of course, in an environment where the tariffs disappeared, 
NTBs had been in fact the only remaining obstacle.   Thus, it was even more important to address 
NTBs.  He encouraged the ITA Participants to take this very seriously and that is why the NTB is a 
very important part of the review that the EU w as proposing.  In the meanti me some work had been 
done in other fora, such as, in the NGMA.  In this  regard, he passed the floor to his colleague who 
gave a short update on what was happening in that Group.   
3.3 The representative of  the European Union
 updated the Committee on what was happening in 
the context of the Doha Negotiations - the NGMA modalities.  He said that part of the NGMA 
modalities was devoted to the NTBs.  In the draft m odalities text which is currently on the table one 
could find 15 different proposals on NTBs.  While mo st of them related to horizontal issues, some 
related to sectors.  Among these 15 proposals, seven were identified as priority for the NGMA while 
the others still remained on the table and needed fu rther consideration at th e appropriate time.  Among 
the seven priority NTB proposals, one area much related to the ITA has been the electrical and 
electronic products with two proposals, one from the EU and one from the US.  He further updated 
that the EU proposal on electrical and electronic products was circulated in TN/MA/W/129/Rev.1 
while the US proposal contained in TN/MA/W/105/Re v.3.  The different revisions of these proposals 
evolved towards addressing their concerns and inter ests.  They dwelt on their objectives that they G/IT/M/52 
Page 4 
 
 
  wanted to reach with their proposals as well as th e approaches that they would like to take.  
 
3.4 According to him, the objective of the EU pr oposal was very much aligned to the NTBs that 
were identified by the Participants to  the ITA.  It tried to look at what NTBs the industry had faced in 
trade.  Most of these were TBT related and one coul d distinguish between those related to divergences 
among the Participants in terms of their techni cal regulations and standards on the one hand and 
divergences related to conformity assessment procedures on the other hand, where the emphasis had 
many times been placed on divergences in conformity assessment procedures.  What it sought was a certain number of disciplines for convergence ove r time among the ITA Participants' different 
regulatory regimes.  
 3.5 He emphasised that it would be important to note that the EU did not seek a harmonization 
where everyone would do exactly the same thing from one day to another.  It  would be convergence 
over time to reduce great divergences as much as possible while fully respecting their right to 
regulate.  
 
3.6 In relation to the two specific TBT related barriers, he indicated what the EU would first like to look at the technical regulation in internationa l standards.  It proposed to promote regulatory 
cooperation through the existing international st andards bodies which are the main source for 
international standard, i.e., IEC, ITU and ISO.  He said that it was the wish of the EU that Members 
gave priority to the work undergoing in these bodies to ensure that international standards that came 
out of those three bodies would reflect the interest of the wider membership, ensuring convergence of 
technical regulations overtime while ensuring that Me mbers that would need to deviate from these for 
legitimate public policy objectives could do so.  
 
3.7 With regard to conformity assessment, he stat ed that as the EU had seen, for example, in the 
EMC/EMI project, there was a wide divergence of prac tices among the ITA Participants.  It was clear 
that the industry people continued to complain that th ese were very costly barriers to trade.  One often 
heard that their tariff equivalence was up to 6 per cent related to divergence test and certification 
procedures.  He explained that what the EU sought  here did not mean it intended to put all Members 
into one mode, but the EU did give a preference to  the Supplier's Declaration of Conformity (SDoC). 
Members to give a preference to the SDoC which w as seen as a less trade restrictive conformity 
assessment procedure while being able to respect tho se Members to ensure that legitimate health and 
safety objectives can be pursued.   
3.8 The EU gave full possibility to use 3
rd party certification by those Members if this was 
necessary.  In trying to reduce the number of options , the EU still gave possibility for regulators of the 
Members that had different regulatory perspective on this to make a choice.  In making that choice, 
the EU still felt that there was a n eed to ensure a certain discipline but also to ensure that Members 
make use of existing international systems for mutu al recognition and there were a number of very 
well long-standing and well-working system under the IECEE CB scheme which is a world-wide 
recognition system of testing certificates and those related to the accreditation world of mutual 
recognition.   
 
3.9 The Chairman  felt the work on NTBs in the Committ ee was as important as the work done in 
other Bodies.  He also felt it was important that Participants be provided with the information and 
opportunity to continue their discussion on NTBs.  He suggested the Committee reve rt to this issue at 
future meetings.    
3.10 It was so agreed
. 
  G/IT/M/52 
 Page 5 
 
 
  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)  
4.1 The Chairman  of the Committee made a report on th e Committee's work on divergences in 
classifying ITA products since the Committee meeting of  30 October 2008.  He recalled that at that 
meeting, Participants agreed to advance th e Committee's work on classification divergences and 
requested the Chair to work with the Secretariat to  prepare an informal paper listing various ideas and 
options suggested by the Participants on the way fo rward.  In response to that request, a "List of 
Options on Classification Divergences" was prep ared and communicated to delegations on 20 
February 2009.  He said that in that communication, he stated that it was his intention to explore the 
best way for the Committee to make progress toward s achieving convergence.  The proposed list has 
three options:  (1) to pick-up the easy items first,  then, the difficult ones;  (2) to establish a work 
programme for List V and other Lists.  Such a work programme should take into account different 
levels of convergence towards consensus on those items  that have been agreed so far;  and (3) to 
convene further experts meetings wi th the participation of both customs and trade policy officials to 
go through the outstanding ite ms and also, to take note of the progress made so far.  With regard to 
option 3, some Participants drew to the attenti on of the Committee that some items, such as those 
contained in List V, need policy decisions, and cannot be resolved at the technical level.  In addition, 
the Committee was asked to consider the sort of resources that would be required for bringing experts 
to Geneva. 
 4.2 The Chairman
 of the Committee further recalled that the list of options was discussed at the 
Chair's follow-up consultations with the partic ipants on 2 March 2009.  As a result of the 
consultations, it was agreed to take the "easy" items first.  Therefore, on 9 March 2009, the Chair in 
his communication to  Participants , reproduced and circulated List I - A items as G/IT/W/30 where 
divergences were narrowed to one classification option,  and requested the Participants to submit to the 
Secretariat their views and confirmation for those ite ms by 31 March 2009 for eventual endorsement.  
He also indicated that once this process is complete d for List I - A, another informal meeting will be 
convened to discuss List I - B.     
4.3 He informed the Committee that by 31 March 2009, only eight Participants had sent 
responses to the Secretariat.  Among the eight Par ticipants who had responded, six confirmed their 
endorsement of List I – A items.  He said that  one Participant informed on 31 March 2009 that it 
could not endorse the list in its complete form a nd disagreed with the classification proposed for 
seven items.  It raised the issue of different HS ve rsions of the items in List I (A) since many of the 
subheadings listed changed in HS2007.  Thus, the Pa rticipant's capital was a bit lost on what would be 
the purpose of approving the list if it had already cha nged.  In view of the fact that the list was in 
HS96, now it is in HS2002, and subsequently, would be transposed into HS2007, that Participant indicated that it would endorse List I – A items w ith a reservation in the sense that it would implement 
changes of classifications proposed in document G/ IT/W/30 when its exercise for transposition to 
HS2007 had been completed. Another Participant, to  a lesser extent, also indicated its difficulties in 
endorsing the list but without providi ng the details and did not proceed further as it is still waiting for 
instructions from its capital.  
 
4.4 The Chairman
 of the Committee made the following observations for consideration by 
Participants based on his above report on the current  status of the Committee's work on classification 
divergences.  First of all, as the progress of the Comm ittee's work in this area had been very slow, the 
process envisaged in Paragraph 5 of the Annex to th e Ministerial Declaration had been dragged on for 
too long which was not foreseen at the signing of the Ministerial Declaration;  Secondly, many new 
Participants had acceded to the ITA since its incepti on;  Thirdly, there had been difficulties deriving 
from the process of transpositions from HS96 to HS2002 and now from HS2002 to HS2007 as 
encountered by some delegations;  Fourthly, afte r that being said, he believed that the Committee 
should take the advice of custom classification experts unless Participants decide otherwise;  Fifthly, G/IT/M/52 
Page 6 
 
 
  he would therefore urge those delegations who had not submitted their views and confirmation for 
List I – A items to communicate with their capitals on whether or not they could agree upon these 
items for eventual endorsement;  Finally, he  would assess the situation and hold informal 
consultations with the Participants, and asked Partic ipants to note that, it was his intention to propose 
at the next meeting of the Committee, a draft decisi on of List I - A for endorsement by the Committee.  
 
4.5 After having made the above observations, the Chairman  of the Committee invited the 
delegations for a discussion.   
4.6 The representative of Guatemala
 stated that they still had some reservations with the schedule 
and would be ready to participate in consultati ons that would be carried out by the Chair. 
 
4.7 The representative of the United States  said that since a lot of effort had gone into the creation 
of List I - A, it would be a shame if the Committee could not proceed jointly on it.  He viewed that Chair's consultations on the exact form that the Co mmittee might take would be helpful.  With respect 
to the other list, he indicated that there was not a great deal of appetite in Washington to restart the 
process of consultations with experts.  The Participan ts did try to get as far as  they could on this and 
certain differences of opinion were reached on how to  proceed.  He did not expect that those would 
have been resolved.  One thing that would be of interest in this process would be to see what the 
various HS transposition have caused in terms of ch anges so that they would be in a position to 
evaluate on the basis of the current nomenclature pe rhaps even through the next transposition exercise 
which would be coming up on this quickly and w ould be available to everyone. By then it would 
make some sense to see what those transpositions ha d caused in terms of changes, and whether that 
would simplify or even further comp licate their efforts in the Committee. 
 
4.8 The representative of Panama
 reiterated that the internal consultations were continuing as to 
the best way to implement Panama's co mmitments according to the schedule.  
 4.9 The representative of  the European Union
 recalled that when the customs experts met in 2002 
the circumstances around were very good.  Since th en, the Committee had regularly looked at the 
classification divergences and at the moment the pr ocess was slightly disappointing.  He suggested 
that since the ITA was based on HS 96, Participants  should agree on what they had agreed to grant 
these tariff concessions in HS 96.  That was the agre ement in 1996.  Then they had to agree what they 
could go on to the next HS version, i.e. HS 2002.  However, that should be after they had agreed on 
all the products based on HS 96, not only some of them.  Furthermore, after HS 2002 they should do 
HS 2007.  Then, they could have an ITA which woul d be nice and clean in the normal tariff schedule 
format.  He said that his delegation looked forwar d to contributing to Chair consultations with 
Participants. 
 
4.10 The representative of Costa Rica  expressed his delegation's inter est in participating in these 
consultations in relation to the issue to the change  of the HS.  In his view, this would be a very 
important subject and should be explored to have greater clarity with respect to the changes that had 
been proposed. 
 
4.11 The representative of the Philippines  stated that there was merit in the suggestions by the EU 
since the ITA product list was done in HS 96, now in HS 2007 and soon would be in HS2012.  There 
might be merit in trying to do the exercise of transpos ition.  However, Participants also had to bear in 
mind that a similar exercise had been intensively undertaken in the Committee on Market Access.  
ITA Participants have to relate wh at is being done there.  They have to update the nomenclature that is 
in the product of the ITA.  
 4.12 The representative of Japan
 pointed out that IT products me rged with other functions had 
been developed in recent years and also, they saw  the increasing numbers of the issues over the duties  G/IT/M/52 
 Page 7 
 
 
  of the products covered by ITA.  He  believed that it was more importa nt for the Participants to discuss 
classification issues, within the ITA.  In Japan 's view, his delegation supported the programme 
proposed by the Chair in March 2009, and had no objection to the endorsement of List I - A items.   
4.13 The Chairman
 stated that as he had said earlier, at an appropriate time, he would assess the 
situation and hold informal consultations with the Pa rticipants with an intention to propose a draft 
decision for the endorsement by the Committee, of Li st I - A at the next meeting of the Committee.  
He indicated that he had put his above report t ogether with some background as a room paper for 
circulation at the end of this meeting and delegations  were invited to give their comments, if any, by 
the end of this month.  He also stated that it was his intention to issue this room paper as a job 
document of the Committee in December 2010 , and would be under his responsibility.  
 
4.14 The Committee took note  of the statements made.   
 
5. Proposal from the European Communities Concerning the Review of the Information 
Technology Agreement (ITA) 
5.1 The Chairman  stated that at the request of the Euro pean Union, the Committee turned to an 
informal mode to discuss the proposal tabled by the European Union in September 2008 (G/IT/W/28) 
concerning the review of ITA.   
 5.2 The Chairman
 reported to the Committee that the dele gation of the EU referred to its proposal 
on the review of the ITA made on 15 September 2008,  as contained in G/IT/W/28 and recalled that it 
covered 4 items:  (1) a work programme on NTBs with the development of disciplines;  (2) the 
expansion of product coverage;  (3) how to keep ag reement up to date;  and (4) the extension of the 
ITA Membership.  The EU delegation responded to the questions raised by ASEAN ITA Participants 
(JOB(08)/116) and would provide answers in writing, and stated that it was interested to see whether 
there was further ground to continue discussion on the review process.  
 5.3 The Chairman
 stated that as a result of the discussions  that took place in the informal mode, 
Participants were open to continue the discussions on the review process, and agreed to revert to this 
issue at the next meeting.   
5.4 It was so agreed
. 
 
6. New Participants  
6.1 The Chairman  welcomed Kuwait as a new Participant to the ITA and noted that there had 
been no new request.  
  
7. Draft Annual Report of the Committee (2010) (G/IT/W/32)   
7.1 The Chairman  introduced the draft annual report of the Committee to the Council for Trade in 
Goods.  He stated that the draft report for 2010 was circulated in G/IT/W/32 as a factual summary of 
the work undertaken in the Committee during the year , which would obviously ha ve to be updated to 
take into account the discussions in the Committee today. 
 
7.2 The Chairman  assured that the updated report would be ci rculated to the Participants before 
its submission to the CTG. G/IT/M/52 
Page 8 
 
 
  7.3 The draft annual report was approved  with the updates in light of the discussions in the 
Committee meeting today.  
 
8. Other Business 
8.1 The Chairman  stated that the issue of the review of "product coverage" continued to be a 
matter under consultation, and encouraged delegations continue their efforts. 
 
9. Date of the next meeting 
9.1 The Chairman  proposed the Committee to hold its next meeting in the spring of 2011 with the 
exact date to be settled in c onsultation with delegations.   
 9.2 It was so agreed
.   
 
9.3 The meeting was adjourned.   
 
__________