RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/IT/M/38 
1 April 2005 
 (05-1324) 
Committee of Participants on the Expansion of 
Trade in Information Technology Products  
 
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 26 FEBRUARY 2004 
Chairman: Mr. H. Yoshikawa (Japan)  
Agenda of the Meeting            P a g e  
 
1. Review of the Status of Implementation of the Ministerial Declaration on  
 Trade in Information Technol ogy Products (G/IT/1/Rev.30)...........................................1  
2. EMC/EMI Pilot Project (G/IT/23 and G/IT/24).................................................................2  
3. Non-Tariff Measures Work Programme (G/IT/SPEC/Q4/19/Rev.2 and 
G/IT/SPEC/Q2/11/Rev.1) .....................................................................................................6  
4. Divergences in Classifying Info rmation Technology Products  
 (G/IT/W/6/Rev.2 and G/IT/14/Rev.1/Add.1) ......................................................................7  
5. Other Matters Emanating from the Informal Meeting of 22 January  
 that Participants May Wish to Discuss .............................................................................10  
6. New Participants ............................................................................................................... ..14 
7. Election of Chairperson......................................................................................................14  
8. Other Bu siness................................................................................................................. ....15  
 
Introduction 
 
 The Chairman  stated that the proposed agenda for this meeting was circulated in 
WTO/AIR/2249 on 13 February 2004 and its addendum  on 17 February 2004. With reference to the 
agenda, he asked if there were any other matters to  be raised 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.30) 
1.1 The Chairman  stated that an overview of the implementation of th e Ministerial Declaration on 
Trade in Information Technology Products was contained in G/IT/1/Rev.30. This document showed the participants and the implementation issues pertaining  to the WTO procedures for implementation.  He 
brought two matters to the attention of the Committee.   First, as requested by the Committee at the 
last meeting, he had followed-up on the outstandi ng implementation matter relating to Panama which 
had consistently been reflected as an outstanding matter in many revisions of this document.  Today, 
he reported that the Delegate of Panama had in formed him that there had been no news from his 
capital concerning possible progress on this matter and the matter remained in an unresolved state at 
the Parliamentary level in Panama.  Furthermore, th e Delegate said efforts would be taken up by the 
Geneva-based delegation to try to make  progress on this matter in capital.   
 
1.2 Secondly, he reported there was further progr ess with respect to one schedule reflected in 
G/IT/1/Rev.30.  The Delegation of Bahrain had fo rmally submitted their documentation for the formal 
rectification and modification procedures pursuant to  paragraph 2 of the Annex to the Ministerial G/IT/M/38 
Page 2  
Declaration.  Thus, they should be reflected as one of 32
 participants in the table contained in 
paragraph 2.  1.3 The delegate of China
 enquired about paragraph 4 of the document.  He noticed that there 
were still twelve participants who had not yet submitted their letters of acceptance and recalled that at 
the last meeting the number was eleven.  He noted that China had submitted their letter of acceptance 
after the last meeting, and since the last meeting, Mo rocco had joined, so he sought clarification, to be 
certain that China was not in the twelve who had yet to submit their letters of acceptance. 
 1.4 The Secretariat
 responded that it would verify the r ecords to ensure that China was not 
included in the twelve. 
 
1.5 The delegate of Japan  reported on the ongoing dispute involving digital cameras which had 
been reported several times at former meetings.  He  stated that Japan was making efforts to resolve 
this issue with the participant concerned through continued bilateral discuss ion and hoped to reach an 
early settlement on this issue. 
 
2. EMC/EMI Pilot Project (G/IT/23 and G/IT/24) 
2.1 The Chairman  recalled there were some discussion on this matter at the last meeting which 
led to more in-depth discussions at the informal meeting of 22 January 2004.  He pointed out that 
while there was much appreciation for the EMC/EMI Workshop held earlier last year, there had been 
very little follow-up.  However, he believed very good discussions were held at the informal meeting 
which could lead to possible ways forward.  As it was an informal discussion, he reminded 
delegations that matters should be taken forward in a formal setting if  there was consensus to do so.  
He noted from his perspective from the Chair, th ere were a number of suggestions, such as one 
delegation's intent to submit a 'best practices' paper a nd others indicated their intent to submit similar 
such papers.  Other parts of the discussion fo cused on the EMC/EMI survey and possible ways 
forward.  Moreover, the Chairman stated that si nce the informal meeting,  the Committee had received 
the paper from Canada on 'best practices' in document G/IT/24.  2.2 The delegate of Canada
 presented their long awaited paper on 'best practices' with respect to 
EMC/EMI for IT products.  This paper had been de veloped as a result of the very useful Workshop 
which was held last April and it emphasised as was stated on several occasions, that the actual 
regulations themselves did not constitute barrier s, but the focus should be on the conformity 
assessment procedures.  He felt that the workshop  was extremely useful in allowing regulators to 
analyse and determine collectively what could be a possible set of optimum regulatory approaches for 
EMC/EMI to further facilitate market access for IT  products.  It was recognised that it was not 
appropriate to have a 'one size fits all' appro ach, and therefore the paper presented a number of 
options.  Because the differences in approaches were not so significant that they would lead to delays 
in getting products to market, he didn't think th at these options would encourage countries to reduce 
the number of possibilities, and as they shared a high degree of compatibility, they would provide 
greater certainty and predictability for the industr y.  The document was primarily directed to 
regulators, with a view to present some ideas to  regulators in other countries responsible for 
EMC/EMI conformity assessment procedures.  He hope d that participants either today or in the 
future, would be able to provide their reactions to  the document.  The proposal was not intended to be 
definitive, as it was one possible approach, but he hoped to see it as a contribution to stimulate the 
discussions in the context of the ITA Committee's Work Programme on NTMs.  He looked forward to 
views and comments on the paper.  
2.3 The delegate of China
 expressed appreciation to Canada for th e paper.  In this paper, Canada 
provided a list of different types of procedures for EMC/EMI conformity assessment in descending 
order of complexity.  In correlating this part with their proposed 'best practices' Canada seemed to be 
suggesting that less and simpler was best.  Chin a was not pre-judging the outcome, but thought that 
procedures should not be judged on the degree of co mplexity, but on the degree of suitability in  G/IT/M/38 
 Page 3 
 
achieving the purpose of conformity assessment.  It seemed these two issues may not be compatible .  
As regarded the survey, he reported his capital was collecting informati on and would submit their 
reply to the Committee in the future.  2.4 The delegate of European Communities
 appreciated Canada's paper on conformity assessment 
procedures for IT products.  Furthermore, he appreciat ed the substance of the paper and the very clear 
way in which Canada had presented the options practiced  today by the participants.  It was their view 
that this paper would help find a way forward and make progress with regard to conformity 
assessment.  He noted that Canada was certainly pro posing a 'light weight' procedure and that was in 
line with their own thinking.  He noted that in th is area, the products represented no, or low risk.  
Furthermore, the products had relatively short life cy cles, so it was very important that the conformity 
assessment procedures were adapted to the kind of products and also to the problems faced, hence a 
'light weight' procedure, was the most appropriate one.  He agreed with the proposed 'best practices' 
that Canada was putting forward which put the emph asis on the suppliers' declaration of conformity, 
but he preferred to have a bit more guidance when it came to the way forward.  Canada stated in its 
paper that it is up to each ITA participant to decide  the appropriate conformity assessment procedure, 
but he thought it would be helpful if this could be  developed further in order to come up with ideas 
that would lead to greater harmonization of the pro cedures.  If that could be achieved it certainly 
would further expand the trade in these products.    2.5 The delegate of the United States
 thanked Canada for its efforts to  focus on this issue again.  
She noted her authorities had active dialogues w ith the business community on what could be 
appropriate approaches and to ensure that the view s of industry were brought to this Committee.  
They had not found the right way to do that yet, but thought it might be useful to see what the industry identified as the ideal and she hoped to find a wa y to introduce some of those ideas, at least 
informally, into the Committee's work.  Certainly sh e thought the approach that Canada had laid out 
was a very useful place to start the discussions.  It was quite important to focus on the regulator aspect 
because, as it involved conformity assessment of produc ts of low risk it was important to work with 
regulators to try to help them develop approaches that  were consistent with that low risk component.  
China had raised the question of whether simplicit y was always the right way, and he thought the 
answer was no, it was not always the right way, but where there was low risk and in this particular 
instance, as the EC had mentioned that product life cy cles were so short, he thought it was appropriate 
to see what could be done to lighten this load fo r industry while at the same time making sure the 
products would flow in a safe way, and more rapidly.  He was interested in pursuing an ongoing 
discussion and was prepared to start with Canada's proposal as a starting point.  2.6 The delegate of Japan
 appreciated the Canadian initiative of  'best practices' for EMC/EMI.  In 
particular he supported the idea to pursue EMC/EM I procedures which were consistent, transparent 
and as simple as possible, as described in the Cana dian paper.  He wanted to contribute to the 
discussions about what kind of procedures should be pursued based on the classifications in the Canadian paper.  2.7 The delegate of Switzerland
 thanked the delegation of Cana da for their contribution and 
thought it built on the work done so far on the pilot project and it showed the possible result of this 
work.  She agreed with Canada that the proce dures to comply with EMC/EMI requirements for IT 
products should not become an impediment to the trade of these products and that they should 
therefore be consistent, transparent, and as simple as possible.  In Switzerland they already applied a 
procedure based on the suppliers' declaration of conf ormity.  With respect to standards and technical 
requirements, the workshop we had last year had sh own that the potential impediments to trade were 
due more to the conformity assessment procedures, than the technical requirements.  However, it 
should be kept in mind that the emergence of ne w IT technologies would require a review of the 
standards and, in this context, it might be useful  to think of possible 'best practices' for technical 
requirements as well.  G/IT/M/38 
Page 4  
2.8 The delegate of Romania
 stated that as a new participant it was almost ready to present its 
answers to the questionnaire, her delegation encourag ed those efforts and for others to reply.  She 
thanked Canada for their paper.  Her delegation also considered that the conformity assessment 
procedures were probably one of the problems fo r the trade in these products.  Nowadays, many 
products had to be cleared through customs to arri ve to at the consumer as soon as possible.  ITA 
products merited the most attention from authorities in  order to shorten, as much as possible, the time 
from production to end user, irrespective of the size of  the industry.  She considered that the proposed 
modalities, for assessment procedures were the best ones.  She also thought that those countries that 
did not have compulsory regulations at this time should be encouraged to keep the status quo.  
Regarding conformity assessment, a declaration from the producer was perhaps the easiest and 
shortest way to move products from production to th e consumer.  As the representative from the EC 
said, it was important not to stop here, but to see this  proposal from Canada as a possible way to try to 
work together, first in an informal way, th en in a formal way, towards harmonization and 
simplification of this NTM to trade of IT products .  Romania would totally support such an approach 
and such an endeavour.  
2.9 The delegate of the Philippines
 extended its thanks to Canada for their efforts in coming up 
with the paper.  She would refer it to capital, but had some initial comments.  Under paragraph 3, the 
current conformity assessment procedures listed by Ca nada seemed to include all those in place based 
on the responses to the questionnaire.  In the past, th ere was a call, for all to respond.  She wanted to 
ensure that the coverage was comprehensive, as she was not sure whether this covered the conformity 
assessment procedures in place with respect to countries that had not submitted their survey response.  
She thought it would be a good idea to have a clear picture of the existing procedures among ITA 
participants, because the enumeration cited by Canada  was very clear, it was important to identify the 
conformity assessment procedures in place, then the ne xt step would be the proposed best practices.  
It was an interesting proposal and the Committee should try to see how to move the process forward. 
 
2.10 The delegate of Australia welcomed Canada's paper and were  delighted by the opportunity to 
discuss it.  He offered a very preliminary reaction that the hierarchy of the types of conformity 
assessment procedures according to complexity was a most useful one for the evaluation of approaches. He hoped that the paper would stim ulate participants' thinking on the necessity of 
conformity assessment procedures and the scope for simplification and transparency.  For Australia, the conformity assessment procedures were type F in  Canada's categorisation,  he hoped that other 
participants would continue to work on this issue and push towards that end of the conformity 
assessment spectrum.  2.11 The delegate of Hong Kong, China
 welcomed Canada's paper in which best practices for 
EMC/EMI conformity assessment for IT products were  proposed.  For the information of participants 
Hong Kong, China had currently no mandatory EM C/EMI conformity assessment procedure for IT 
products and this was in line with the fi rst practice proposed in Canada's paper. 
 2.12 The delegate of Chinese Taipei
 appreciated the paper from Canada on 'best practices'.  The 
paper was still under consideration in  capital, but he wanted to provide a preliminary view.  Referring 
to Section III, Canada had tabled several types of  conformity assessment procedures, which from his 
delegation's view, was a very critical and useful re ference.  On Section IV, he noted that Canada 
suggested that the competent authority could relax administrative controls in order not to effect 
industry development and trade performance.  He noted  that there were some considerations to be 
taken when each competent authority decided its  own administrative procedures, such as the 
difference of product safety, the capacity for market surveillance, and the ability of enforcement.  In 
this regard, in order to achieve a constructive outco me under 'best practices' proposed in Section IV, it 
was necessary to take these into consideration,  and from their own experience, Chinese Taipei had 
different procedures depending on the types of pr oducts.  Most of their procedures, fell within 
Section III, (a), which was certification by first pa rty, the equipment had to be submitted to the 
regulator or its delegated entity for certification.  In  addition, they had also applied a self declaration 
(SDoC) on several other items.  For example, the procedure on telecommunication terminal  G/IT/M/38 
 Page 5 
 
equipment was within Section III, (e).  However he  wanted to note that even under their current 
certification system there was still a great number of  products found in the local market that did not 
reach their safety requirements, so the success of  SDoC, from their point of view, depended on a good 
system of post market surveillance, the culture of each  country, and the habits of their consumers.  All 
of these factors should be taken into consideration.  
2.13 The delegate of Korea
 thanked the Canadian delegation for providing the paper.  Korea 
informed the Committee, based on information from cap ital, that Korea was consistent with the 'best 
practices' proposed by Canada.  He agreed with th e previous speakers with their idea to go further 
along and develop a more concrete outcome from this work.  In this respect, Korea noted that APEC 
was discussing more concrete ideas on this matter, such as a mutual recognition agreement.  
According to other information provided by his capital, APEC was doing two-stage mutual 
recognition agreements.  The first stage was mutu al recognition of the result, and the second stage 
was mutual recognition of the certificates.  Korea was a party to the first stage of the mutual 
recognition agreement.  
2.14 The delegate of the United States
 stated that in listening to the discussions, she noted there was 
recognition of differences within administrative procedures and processes, but more differences in approach.  She thought that capitals should be enc ouraged to re-examine some of the approaches 
taken in the past to take into account the fact th at over a number of years, information showed that 
this was not a safety issue, and that there was not th e problem originally anticipated.  With respect to 
safety, she understood the concern, but was now quite convinced that this was not a safety issue.   She 
noted that the work entailed trying to advance a nd facilitate trade in these technologies and therefore 
it was incumbent on participants to encourage their officials to regularly review these issues.  Good 
progress had been made with the session last year, but  she thought it necessary to keep the momentum 
because it was apparent that the situation had cha nged from 10 years ago.  It was important to note 
that in many of these technologies, interference wa s not an issue people once thought it was.  Through 
greater discussion of the Canadian paper, and taki ng into consideration some of the ideas mentioned, 
the objective should be to try to see if these processes could be liberalised as much as possible.  That 
should be the common goal in this Committee.  She encouraged participants to discuss with their 
regulators and policy officials, and to take another look at these issues so that the discussions could advance.  
2.15 The delegate of Canada
 was encouraged by discussions and, although many comments were 
still preliminary, there was real interest in engaging in the discussions.  He agreed with many of the 
comments made by several delegations, especially with what the US and EC stated in terms of the reason behind the Pilot Project and why EMC/EMI was chosen.  It was the characteristic of low risk 
in this area of EMC/EMI that was important to k eep in mind.  He heard the comments expressed by 
some delegations about necessity, and it was not always simplicity that determined the most 
appropriate way to go forward.  With respect to the comment on possible hierarchy in their 
communication, he suspected that this was either uninte ntional or it was subliminal.  It was true that in 
the Canadian system, given their regulatory frame work, they would have a tendency to adopt an 
approach based more on simplicity.   But he thought their regulators, who were accustomed to a much 
heavier procedure, realised that in terms of fac ilitating trade and given the importance of the products 
effected by EMC/EMI standards, thought it important  to facilitate trade as much as possible through 
simplified procedures.  2.16 His intention was not to prescribe specific  approaches in terms of conformity assessment 
procedures.  There was recognition that situations may be different in different countries, but he 
thought that the value of having this discussion in the context of the ITA Committee was to look 
forward and enhance the dialogue with regulators, and as the US mentioned, re-examine whether the 
procedures in place were still the most appropriate appr oach.  That was the purpose of their paper.  He 
noted that what Canada was suggesting was not ne w in the sense that the TBT Agreement already 
prescribed, in its preamble and in Articles 5 to 9, certain obligations in respect to the design and 
implementation of conformity assessment procedures so that they did not act as unnecessary barriers G/IT/M/38 
Page 6  
to trade.  He hoped, as a first step, to see if th e Committee could reduce the spectrum of diversity of 
conformity assessment procedures for relatively low-ri sk products such as those that needed to be 
regulated in terms of EMC/EMI.  He looked forward to future discussions and future contributions on 
national experiences.   2.17 The Chairman
 thanked Canada for submitting the paper.  He thought that it was a useful 
discussion, and while it was too early to reach an y conclusions as expressed by some delegations, the 
Committee should move ahead.  He encouraged dele gations, as mentioned in the discussions, to 
submit their Survey responses as well as 'best prac tices' papers in order to further stimulate the 
discussion and to advance the process.  In this regard , he proposed that this item remain on the agenda 
for next formal meeting with a view to discussing any additional 'best practices' papers and exploring 
possible courses of action.   
 2.18 It was so agreed
.   
 
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 this subject was also part  of the informal discussions that were 
held on 22 January 2004 in order to discuss possible next steps.  He noted that the Committee had 
before it for sometime the updated overview of pr oposals to the NTM Work Programme, in document 
G/IT/SPEC/Q2/11/Rev.1, but had not taken concrete steps on the NTMs listed there except in relation 
to EMC/EMI.  From the informal discussions, he believed there were some good discussions and 
brainstorming on possible approaches to move the work  programme ahead.  For starters, he said there 
was a lot of emphasis to continue or complete the pilot project on EMC/EMI as a first priority and then move ahead to address one or two other NTMs  as necessary.  The discussions continued with a 
suggestion about possible ways to proceed and select other NTMs, and also on possible linkages to NAMA.  As this was only a brainstorming session, the Committee would need to have more 
discussions and take some of these ideas forward if it so desired. 
 3.2 The delegate of China
 thought it was best to focus on the EMC/EMI Pilot Project and he did 
not have any good ideas in terms of other possible issues for the NTM Work Programme.  Noting that 
the Committee was somewhere between Phases II a nd III in accordance with the Work Programme, 
he was not sure of the opportunities for contributing to Phase I, but China was prepared to contribute 
to the inventory of NTMs and they were gatheri ng the information for this purpose.  Concerning the 
issue of reporting and linkages to NAMA, he could not report on China's position at the time, but was  
cautious on closer linkages between the two bodies.  3.3 The delegate of the United States
 reported they were still in discussions with industry on 
possible other non-tariff barriers that might be approp riate for the Committee to consider and discuss.   
They were exploring the way business had evolved to see  if the list should be up dated or refined.  She 
mentioned that some issues related to standards came up frequently in info rmal discussions and that 
might be an area to explore further.  Regardi ng possible linkages with the work of the NGMA, she 
thought that progress was made, and it would be a ppropriate to continue working on these issues in 
the ITA, but if progress stalled, then there may be other possibilities that might be helpful in the 
context of NAMA, which could be taken at some point in the future.  She noted that in the context of 
NAMA, although it had not yet been agreed, she thoug ht there would be groups of countries that 
wished to pursue solutions to certain kinds of NTBs on a plurilateral basis and then apply them 
multilaterally, which would not differ from the IT A Committee pursuing a solution that would be 
applied multilaterally.  She understood that if it was a sensitive matter, and if others would be more 
comfortable taking it a step at a time, then perhaps that would be appropriate .  However, she thought 
it would be useful if there was progress here, to be ab le to share that information informally with the 
NGMA for transparency and information purposes.  In response to China's statement, she thought it 
useful to have some report of progress, but she recognized that the issue of a more formal linkage, which although not too sensitive for her de legation, could be sensitive for others.  G/IT/M/38 
 Page 7 
 
 
3.4 The delegate of the Philippines  shared China's comment with r espect to first concentrating on 
EMC/EMI.  She noted that the whole area of non-ta riff barriers was being discussed in the NGMA, so 
it was important to do what could be done in the IT A Committee.  In respect of the linkage issue, she 
did not know what was meant by a linkage.  For her delegation, she interpreted it as informing 
NGMA on what was happening in the Committee's work  with respect to EMC/EMI.  She did not 
anticipate a problem for her delegation, but wanted  to understand what was meant by a linkage.  She 
thought it would be very useful for the NGMA to be informed of what was being done on a particular 
NTM that was being addressed in the Committee.  3.5 The delegate of the European Communities
 thought it would be best to focus on the 
EMC/EMI work and try to make as much progress as possible.  Noting the statements of the previous 
speakers, he acknowledged that the whole subject of non-tariff barriers would be discussed in the 
NGMA, so barriers would inevitably come up in that fo rum.  With regard to the other issue, and he 
did not want to use the word 'linkage', but rega rding the relations between this Committee and the 
NGMA, he thought the EC was flexible.  He thought it would be helpful to share the conclusions and 
discussions of this Committee with the NGMA, as that could only aid the process.  
 3.6 The delegate of Singapore
 stated that her delegation had no problem focusing on EMC/EMI 
first, but like the US, would be open to looking at  other areas, such as standards that had been 
mentioned.  At this point in time, she did not ha ve any feedback as to what other NTBs could be 
addressed.  With respect to the ITA Committee and its relation to the NTB mandate in the NGMA, 
she thought there were some suggestions at the br ain-storming session, and wanted to emphasize there 
should not be too much duplication of work.  She wa nted to work as efficiently and productively as 
possible, but did not see any harm if discussions in either forum could give impetus to the NTB work.  
Her delegation did not have a rigid view about th e linkage or reporting of how the two programmes 
related to one another, as long as progress could be made. 
 
3.7 The delegate of Australia  agreed with what others had st ated about reporting to the NGMA on 
work that had been done in the Committee on NTMs.  At  the same time, he wanted to keep open  the 
question of possible linkages so it could be revert ed to as work in the ITA Committee developed and 
as NAMA work proceeded.  
3.8 The delegate of Chinese Taipei
 agreed with many of the previous speakers, and as EMC/EMI 
was the first Pilot Project, he thought it would be be tter to achieve satisfactory results with that issue 
first, before examining other NTMs.      3.9 The Committee took note
 of the statements made. 
 
4. Divergences in Classifying Information Technology Products (G/IT/W/6/Rev.2 and 
G/IT/14/Rev.1/Add.1) 
4.1 The Chairman  made the following observations on the status of this work.  First, the Committee 
had before it for some time, the updated over view of the situation as shown in document 
G/IT/W/6/Rev.2.  The Committee had already started a step-by-step approach with respect to the various 
lists contained in that document.  As regarded List III , the Committee  had agreed to send this item to the 
WCO for their classification opinion.  He informed the Committee that the WCO had received the request and he understood they were proceeding acc ordingly.  With respect to Lists I (A)
 and I (B) , it was agreed 
at the last meeting to revert to these lists in detail at this meeting with the view to endorsing the classification opinions listed there by the customs experts.  Finally, the way of proceeding with the other 
lists, Lists II
, IV, and V  remained more opaque, although this was the subject of further discussions at the 
informal meeting of 22 January.  As with the other subject matters, he believed there was good 
discussions on possible ways forward, but there were many issues and views expressed.  He hoped to find 
a way forward on all these outst anding classification issues. 
 G/IT/M/38 
Page 8  
4.2 The Chairman proposed to structure the discussions in two parts — first, to address Lists I (A) 
and (B), and secondly to further the discussions on po ssible ways forward, especially in respect to the 
other lists.  He understood some dele gations had raised concerns about their capacity to undertake such an 
examination as they were very new to the Comm ittee and therefore would require more time and 
technical assistance in order to endorse these classifi cation opinions.  In trying to proceed in a practical 
way and without unduly delaying the process, he su ggested that the matter be taken up between the 
delegations concerned and the Secretariat. The Secretariat would provide as much technical assistance as 
possible to these delegations, and they would  prov ide feedback by the end of March regarding the 
progress of their respective examinati on of  these classification opinions. 
 4.3 He recognized there were participants which ma y have difficulties to take a decision today, but 
he also wanted to recognize that there were other participants who ha d worked very hard and who were 
ready to start the discussion today.  He noted there were customs classification experts in this room who had made the effort to attend this meeting specifically for this agenda item.  It seemed unfair to simply 
not have any exchange of views on this subject es pecially on the background and reasons leading to a 
classification decision.  Thus ,  he suggested starting this discussion  which would be useful insofar as it 
would also shed some light on the technical issues.   It was so agreed
.  
 4.4 With respect to Lists I (A) and (B)
, these were products where the customs experts could come to 
agreement on the classifications.  List I (A) was where there was only one classification option, whereas List I (B) was where there was agreement on two or more  classification options.  Wi th the view of saving 
time, he requested those participants that had problems with the classifications to take the floor and 
explain the reason behind their concerns.  
 4.5 The delegate of El Salvador
 stated they were one of the participants that requested more time as 
their capital was still analyzing the issues in List I (A) and I (B), which she thought may have some 
problems at the national level.  She hoped to have mo re details as soon as possible with the help of the 
Secretariat. 
 4.6 The delegate of Turkey
 stated that their customs authorities had worked on the issue of 
classification for these products and they generally agr eed with the classifications in Lists I (A) and 
I (B), however, they mentioned some concerns about some products in the List I (B).  For example, 
since some of the details or technicalities of these products were not definitively specified, there could 
be some problems putting the products in List I (B) under a single customs tariff number.  Since he 
did not have the technical expert present, he wanted to transmit this information.  4.7 The delegate of China
 thanked the customs experts and the Secretariat for their work.  China 
realised that many of the participants wanted to  see List I (A) and I (B) formally endorsed by the 
Committee, and China did not intend to block the Committee in doing so, but unfortunately they were 
one of those participants just mentioned by the Ch airman.  As a new participant, they did not have 
sufficient expertise in this respect and needed more  time to undertake further study of the outcome, 
therefore he recommended that the Committee post pone taking a decision until the next formal 
meeting.  He welcomed the suggestion that particip ants liase with the Secretariat, so as to elicit 
information from capital as to what  they needed in this respect. 
 
4.8 The delegate of the Philippines  stated that this issue had been before the Committee for some 
time now.  She had received some feed back from he r capital, and for the first six-digits, it seemed 
they could go ahead and agree to the adoption of th ese classifications.  She noted that the Philippines 
had recently adopted the ASEAN harmonised tariffs nomenclature and this was more complicated for 
the Philippines, but based on her input from capital a nd what was in Lists I (A) and I (B), if the first 
six-digits were used, it seemed that they could go along.  4.9 The delegate of Singapore
 stated they were also one of the pa rticipants that might not be able to 
endorse the Lists, but would not block the endorsement if the Committee so decided, but preferred 
taking a decision on an ad referendum  basis and would reply next week.  He did not yet have a reply  G/IT/M/38 
 Page 9 
 
from the  persons in charge of classification at the Singapore Customs.  He was not sure if there was a 
problem but they needed more time for a response.    4.10 The delegate of the European Communities
 stated that as one of the surviving members of those 
who negotiated the ITA, one of the problems was that there was not a uniform classification practice for the different types of ITA products, and for that reason the concept of 'Attachment B' was 
introduced.  It was agreed that customs experts shoul d meet to resolve these matters, and they had met 
on a number of occasions, the last was in May 2002.  Not every ITA participant was represented by customs experts at these meetings but a number were, and what was accomplished was shown in 
document G/IT/14 and its revisions and addendums.  As shown in th at report, the administrations 
present discussed the classification divergences and th e result was summarized in G/IT/W/6/Rev.2; on 
some issues a conclusion was reached and on other i ssues no agreement was reached.  List I (A) and I 
(B) listed those where agreement was reached by the customs experts that this was the proper 
classification for this type of product.  With respect  to List I (B), there was agreement on more than 
one possible classification, but they still agreed it wo uld be a, b, c, etc., and that meant because the 
WTO was responsible for tariff treatment, that was wher e this type of product would be placed in this 
heading or that heading, but nowhere else.  It mean t, for example, in the Community they would have 
to change their practice on certain issues, likewise other participants had to do the same, but they 
would give the tariff treatment under these codes and that would mean eventually they would be incorporated in their tariffs.  The Attachment B issues would be reduced and that was what was 
achieved with Lists I (A) and I (B).  He thought it was a good idea if anybody had questions they 
could talk to the Secretariat, or if anybody wanted to talk to the EC, he was available.  If necessary, 
his delegation was also prepared to come to Geneva  if another experts' meeting was necessary.  He 
hoped to see some of this work concluded, as a lot of time had passed since 1996.  He thought that 
customs administrations had put a lot of work into this, and some of it very complicated and detailed, 
so it would be nice at some point to finalize this work on classification divergences.  
4.11 The delegate of Chinese Taipei
 asked if there was a decision on the adoption of Lists I (A) and 
I (B), how would each participant implement the decision domestically.  In particular, was there any timeframe required or what were the procedures for notification.  He hoped the Secretariat could give 
some input.  4.12 The Chairman
 responded that the issue was discussed at the informal meeting on 22  January, 
and it was something the Committee would have to discuss next, after endorsing the classifications.  
Furthermore, in light of what had been stated, he  proposed that the Committe e revert to these matters 
at the next formal meeting when everyone should be in a position to reach a consensus.  He also noted 
that there may be a need to discu ss these issues informally and therefore would not preclude the need 
for informal consultations in the interim; and as me ntioned earlier, the Secretariat would be available 
for technical assistance. 
 4.13 The delegate of Canada
 agreed with the suggestions of the Chairman, especially having informal 
consultations before the next mee ting.  He thought the issues menti oned by some delegations might be 
limited to just a couple of items, and therefore any e fforts in the future to bring more specificity in 
terms of what was the actual concern may help the discussions as there were customs  experts in the 
room.  For Canada, it would be helpfu l to have a sense of the concerns so that they could report back 
to capital and get input or explanations so those de legations could have the benefit of neutral advice 
from the Secretariat and also views of other customs experts as well.  The point made by the EC was extremely important, as he emphasized there was a lot of  effort that had been put into this exercise, 
over the years.  He understood both the concerns of new participants trying to catch up and others like 
Singapore with their difficulties of communication, but it was important not to wait too long as there 
were already references to the  HS2007 exercise.  He  noted the comment made by Philippines that the 
adoption of a common tariff brought difficulties to the exercise.  If these matters were brought to closure as soon as possible, and everyone put forth efforts to do so, that would be important.  He thought that informal consultations would be extrem ely useful prior to the next meeting in order to 
have a better sense of the magnitude of the issues. G/IT/M/38 
Page 10  
 
4.14 The delegate of the United States
 stated that her customs experts had looked at the remaining 
Lists and had some discussions with other policy coll eagues.  Their view was that with regard to 
List II, the first four items dealt with the issu e of encapsulation and how it was applied, and now 
thought this more of a policy question, so perhaps it was best to move that issue to List V.  With 
regard to electric amplifiers, she understood th e EC had an on-going court case and could support 
moving the product to List IV.  If the EC had not r esolved the issue, then further discussions could 
take place at a future ITA customs experts' meeting.  With regard to List IV, the issues with respect to 
microscopes for the handling and transport of semi conductor wafers, the US was still examining that 
question and no decision had yet been made.  Once th e court made a decision, they would update the 
rest of the participants on the result and how it w ould affect their position.  Another item on List IV, 
the multimedia upgrade kits, she noted that the EC  had asked that no decision be taken pending a 
court case and the US had their own view on that item, but deferred to the EC's process first.  On List V, she agreed that it was the Committee's turn to look at these items.  These were items where a 
number of customs administrations had different vi ews, and as policy experts looked at them, they 
would have to make choices--either to add more class ification numbers or delete  references to certain 
numbers.  There were a number of thoughts on how to advance this work, and in some cases it was 
moving them around between the Lists, but in an effort to try to gain some common view of the solution.  4.15 The Committee took note
 of the statements made. 
 5. Other Matters Emanating from the Informal Meeting of 22 January that Participants 
May Wish to Discuss 
5.1 The Chairman
 recalled that in addition to the issu es discussed already, there were other 
matters that were raised at the informal meeting of  22 January that did not necessarily relate to any of 
the other agenda items of the meeting today.  As there were some new ideas and the start of some 
fruitful discussions on these matters , he thought the Committee should have the opportunity to discuss 
them at the formal meeting.  He recalled that there were discussions on a possible symposium and other issues.  In this connection, Canada and the United States had circulated a paper very recently,  
document G/IT/W/10, on a proposal for an ITA Symposium.   
5.2 The delegate of the United States
 stated that following the discu ssions in the informal session, 
her delegation recognized that this was a sector that was moving rapidly and it was hard for trade 
policy persons in Geneva to keep track of what was going on in the sector, what was being traded,  
how developing country participants could take advantage of it, and what were the new problems that 
faced the industry.  She noted that there was a symp osium held in 1999 for the ITA, in which a fair 
amount of the Committee's work evolved from.  Afte r that symposium, there was a clearer view of 
what the Committee could do in terms of moving fo rward and she referred to the agenda for that 
particular event and found it interesting, but noted that since that session was held, there were many 
new technologies/products being traded, many new barriers that had been created, and many new 
members of the ITA.  She noted it might be appr opriate to consider holding another symposium and 
try to determine what would be most useful for the participants to address in such an event.  The US 
and Canada had put together a pr oposal through some discussions with  a number of other participants, 
developing and developed, of what an event might  look like and hoped it would stimulate discussions.  
 
5.3 She thought it might be appropriate to start discussions on the purpose/objective as described in the proposal.  In terms of participation, she wa nted to have not only those in the Committee today, 
but experts from capital and the private sector, becau se they were critical to advancing this technology 
and using this technology.  It was important to  have a good representation of private sector 
participants, from developed and de veloping economies.  It also might  be appropriate to have an 
academic speak about trends in this sector.  For t hose WTO members who were not participants to the 
agreement but were here in Geneva, she thought they may find so me interest as she knew there were a 
number of WTO members who were interested in joining this agreement,  and it would be an  G/IT/M/38 
 Page 11 
 
opportunity for them to get some more information.   The proposed programme, as laid out as an initial 
concept, would be a day and a half session on the ma in topics of IT, with an additional half day 
dedicated to the views, interests, and concerns of new participants.  The paper suggested a few themes 
for the panels:  what was the experience so far in the ITA, what were the trends in the last 5 or 6 years 
in IT, and how was the global suppl y changing and affecting trade in this sector.  Another panel could 
explain the evolution of the technologies themsel ves, how the industry was adapting to these new 
technologies/products, and the likely production trends.  It  would also be appropriate to talk about the 
key remaining barriers, and this was where it might  contribute to the Committee's NTM discussions 
and if there were some new problems that were critical  to this sector, they may be considered at some 
point in the future.  Some focus on the potential development gains from the ITA was also important--
how did it help development to be part of this agreement, and how could developing countries enter 
into the benefits and employ the be nefits the agreement offered.  She had a few ideas that might be of 
interest to new participants--some technical assistance, some training, and review of the current agenda.  For example, many of the new participants were interested in issues that were of particular 
relevance to them--such as the challenges with impl ementation; this would a llow them to talk about 
what some of the problems have been, what some of  the solutions might be.  There would also be an 
opportunity for interaction between the private sector  and participants, but also new participants to 
talk about how they might attract industry that would help them to develop.   
 5.4 As to the venue, it should be discussed but probab ly simplest to have it here in Geneva.  As 
for timing, she thought the fourth quarter of this y ear was logical, but realized it was related to other 
activities.  The funding issue was where further cons ultations were necessary.  There were issues in 
terms of whether it was anticipated in this year's te chnical assistance plan, or other ways that funding 
might be found to make it possible this year.  5.5 The delegate of Romania
 thanked the United States and Canada for preparing the conceptual 
proposal for an ITA symposium which she strongly supported on a preliminary basis.  She thought the 
paper was useful and captured some of the idea s already presented in the formal and informal 
meetings--that of trying to identify the new IT prod ucts which appeared after the conclusion of the 
agreement.  Thus, she thought the US and Canada mi ght consider enlarging the subject of panel 2, by 
asking industry and maybe academics about the new products which appeared in the ITA area that 
were not covered by the agreement.  The second point  related to funding; she recalled that some time 
ago they asked the Secretariat to inform the Co mmittee about the possibility of technical assistance 
funds for this event.  She also thought that such a symposium should be organise d for later in the year, 
but it depended very much on what would be going on in the negotiations, or in other bodies of the 
WTO.  This event should have its importance and th e timing should be such that it could be held in 
the WTO without conflicts.  She thought that Geneva was the best venue for the symposium.  
5.6 The Secretariat
 responded to the question on funding.  As the US delegate had mentioned, this 
symposium was not part of the 2004 Technical Assist ance Plan, so there was no funding available for 
the symposium.  However, there were some in ternal discussions with the Technical Cooperation 
Division to try and see if there was some extra budgeta ry funding available, but an answer was not yet 
available.  She noted that there would be more pr ecise information later a nd more details would be 
provided, but for the moment there was no funding available. 
 
5.7 The delegate of the European Communities  thanked the US and Canada for providing this 
conceptual paper.  His delegation welcomed it and noted that it went directly with their line of 
thinking on the matter.  He supported the paper as  it stood, and as it had been presented by the US.  
His delegation felt that it would make sense to ha ve this symposium, as it could gather new 
momentum for the ITA process itself and also present new developments which had taken place in 
this sector.  With regard to Romania's comments, he  thought it was interesting to look at new products 
but he had some questions which needed to be as ked, such as what was a 'new' ITA product?  He 
queried whether it was a new ITA product when a cellu lar phone had a small camera added to it?  For 
example, he could take photographs and transmit th em on the mobile net, and wondered if it was a 
new product?  He preferred to keep the formulation which had been used in th e conceptual paper, as G/IT/M/38 
Page 12  
drafted by the US and Canada, where reference was made to new technologies.  He noted that this 
was an important concept and it was important to know where the industry was going, and which 
were the likely technologies to be used.  The EC was in full support of the idea to hold a symposium later this year.  As others had already stated, it was important to choose the timing very precisely because they did not want to conflict with matters un der the DDA, but the fourth quarter of this year 
might be the best choice. 
 
5.8 The delegate of Turkey
 thanked the US and Canada for th e very useful and comprehensive 
symposium proposal.  The proposal and its objectives, participation, and preliminary programme seemed to be a very good. He expected his academ ic, private sector, and government representatives 
would contribute to this programme. 
 
5.9 The delegate of India
 thanked the US and Canada for their paper.  His preliminary comments 
from capital were that they were open to the idea of a symposium, and the basic purpose and 
advantage from such a seminar would be as an info rmation supplement to the Committee in terms of 
what had happened in the intervening period sin ce the last symposium and the fast-changing and 
dynamic world that the Committee was confronted with.  In response to  Romania, he shared some of 
the thoughts of the EC whether it was worthwhile di scussing what was new or what others may regard 
as new.  It was a manifestation of technology rather than a new product in itself, so whether it was old 
or new was not so important.  5.10 The delegate of Japan
 supported the US/Canada proposal to hold another ITA symposium on 
the development of IT.  He hoped the symposium w ould be a good opportunity to help understand, 
not only the evolution of newly developed informa tion technology products, but also the ITA in the 
process of technology innovation.   5.11 The delegate of China
 thanked the US and Canada for thei r paper.  He liked the general idea 
of having another symposium, and in terms of or ganizing the symposium, any suggestions from his 
capital would be forwarded.  5.12 The delegate of Singapore
 was supportive of this proposal and noted it was quite timely 
especially given the information in the background, whereby IT was one of the most dynamic sectors 
in the global economy.  The programme had been qu ite will developed already in the proposal with 
four panels, and the suggested topics were quite pe rtinent.  He was open to the venue and timing of 
the event, it could be in Geneva or elsewhere, but thought Geneva might be preferable but was 
flexible.  5.13 The delegate of Australia
 thanked the US and Canada for their proposal.  In the brainstorming 
meeting, questions as to the details of the propo sed seminar and the objectives were raised and he 
thought the proposal gave very good answers to tho se questions.  He also referred to the need to 
consider resources and looked forward to this being considered in the coming weeks or months.  He 
wondered if consideration could be given to representatives of WTO observers in the process of 
accession, as it would be important for them to attend.  He was interested to hear other participants' views on this, but noted that a number of partic ipants in the Committee were encouraging acceding 
countries to join the ITA upon accession, and this could be a useful way of promoting that objective. 
 5.14 The delegate of the Philippines
 thanked the US and Canada for their conceptual paper.  This 
would be transmitted to the capital for further consid eration.  As an initial comment, the purpose and 
objectives had been clearly laid out, and she agreed  that this was an area where technologies were 
moving so fast that the Committee could not keep up .  For her delegation, it would be very important 
to have their business sector and policy makers atte nd.  Therefore, it was important to look very 
seriously into the funding issue because while it was not in the budget this year, there could be 
creative ways to ensure that two developing coun try representatives be funded, one from the business 
sector and one from government, because it was the business people and the policy experts in capital 
who would make best use of the symposium.  G/IT/M/38 
 Page 13 
 
 
5.15 The delegate of Chinese Taipei  thanked the US and Canada for their paper, and strongly 
supported the symposium.  He hoped that funding woul d be made available and they would encourage 
their private sector to participate in the symposiu m.  He hoped that the new trends in technology 
suggested for the symposium would help the Committ ee have a better understanding of the concept of 
'new' IT products. 
 
5.16 The delegate of Switzerland  thanked the US and Canada for their proposal.  They did not 
have any specific comments but supported the idea of  having this symposium.  They agreed with the 
contents suggested by the US and Canada.  
5.17 The delegate of Costa Rica
 thanked the US and Canada for this  initiative.  This was an event 
that all could benefit from, especially with the participation of the private sector and academics. 
 5.18 The delegate of Morocco
 thanked the US and Canada for their proposal.  As a new member of 
the Committee, they thought that th e symposium was well justified as stated in the paper.  It would 
help participants, and especially new particip ants, for whom round table discussions have been 
previewed.  It had been stated that these round tabl es would be dedicated to listening to the problems 
and ideas of the new participants, and this was welc omed.  With regard to the date, his delegation 
remained flexible, but emphasized  the importance of funding, as it was only when this was assured 
that the symposium would be fully successful.  
5.19 The delegate of Romania
 responded to the comments made regarding her earlier proposal of 
having the new products discussed through this semin ar.  She noted that it was the industry who 
pushed the governments to include or not to includ e some products for tariff liberalisation.  If during 
this seminar there was industry present, her idea wa s to have them think about products for which 
they had some problems when entering certain market s to see if they were covered or not by the 
agreement.  If they were not covered, they coul d explain why it was a new product and why it was an 
IT product.    5.20 The delegate of the United States
 was pleased to have so many positive reactions to the paper. 
She looked forward to further dialogue on the preci se programme, working with the Secretariat.  
Obviously, it was critical to see how the funding was managed. From the US perspective, they were 
flexible on how this could be do ne, and could work with other in ternational institutions to pursue 
ways to obtain funding.  With regard to the po int that Romania had ra ised and a number of 
delegations reacted, she noted it was hard for indu stries to simply talk about technologies.  She 
understood the point the EC made and thought that the focus was where the technology was going.  She did not suggest that it should be the main pur pose nor a separate session.  It would help to 
understand where the industry was going, and how far behind things were, and was the Committee 
doing the right things to help advance the technologies so that all could benefit further.  Finally, she wanted to mention that at the last informal s ession, her delegation indicated they were trying to 
compile thoughts on in an appropriate process to consider new products.  They had done some 
research, but did not have a precise proposal at this  time.  Her delegation would think further on what 
might be an appropriate process for the Committee to  consider, as a way to update the agreement in 
the future.  For her delegation, what the process w ould be, what would be possible, and whether there 
was interest in pursuing a new initiative recognising all that was undertaken previously, could all be 
given further thought.  She realized there were a number of people who were sceptical about it, but 
her delegation remained open-minded and wanted to think about the possibility.  She was concerned 
that the agreement would stay static, when the industry itself was so dynamic.  
 
5.21 The Committee took note
 of the statements made. G/IT/M/38 
Page 14  6. New Participants 
6.1 The Chairman
 stated that this item was normally placed on the agenda of meetings of this 
Committee in case there were any new schedules fort hcoming.  He understood that the schedule of 
Nicaragua was ready and would be ci rculated early next week.  In or der not to delay Nicaragua's full 
participation in the work of the Committee, he propo sed that following the ci rculation of Nicaragua's 
schedule, participants would have two weeks in which to examine the schedule.  If no comments were 
received by the Secretariat, in writi ng, by the close of business two week s from the date of circulation of 
the schedule, the schedule of Nicaragua would be deemed to be formally approved.   6.2 The delegate of Nicaragua
 stated that over the last few months they had developed an internal 
process of analysis and consultations further re view of products included in the Ministerial 
Declaration on Trade in Information Technology Products which was adopted during the Singapore 
Ministerial Conference in December 1996.  They rec ognised the key role of trade in IT products for 
the development of information industries and th e significant support to dynamism of the world 
economy.  He expressed the interest of his governme nt to accede to the ITA and thus be part of the 
Committee.  Nicaragua wanted to participate activel y in the discussions of this Committee and in 
activities such as the examination of the classifi cation divergences, consultations on NTBs, the 
accession of new participants, and discussion on issu es related to the implementation which were 
fundamental to the proper development of the ITA.  He pointed out that during the process of the review of their schedule, they had the important  technical support of the Market Access Division, 
which meant they would be circulating their sch edule soon, so as to receive written comments and 
observations.  He expressed full availability to provid e any clarifications required by participants.  
Thus, Nicaragua demonstrated once again its good will in maintaining an open and competitive 
market policy aimed at world trade liberalisation.  They believed that the promotion of technological development was fundamental to economic growth, im proving the standards of living of their citizens, 
and promoting the production and free-trade of goods .  There was no doubt that this work required 
flexibility and political will on the part of their Gove rnment.  They were convinced that through this 
work they would construct their trading system which would continue to reduce poverty and promote 
development of their country.  6.3 The delegate of the United States
 welcomed the efforts of Nicarag ua to work actively and join 
the ITA.  Her delegation would look at the sche dule as soon as it was received and assumed that they 
would respond favourably. 
 
6.4 The delegate of Chinese Taipei  welcomed the application of Nicaragua to this Committee.  
He hoped that the schedule would be available in the electronic form to enable better communication with their capital.  
6.5 The Chairman
 stated that is appeared to be agreeable that the Committee proceed on the basis he 
outlined--that the schedule of Nicaragua will be d eemed to be approved unless any participant would 
notify its objection in writing to the Secretariat within the two weeks from the date of circulation of the documentation.    6.6 It was so agreed
. 
 
7. Election of Chairperson 
7.1 The Chairman  recalled that the Committee normally el ected a new Chairper son annually at the 
beginning of the calendar year.  At this point in time, he was informed that the consultations for this year 
for this Committee, as well as other bodies of the CTG, were not yet completed at this time.  Therefore, 
he proposed this matter be reverted to at the ne xt meeting whereby there should be a proposal for a 
suitable candidate at that time.    7.2 It was so agreed
.  G/IT/M/38 
 Page 15 
 
 
8. Other Business 
8.1 The Chairman  stated that the issue of the review of product coverage continued to be a matter 
under consultation, and he encouraged dele gations to continue their efforts.   
 8.2 Furthermore, he proposed that  the Committee's next regular meeting be held on 26 April 2004, 
subject to further confirmation.   
__________