RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/MA/M/45 
7 December 2007 
 
 (07-5412) 
Committee on Market Access  
  
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 15 OCTOBER 2007 
 
Chairman: Dr. Mohammad Saeed (Pakistan)
 
  
Subject discussed
 Page  
 
1. Periodic report of the Committee to the Council for Trade  in Goods 
(G/MA/SPEC/36) ................................................................................................................. .....1 
2. Submission of HS96 documentation........................................................................................2  
3. Extension of the HS2002 waiver (G/C/W/585) .......................................................................2  
4. Extension of the HS2007 waiver (G/C/W/584) .......................................................................3  
5. Modalities and operation of the Integrated Data Base (IDB) ...............................................3  
6. Consolidated Tariff Sche dules (CTS) Database.....................................................................3  
7. Dissemination of the IDB and the CTS database...................................................................4  
8. Situation of schedules of WT O Members (G/MA/W/23/Rev.4)............................................5  
9. Transitional Review under Paragraph 18 of the Protocol of Accession of the 
People's Repub lic of China ..................................................................................................... .5 
10. Draft Report (2007) of the Committee to the Council for Trade in Goods 
(G/MA/SPEC/37) ................................................................................................................. ...11 
11. Election of Vice-Chairperson.................................................................................................11  
12. Other Bu siness................................................................................................................. ........11  
ANNEX I........................................................................................................................ .......................12  
ANNEX II ....................................................................................................................... ......................14  
ANNEX III...................................................................................................................... ......................15  
 
 
 The Committee adopted  the agenda as reproduced in WTO/AIR/3081.  An annotated agenda 
was circulated in document JOB(07)/149.  
1. Periodic report of the Committee to the Council for Trade  in Goods (G/MA/SPEC/36) 
1.1 The Chairman
 drew attention to document G/MA/SPEC /36 which contained the draft periodic 
report of the Committee.  He noted that this repor t, which would be finalized in the light of the 
discussion that would take place at this meeting,  would be submitted to the Council for Trade in 
Goods (CTG) for examination.    G/MA/M/45 
Page 2  
 
  1.2 He noted that there were no requests for ex tensions of HS96 waivers so no factual information 
on this issue had been provided in the Annex.   1.3 The Committee took note
 of the periodic report and agreed  to forward it to the CTG for 
appropriate action. 
 
2. Submission of HS96 documentation 
2.1 The Chairman  drew attention to document G/MA/TAR/2/Rev.40  which reflected the present 
situation concerning the submission of required HS 96 documentation.  From the document, it could 
be noted that the submissi ons of Argentina and Panama  remained pending because of reservations 
maintained by other Members. In addition, Ven ezuela was working with the Secretariat on some 
technical issues in respect of this documentation. The Chairman  observed that the situation did not 
look too bad at least in respect of those Member s who had submitted HS96 doc umentation pursuant to 
the relevant legal procedures.  
2.2 However, he also pointed out that many Members (around 60) had not submitted any HS96 
documentation. He reminded Members that the Se cretariat has undertaken the HS96 transposition 
work for all developing Members in connection with  the exercise of preparing the CTS schedules. He 
also recalled that at that ti me (October 2005), the Chairman of  this Committee had encouraged 
Members to make use of the information put togeth er by the Secretariat to prepare and submit their 
HS96 documentation and to proceed with their certif ication in accordance with the procedures in 
GATT document L/6905.   However, to date no Member  had used the opportunity. He noted that the  
Members concerned by this situation were liste d in document JOB(05)/124/Add.1. He requested 
Members to reflect further on how to address this issue and proposed to revert to this issue at the next 
meeting.  
2.3 The Committee so agreed
. 
 
3. Extension of the HS2002 waiver (G/C/W/585) 
3.1 The Chairman  recalled that a number of Members had been given an extension or granted a 
new waiver  - through the form of a "collectiv e decision"-  in order to introduce HS2002 changes 
domestically and to subsequently introduce these ch anges to their respective schedule of concessions 
and to undertake negotiations if required. This wa iver decision was contained in document WT/L/674 
and would expire on 31 December 2007.    3.2 He noted that a number of the Members covere d by this waiver had yet to complete the HS02 
exercise and he proposed that the waiver be extended for another year.  A draft decision was 
contained in G/C/W/585.  He also observed that so me of these Members might not require a waiver, 
for example Bulgaria and Romania (who were now Members of the European Union).  Additionally, 
some of these Members had completed the HS02 exercise and presumably would not be requiring an extension, such as Canada, Hong Kong China, Macao China and Switzerland.  He proposed that the  
Secretariat  check directly with the Members concerned and remove their names from the list in the Annex if required.   
 
3.3 The Committee agreed
 to forward the draft decision1, amended as required, to the Council for 
Trade in Goods for approval.  
                                                     
 
1 The decision was revised and is now contained in G/C/W/585/Rev.1.  G/MA/M/45 
 Page 3 
 
 
  4. Extension of the HS2007 waiver (G/C/W/584) 
4.1 The Chairman  recalled that a number of Members had been granted a waiver - through the 
form of a "collective decision" - in order to introduce HS2007 changes domestically and to subsequently introduce these changes to their r espective schedule of concessions and to undertake 
negotiations if required. This decision was contai ned in document WT/L/675 and would expire on 
31 December 2007.   Thailand, Pakistan and Mexico ha d requested to be part of this decision and their 
communications were circulated as an addenda to th e decision. Given the fact that HS2007 exercise 
was far from over, he proposed that the waiver be extended for another year.  The draft decision 
extending the waiver was contained in G/C/W/584.  
4.2 The Committee agreed
 to forward the draft decision to the Council for Trade in Goods for 
approval.  
5. Modalities and operation of the Integrated Data Base (IDB) 
- Status of submission of the required documen tation (G/MA/IDB/2/Rev.26) and Report by the 
Secretariat  
 5.1 The Chairman
 referred to document G/MA/IDB/2/Rev. 26 which had been circulated to all 
Members and presented the situation of IDB submissions as of 1 October 2007. 
 
5.2 A member of the Secretariat  (Mr. J. Richtering) introduced the report which is contained in 
Annex I. 
 5.3 The Committee took note
 of the report. 
 
6. Consolidated Tariff Schedules (CTS) Database 
- Introduction of HS2002 changes to schedul es of concessions using the CTS Database  
(WT/L/605) – Report by the Secretariat on the status of work  
 6.1 The Chairman
 noted that since the last formal m eeting of the Committee on 4 April 2007, 
there were two  multilateral review meetings.  The first on 24 April and the second one on 30 July.  As 
provided by the Paragraph 14 of the HS2002 proce dures, the Secretariat had circulated periodic 
reports for those meetings in the JOB(06)/8 series.   
 6.2 A member of the Secretariat
 (Mr. J. Richtering) introduced the report which is contained in 
Annex II.  
6.3 Regarding the question of tariff lines unaffect ed by the HS02 changes which was mentioned 
in the Secretariat report, the Chairman
 recalled that at the multilateral re view session in July 2007, the 
US delegation had raised the issue of a situation where a tariff line which was not affected by an 
HS02 change was included in a submission with the binding level increased.  The US had been 
interested in the legal implications in  cases where such a line was certified. 
 
6.4 The Secretariat had consulted the Legal Divi sion.  Regarding the legal implications, the 
understanding of the Secretariat, and he stressed that this was only an understanding, was that the 
procedures for the HS02 transposition exercise WT /L/605 did explicitly reference the need for 
Article XXVIII negotiations for changes to concessi ons resulting from the HS2002 transposition.  In 
other words, a multilateral review under the ab ove decision would not obviate the need for 
Article XXVIII consultations a nd negotiations as regarded tariff lines affected by HS2002 
transposition. As a legal matter, it would therefore also seem logical that a multilateral review of G/MA/M/45 
Page 4  
 
  HS2002 transpositions  did not obviate the need for Ar ticle XXVIII consultati ons and negotiations for 
tariff lines unaffected by HS2002 transposition whenever the scope of the concession had been modified.  Thus, the certification of a tariff increase for a tariff line unaffected by HS2002 would not prevent Members from contesting the validity of that certification with respect to the tariff line(s) in 
question based on the legal rationale that, and provided that, Article XXVIII consultations and 
negotiations had not been entered into by the Memb er concerned for such tariff lines.  He further 
noted that these were the views of the Secretariat on the matter and it would appear that the interests 
of delegations were safeguarded in unde rtaking this transposition exercise.   
 6.5 The Chairman
 also updated Members on his activities concerning those Members whose 
HS02 files had been approved by everyone else but th eir own delegation.  He recalled that he had 
already provided a report at the multilateral revi ew session of 30 July, but thought it important to 
repeat what he had said for the record.   6.6 The Chairman
 recalled that he had started this process with a fax to all those Members whose 
files had been approved by all other delegations except their own. The fax provided information on 
the  HS02 exercise and provided specific information on their schedules. It also urged these Members to submit their approvals quickly so that thei r schedules incorporating  HS02 changes could be 
certified.  This fax had been followed by an invitation  to a bilateral meeting.  He had felt that such a 
meeting might be a more effective way of tryi ng to understand why delegations were having 
difficulties in providing approval to their own files.  Following such bilaterals, he had sent a follow-
up fax asking these Members if they needed any furthe r assistance.  All of these efforts had resulted in 
13 approvals coming in, which was good.  More im portantly he believed th at delegations were 
beginning to engage in this exercise and had been in touch with the Secretariat about this matter.   He 
added that he intended to send reminders very soon to the relevant delegations.  
 
6.7 The Committee took note
 of the report.  
  - Introduction of HS2007 changes to schedul es of concessions using the CTS Database
 
(WT/L/673) – Report by the Secretariat on the status of work  
 
6.8 The Chairman  noted that pursuant to Paragraph 2 of the procedures contained in WT/L/673, 
those Members preparing their own HS07 files were supposed to submit the required information to 
the Secretariat no later than 30 September 2007.  He understood that Australia and Canada had 
submitted their HS07 files.     
6.9 A member of the Secretariat
 (Mr. J. Richtering) introduced the report which is contained in 
Annex III.  6.10 The Committee took note
 of the report.  
 
7. Dissemination of the IDB and the CTS database  
- Communication from the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (G/MA/W/86)  
- Communication from the International Coffee Organization (ICO) (G/MA/W/87)   
- Communication from the Southern African Customs Union (G/MA/W/88)   
 7.1 The Chairman
 recalled that on 12 June 2002, th e Committee had adopted document 
G/MA/115 containing the dissemination policy of the IDB and CTS database.   Certain organizations 
(UNCTAD, IMF, World Bank, ITC) were given au tomatic access to these two databases.  However, 
the Committee had agreed that other intergovernme ntal organizations wishing to have access would  G/MA/M/45 
 Page 5 
 
 
  need to obtain approval from the Committee on a case-by -case basis.  This is contained in paragraph 5 
of document G/MA/115.   7.2 In this connection, the Committee had befo re it a request from the United Nations Economic 
Commission for Africa, the International Coffee Organization and the Southern African Customs 
Union to use and publish the information contai ned in these databases in accordance with the terms 
and conditions laid out in document G/MA/115.   7.3 If the Committee agreed to grant access, he proposed writing to these organizations in similar 
terms as he had done to the or ganizations which had recently been granted access and asking them 
about what data they may have that they coul d share with the WTO on a reciprocal basis.  
Additionally, he would  be encouraging them to ur ge their members to submit to the IDB if they had 
not already done so.    7.4 The Committee approved
 the requests for access to the IDB and CTS database.  
 
8. Situation of schedules of WTO Members (G/MA/W/23/Rev.4) 
8.1 The Chairman  noted that the Secretariat had prepared a document G/MA/W/23/Rev.4 which 
provided information on the situation of schedules of  WTO Members. He believed there was room for 
improvement and noted as an example that there we re a number of Article XXVIII renegotiations (16 
of them) where the status of the negotiations wa s not clear.  There were also some pre-Uruguay 
Round schedules which remained to be finalized.  Th e Chairman proposed that the Secretariat contact 
the concerned delegations to let them know of th e situation and to see if any assistance could be 
extended.   8.2 The Committee so agreed.
 
 
9. Transitional Review under Paragraph 18 of th e Protocol of Accession of the People's 
Republic of China 
- Questions and/or Comments Submitted to Chin a by the European Communities, Japan and the 
United States in documents G/MA/W/91,  G/MA/W/90 and G/MA /W/89, respectively.  
9.1 The Chairman  noted that the Committee would be conducting its sixth transitional review 
(TRM).  In this respect, he noted that a number of comments and questions had been put to China  
from the United States, Japan and the European Co mmunities in that order.  China had submitted the 
information required by Annex 1 of the Protoc ol, which was circulated in G/MA/W/92.   
 9.2 The representative of China
 noted that China was glad to have this opportunity to take part in 
this exercise of the Transitional Review Mechan ism (TRM) in accordance with Paragraph 18 of the 
Protocol of Accession of China. He understood that  there were specific requirements or regulations 
covering this exercise and his delegation would st rictly abide by those rules. He acknowledged 
reception of the documents by the United States, Japan and the European Communities. He observed 
that none of the issues raised in those documents was new.  In fact according to his analysis the same 
issues were raised last year by those delegations. As  a result and in an effort to avoid duplication of 
work, he asked those delegations whether they ha d any comments and questions additional to those 
contained in their written submissions.  9.3 The representative of the United States
 noted that in their view , the TRM was designed to 
help Members understand and assess the progress that  China had made in adopting and complying 
with WTO disciplines. From that perspective, the US  believed that the TRM continued to be a useful 
mechanism. First it helped to provide the needed additional transparency on China's trade regime, as it G/MA/M/45 
Page 6  
 
  allowed Members to seek and obtain clarifications regarding the various trade policies and practices 
of China. Secondly it provided Members with a mu ltilateral forum to convey their expectations of 
China and of their concerns with China's implemen tation and compliance efforts. In that regard, the 
TRM was a useful supplement to bilateral discussions w ith China.  She noted that after nearly 6 years 
of WTO membership, China should have implemente d almost all of the commitments that it had 
made in its Protocol of Accession. As a result, it might be expected that the TRM would focus more 
on China's ongoing adherence to WTO rules than  on China's implementation of the specific 
commitments that it had made in its Protocol of Accession.   9.4 In their written submission before this Co mmittee, the US's focus was on adherence to WTO 
rules. The US had raised questions about export  quotas maintained by China on a number of raw 
materials. The US also sought clarification about a value-added tax (VAT) that China applied to a 
fertilizer known as diammonium phosphate (DAP). Regarding export quotas on raw materials, their 
questions on China's export quotas on raw materials ra ised serious WTO concerns. The time had long 
passed for China to get rid of its export quotas on raw materials. China nevertheless continued to 
maintain export quotas on at least a dozen raw materi als that were particularly important to US 
industry even though China was the world's leading producer of 11 of the 12 items that the US had 
mentioned in their questions. The US wanted to se e a level playing field on these items. However, 
with China's export quotas the US and other WT O Members were significantly disadvantaged. The 
export quotas artificially raised world raw material prices and lowered China's domestic prices. That 
gave a substantial artificial advantage to Chin a's downstream producers over foreign downstream 
producers. In the past, for two of these raw material s China had argued that it needed to impose export 
quotas to protect an exhaustible natural resource. In  this case the US believed that there was no basis 
because China was the world's leading producer of these raw materials and could not claim that the 
export quotas were there to protect the natural res ources. For example China had been limiting coke  
(a key steel input) exports to 14 million metric tonn es (MT) per year, but at the same time China's 
domestic sales of coke had continued to increase ev ery year and had dwarfed the amount of exports 
allowed. In fact, in 2006, China produced nearly  300 million MT of coke and allowed only 14 million 
MT of this coke to be exported, while the rema inder totalling more than 280 million MT were sold 
domestically. She added that if China was really trying to protect exhaustible natural resources, it 
would have to limit domestic sal es in the same way it limited expor ts. Her delegation looked forward 
to receiving response to their questions. 
 
9.5 The representative of Japan
 noted that in document G/MA/W/90 Japan had asked basically 
three questions on: (i) tariff rates on photographic pr oducts, (ii) export restrictions of coke and (iii) 
export restrictions of non-ferrous metals. He had no additional questions  but reserved the right to raise 
any issue if it became of interest or concern to Japan. He looked forward to the responses from China.  
 
9.6 The representative of the European Communities  stated that he was puzzled by the question 
from China on whether the EC had additional ques tions. The EC had already circulated their 
questions in document G/MA/W/91, so they had no additional questions. However, he did have some 
additional comments.  Everyone who had glanced at the headlines of the front page of the Financial 
Times that weekend knew that Chinese exports to the EC were exploding and this year the EC had 
overtaken the US as the primary destination for Ch inese exports. Chinese exports to the EC rose 37% 
in the year until September and China's trade surplu s had jumped by 69% for the first nine months of 
the year to the amount of 185 billion dollars. He was not saying that this was bad.  In WTO, the belief 
was trade was a good thing but the point he was trying  to make was that the EC market was wide open 
to Chinese exports and therefore his delegation did not feel shy about putting questions to China on 
issues where they felt that there were barriers to their exports that  potentially violated the WTO.  The 
EC did this within the agreed mechanism which was the TRM. Their questions concentrated for 
instance on export restrictions where China should clarify/notify its restrictions including export taxes and justify those that it wanted to keep. In respec t of China's compulsory certification, the question 
was whether in the review of this particular inst rument, European test results would be accepted. On  G/MA/M/45 
 Page 7 
 
 
  automobiles, the question concerned the latest de velopments with respect to majority foreign 
ownership in joint ventures.  His delegation also wished to know whether there had been any progress 
of a possible accession by China to the UN/ECE Agre ement which would make it easier for China to 
export its automobiles to the world market. On steel , his delegation was asking for an explanation of  
Chinese policy.  In chemicals, the EC sought in formation on developments concerning majority 
ownerships and on the possibility to access the retail sector. In pharmaceuticals and in cosmetics the 
question being asked related to less burdensome te sting. There were also some questions on wood 
products.  Finally, he noted that it might also be tr ue that these questions had already been asked the 
previous year. However, they had been repeated now because his delegation believed that they had 
not been satisfactorily answered so far. He al so noted that the latest document from China 
(G/MA/W/92) did not provide responses to those qu estions, and he hoped that the answers would be 
forthcoming.  9.7 The representative of China
 stated that with regard to the issue of VAT on DAP the US had 
requested data on the annual consumption of DAP and had also requested data on import and the 
share of import and total consumption of DAP. He  informed the US representative that the data 
regarding DAP was as follows: annual consumpti on in 2001 was 4.97 million tons out of which 3.29 
million were imported. In 2002, a nnual consumption was 7.12 million tons out of which 4.93 million 
were imported. In 2003, annual consumption was 5. 3 million tons out of which 2.61 million were 
imported. From January until July 2004 total consum ption was 3.66 million tons out of which 1.69 
million were imported.  In the case of MAP, in 2001 annual consumption was 2.11 million tons out of 
which 15.1 thousand tons were im ported. In 2002, annual consumpti on was 2.68 million tons out of 
which 50 thousand tons were impor ted. In 2003, annual consumption was 3.2 million tons out of 
which 61.4 thousand tons were imported. From January until July 2004, consumption was 2.21 
million tons out of which 49.5 thousand tons were imported.  With regard to the US question on 
export quotas he noted that this issue was of system atic concern to his delega tion. He was aware that 
the US had raised the same question in the C ouncil for Trade in Goods last year.  The three 
delegations (Japan, US and EC) had submitted ques tions related to quotas.  He wondered whether 
those Members were sure that this was the appropriate agenda item or Committee to discuss this kind of issue.  It was his understanding that relevant issues could be addressed in the transitional review 
once a year, and it was the intention of his delegati on to see that this specific requirement of the TRM 
was observed.  China did not want to see a situatio n where issues under the transitional review were 
reviewed several times a year because that was not  the spirit of China's Protocol of Accession which 
spoke of once a year.   With regard to the US comment on the usefulness and the nature of TRM and 
that this exercise should shift from reviewing acce ssion commitments to reviewing compliance with 
on-going rules he did not believe there was a cont radiction between the two objectives.  China was 
prepared to participate in this exercise but stric tly in accordance with the requirements of Paragraph 
18.  Any request that went beyond that would be diff icult to satisfy.  As to the EC comment about not 
getting satisfactory answers, he noted that if the ma ndate had been that the TRM should be carried out 
in a way to satisfy the requests of all Members, China would have done that, but such a mandate did 
not exist.    9.8 In respect of Japan's comments, the issue of photographic films was not new.  He was glad to 
see that a number of the issues discussed in this  Committee had been resolved. This was probably 
why Japan had not raised this subject during the TRM last year. The question was the methodology for converting commitments which were in specific duties into ad valorem  equivalents.  Experts from 
China and Japan had been able to agree on a met hodology. However, on some issues he was not sure 
how far the experts had agreed.  This was probabl y the reason why some new issues had been raised 
by Japan such as the ceiling or cap. His guess was that perhaps th e Japanese business community was 
not satisfied with the results of the work of expert s. In this regard, China was willing to continue to 
work with the Japanese experts.  He also request ed some explanation from Japan as to how Japan’s 
request for a ceiling or cap related to any specifi c market access accession commitment of China.  In 
respect of the second and third question from Japan, he had the same systematic concern as raised G/MA/M/45 
Page 8  
 
  earlier.  He wondered whether this was the appr opriate agenda item or appropriate Committee to 
address those issues. The kind of information China was required to submit to this Committee under Annex 1A of China's Protocol of Accession had been  done and the document made available.  But he 
was not sure whether this issue or information rela ting to so-called export restrictions fell within the 
purview of this agenda item.   
 
9.9 Concerning the document submitted by EC and their comments he was glad to hear that 
China's bilateral trade with EC had been growing f ast. According to China's statistics, EC exports to 
China had also been growing and China was glad to  see that the two-way trade had been strengthened 
through China's accession to WTO. This was a demonstr ation of the joint effort made by Members, as 
well as a demonstration of sincere efforts made by China to implement all its WTO accession 
commitments.  At the sa me time, he could not second the view th at the EC market was wide open to 
China. Perhaps it was wide open, but it could always  be wider.  The same was perhaps true of the 
Chinese market which could be opened wider to the EC.  This was the purpose and goal they shared 
and this was why the DDA, including the NAMA and Agricultural negotiations existed.  China was 
prepared to work with the EC to realize that goal.   As to the EC comment about not feeling shy about 
putting questions to China, his question to the EC  was which was the right forum, agenda item or 
right body to handle the specific ques tions that the EC had submitted to  China. He referred to the EC 
document which covered seven or eight  major categories.  He wished to  ask the EC why, for instance, 
in the second paragraph of the EC document it said "O nce the information to be provided by China in 
accordance with paragraph 8 and paragraph IV.3 (a ) of Annex 1A of its Protocol of accession has 
been received, the EC might come back with add itional questions".  His question was whether the EC 
was sure that the kind of information to be provide d by China fell within the mandate of the agenda 
item of this Committee.  He felt that there was a mistake and urged his EC colleague to check. 
Concerning the so-called Chinese export restrictions, he did not know whether Members were talking 
about the same measure when they mentioned "e xport quotas", "export c ontrol measure", "export 
regulation" and "export restriction". He wished to kn ow the legal basis for such a differentiation. Once 
again his question to the EC was whether this was the right agenda item and the right body to handle 
this kind of issue. His reading of China’s Protocol of Accession clearly indicated otherwise. With regard to the second question from the EC, the China Compulsory Certification (CCC), he invited EC 
to read document G/MA/M/42 in which China had alr eady provided answers to EC.  On the issue of 
automobiles where the EC had raised concerns on in vestment arrangements in joint venture ownership 
limitation, he wondered whether th e EC could explain how such an issue related to any specific 
commitment of China either in its Protocol of A ccession or the Working Party Report.  In fact, he 
wondered whether the EC could explain how this issu e fell within the jurisdiction of the WTO at all. 
He understood that investment matters could be of  concern to the EC and they could be discussed 
bilaterally in another forum. However, neither this Committee nor for that matter the WTO had the 
mandate to handle questions of this nature.  If "investment" had not been dropped from the DDA as 
one of the Singapore issues, then China could con tinue discussions on this subject.  Perhaps the 
question should be put to the Director-General Pascal Lamy as to why he agreed to drop the subject of 
"investment" from the DDA.  On the question about the type-approval/homologation standards, according to feedback from his capital, it was not  that China did not want to use the UN/ECE 
Agreement, but some Chinese companies had complain ed that using that agreement was too costly. 
On the other hand, they believed that the existi ng Chinese practice was more suited to the Chinese 
reality.  China was prepared to continue the discu ssion with the EC on how a future agreement could 
be reached to the benefit of both sides to save cost and to benefit the entry into the Chinese market of 
European car models and to benefit sales of Ch inese cars in the world.  For the Steel Industry 
Development Policy, he referred to document G/ MA/M/42 and G/C/M/22 where there were some 
answers already provided by China.  However, he did not believe that the Steel Industry Development 
Policy was something that fit into any specific commitme nt that fell within the purview of this agenda 
item.  Once again China sought clarification from th e EC about how this issue related to any specific 
commitment of China to the WTO and how it w as of relevance to this agenda item. On 
petrochemicals, it was a question pertaining to the joint venture ownership limitation and the  G/MA/M/45 
 Page 9 
 
 
  comments he had made regarding the joint ventur e ownership limitation on automobiles were valid 
for this issue too. Concerning retail and wholesales fuels market opening, it was a services issue and concerned the opening up of a distribution network. He  wondered if the person who had prepared this 
document had some basic knowledge about WTO rules,  about China's accession  commitments to the 
WTO to be able to distinguish a services from a goods issue, and a market access issue from a non-
market access issue.  For pha rmaceuticals, cosmetics and woods products, once again he wondered 
whether the EC could prove that these questions were related to any specific market access commitment of China or to any specific rule of this body or the WTO.  9.10 He thanked the delegations who had submitted questions and th e majority of delegations who 
had not submitted any questions to China. He noted  that the bilateral trade between China and the 
latter was growing in a very satisfactory manner but that did not mean that there were no problems. 
Rather, it meant that those Members who had not  raised questions seemed to have a better 
understanding of the exact nature, meaning and purpose of the TRM.   
9.11 The representative of the United States
 thanked the Chinese delegate for the answers that he 
had provided.  Regarding China's concern about  the appropriate body for asking questions, she 
wondered whether China could indicate in which Co mmittee her delegation could obtain full answers 
to its questions.  On the systemic concerns raised  by China, she noted that the TRM was done once a 
year across many bodies.  So raising questions in  more than one of those bodies would not be doing 
the TRM twice because the mechan ism itself was put across the various Committees and Council and 
that was how it had been established. Regarding the mandate of the Committee on Market Access, it 
was broad and the questions that her delegation ha d asked regarding, for example, export quotas fell 
clearly within the mandate of this Committee. She also  noted that if the US had submitted some of last 
year's questions again this year, they would be w ithin their rights because full answers had not been 
provided.  Clearly the TRM covered ongoing trade c oncerns about compliance and so asking the same 
question twice made sense. Finally, she thanked th e Chinese delegation for providing specific data,  
and requested that this information be provided in writing.   9.12 The representative of the European Communities
 noted he was extremely pleased that China 
subscribed to the same goal as the EC of further liberalisation and that China was prepared to work 
together with the EC on that issue. However, in an swering the questions that the EC had asked, he had 
not witnessed the same positive spirit. He agreed with the US response regarding the systemic 
concerns raised by China. There was no rule that issues that were raised in this Committee could not 
be raised in any other WTO Committee. He did not ag ree with China's interpretation of the EC remark 
relating to the need to repeat questions because of  the absence of a satisfactory answer.  Clearly, the 
EC expectation was not that China immediately grant all their requests. It would be nice if China did 
that, but that would not be very realistic! What his delegation was asking was that China respond to 
the questions in writing. He had heard oral answers to some of the questions, but preferred to have 
those answers in writing.  The answ ers by China mostly consisted of counter questions. However, this 
was not the transitional review of the EC but of Chin a. He also noted that his delegation had made the 
link between the questions and the commitments that China had entered into.  This could be seen with 
the first question where there was a reference to the commitment that China had made concerning 
export restrictions. While, he would not go into deta il, he wished to note that a number of the other 
questions related to obligations th at China had under the TBT Agreement.  So it was not true that 
these questions were unrelated to what China had committed to do.  Also, there was no particular 
reason why his delegation could not ask further qu estions once it had received answers,   His 
delegation had every right to do so. He encouraged  China to take this exercise seriously and to 
provide answers in writing to the questions that had been asked. 
 9.13 The representative of Japan
 thanked the Chinese delegate for his response. However, 
regarding the two questions that Japan had raised on export restriction of c oke and non-ferrous metals, 
it was Japan’s thinking that this was indeed a mark et access issue. That was the reason why Japan had G/MA/M/45 
Page 10  
 
  been raising this question in the p ast and at this meeting too. Concerning the issue of tariffs on certain 
photographic products, as China had mentioned Japan had been raising this issue in the past and some 
improvement had been made thr ough bilateral contacts. However the reason why Japan was posing 
these questions again was that as Ch ina had committed to a tariff in ad valorem  duty on the occasion 
of its accession to the WTO, for reasons of transpar ency and predictability Jap an wished to see these 
commitments implemented as had been agreed to on  that occasion. If such an application of an ad 
valorem  duty was difficult, then Japan wished to see a certain system of ceiling or cap that would 
enable traders to foresee what kind of tariff that would be levied.  Japan requested China to  go 
through the questions that Japan had raised in the document and provide clear answers, preferably in 
writing for the sake of transparency. 
 
9.14 The representative of China
 observed that some of his questions remained unanswered. A 
careful reading of Paragraph 18 showed that this  review was not only about China's commitments. 
China was also entitled to raise questions/issues that  were related to commitments made by other 
Members. It was incorrect to believe that this exercise was only about the review of China. Second 
point he wished to make was that some Member s had accused China of not answering questions but 
they themselves were guilty of doing the same.  For instance, he had sought clarification from the EC, 
but they had not addressed the specific concerns he had raised.  He believed that the attitude of China 
toward this exercise was very positive. He unders tood the nature, limitations, obligations, rights and 
specific commitments of this exercise. Therefore, hi s delegation was prepared to participate in this 
exercise strictly in accordance with the requirement s of Paragraph 18. For instance, some delegations 
required answers in writing. If Paragraph 18 said Ch ina was obliged to provide answers in writing to 
Members, China would have done that, but there was no such obligation.  The US had said that they were entitled to raise the same issue in different bodies and the EC had said that there was no rule 
about the Committee in which questio ns could be raised. By the same token, there was no rule about 
which Committee China had to provide answers to or  in what way. For instance, some Members had 
mentioned the obligation of China to notify export restrictions. His question was whether in those 
documents both the US and EC had not added some language. If one checked the original text it said 
"all quotas" without saying the word "export", but these delegations had inserted the word "export" 
and it had now became "all export quotas". If one check ed the chapeau to that provision, it referred to 
the implementation of the import licensing agreemen t. Here the specific obligation of China was 
clear. If one looked at China's Protocol of Accession, some requirements were very specific. For 
instance, the kind of information to be submitte d to the Market Access Committee.  China had 
submitted that information and it was available in th e room. However, there were some requirements 
which were very general, for instance, the freque ncy of the notification. Should it be on a monthly 
basis, semi-annual basis, or a one-time basis upon Ch ina's accession. In that sense, China had already 
made a notification because China had provided all the information on the sources, for example, new 
rules/regulations affecting trade in this aspect, al l the names of journals and also websites. He 
suspected that some of the Members got this kind of  information by taking advantage of the sources 
that China had provided. In that sense, China ha d already fulfilled its notification obligation.  
 9.15 The representative of  the European Communities
 wished to make two remarks: (i) If one 
looked at  the other review mechanism that existe d in the WTO, the TPRM, and if one saw how all 
Members (and that included sometimes very small a nd poor developing countries) went out of their 
way and worked nights to answer all the questions that Members come up with and he compared that 
process to how the third major exporter answered  questions asked in this Committee then he could 
not help but feel somewhat disappointed. He was not prepared to go through every question and explain how and where it  related to commitments th at China had made but he was willing to do so 
bilaterally but on the condition that then China comm it to answering the questi ons in this Committee. 
Otherwise there was no point in doing that exer cise. His delegation was willing to discuss these 
matters further with China.   G/MA/M/45 
 Page 11 
 
 
  9.16 In response, the representative of China  not ed that China was  also willing to exchange 
detailed views on those issues bilaterally and actually  that was what China had been doing in other 
fora.  With regard to the remark on the attitude a nd participation of smaller Members in the TPRM, he 
reminded the EC delegate of the difference between  the TRM and the TPRM. They were two distinct 
mechanisms, and once the EC had fully understood the difference, it would also be able to understand 
why this exercise was conducted in this manner and the other one in an alternative manner. 
 9.17 The Chairman
 believed that all delegations wishing to  take the floor had done so. Regarding 
the report of the review to the CTG, as in previo us years, it would be a brief factual paragraph 
indicating that the review took place, an acknowledg ment of the documentation submitted pursuant to 
the review, and a reference to th e discussions that took place, as reflected in the minutes of this 
meeting.    
10. Draft Report (2007) of the Committee to the Council for Trade in Goods 
(G/MA/SPEC/37) 
10.1 The Chairman
 noted that the Committ ee was required to submit annually a report on its 
activities to the CTG.  A draft report, covering th e activities of the Committee in 2007, was circulated 
in document G/MA/SPEC/37.  The report woul d be updated in light of the meeting.  
 10.2 The Chairman
 noted that following the previous year 's procedure, the updated draft report 
would be sent to the Members by fax, and if no comments were forthcoming within a certain time 
period then it would be considered adopted.  If th ere were minor changes, a revised report would be 
circulated with the changes mark ed clearly and if no comments were  submitted within a certain time 
frame, the revised report would be considered adopted. However, if the changes were more 
substantive in nature he would then had to  consider convening an informal meeting. 
 
10.3 It was so agreed .     
 
11. Election of Vice-Chairperson 
11.1 The Chairman  noted that, as he had indicated at the last formal meeting, he intended to hold 
informal consultations on a Vice-Chair of th e Committee for 2007.  He had completed those 
consultations and, on this basis, proposed to elect  Mr David Riley (UK) as Vice-Chairman of this 
Committee by acclamation.  
 11.2 The Committee elected
 Mr David Riley  as Vice-Chairman. 
 
12. Other Business 
- Date of the next meeting  
 12.1 The Committee took note
 that the next meeting of the Commit tee would take place in the spring 
of the following year.    G/MA/M/45 
Page 12  
 
  ANNEX I  
 Integrated Data Base
 
 
IDB Submissions  
 
 Since the circulation of the Status of Submissions document, G/MA/IDB/2/Rev.26, the Secretariat received the following submissions: 
  
- Chinese Taipei 2006 import data - Ukraine 2006 import data (observer) 
  
IDB Dissemination and Uses
 
  
The Secretariat continues to load information ont o the IDB Internet File Transfer Facility on a 
monthly basis.  As of  28  September 2007,  67 7 country-periods, covering 110 out of 123 Members 
and five acceding countries, are available on the IDB website. 2 
   The following Members have not yet submitte d any information to the IDB: Cambodia, 
Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic  of the Congo, Guinea Bissau, Haiti, Lesotho, 
Mozambique, Saudi Arabia and Viet Nam. 
 
On the uses of IDB and CTS data I would like to mention: 
 
• IDB and CTS continue to be used for the NAM A simulations at the request from Members, 
the NAMA Chair and the Secretariat;   
• They are also used by the Secretariat in thei r assistance to Members regarding the calculation 
of AVEs for the NAMA Negotiating Group; 
• World Tariff Profiles, a new publication which I announced last October has been published 
last June; it has been already downloaded more than 10000 times; 
• In connection with this publication, I indicated last October as well that HS 6 digit summaries 
of IDB and CTS would be published.  This w as achieved last month and these data are now 
available to the public via the WTO Statistics Home page.  
 
Technical Assistance
 
 
Since the last meeting of the CMA in April the following TA activities have been undertaken: 
 
Two regional NAMA workshops in  
• Barbados for the Caribbean 
• Chinese Taipei for Asia 
 
One national NAMA workshop in: 
• Tunisia  
 
The IDB and CTS were also presented in the regional Trade Policy courses in Namibia and in 
Chile and there have been various ha nds-on training sessions in Geneva.  
 
                                                      
2 The information provided by the European Communities covers its 27 member States as of 1 January 
2007;  the information provided by Switzerland covers also Liechtenstein.  
  G/MA/M/45 
 Page 13 
 
 
   
Software Development  
  A portable version of the IAF which operates from data distributed on CD-ROM and requires 
no Internet connection will be distributed to Memb ers in November.  The functionalities and reports 
are the same as the Internet version.  The por table IAF will be accompanied by a data base 
maintenance utility that loads data from the CD-ROM to the application's database.  The portable IAF 
runs on the Windows 2000 and Window s XP operating systems and the interface is available in the 
three official languages.     
 The Secretariat plans to issue IDB and CTS da ta updates for the Portable IAF bi-annually as 
is presently done with the IDB CD-ROM.  The portable IAF will replace the IDB CD-ROM, for 
which the Secretariat plans to cease distribution in 2008. 
 G/MA/M/45 
Page 14  
 
   
ANNEX II 
 
Consolidated Tariff Schedule Database  
 
HS02  TRANSPOSITION  
 
 I will just give you a brief summary of the work on the HS02 files.  The last full report was issued as JOB(06)/8/Rev.6 on 24 July 2007.  As of  10 October we have the following situation: 
 
A. 10 draft HS02 files remain to be prepared, 
B. 14 draft HS02 files have been completed and sent to Members for review (including files that 
are due for multilateral review),  
C. No draft HS02 files are currently released for multilateral review, 
D. 71 HS02 files released and passed the multilateral review, 
E. 10 HS02 files approved / in certification process, 
F. 13 HS02 files certified. 
  The number of files approved for certification could be much higher if only Members could signal their approval.  The number of files that have  passed the multilateral review has reached almost 
80 per cent of the WTO Membership.   
 
Although there is some progress in the growing number of files approved and certified files, 
there is still some more work left.  There are several reasons for this: 
 
• Struggling with remaining "legal issues" (review ing CTS files to establish the legal value of 
uncertified documentation (Pre-UR and Article XXVIII negotiations),  clean up nomenclature 
inconsistencies and introduce lat est certification documents ); 
• More extensive follow up work on files that have already been sent out to Members (trying to 
reconcile country submissions and/or co mments with the Secretariat's version); 
• Verification of Members' HS02 submissions (a nd two HS96 submissions) and preparation of 
comments sent to these Members. 
 
As regards the verification of the unaffected part of the transposition files, out of the 108 draft 
HS02 files that were sent to Members for review , 13 developing Members and 2 developed Members 
have provided a full file.  While the full files of developing Members have been checked against their 
CTS file in HS96, only the HS02 changes (affected  HS 6-digit subheadings) of developed Members 
were checked against their CTS file in HS96.   
  As concerns the regular work on the CTS work was undertaken in the following areas:  
 
• Updating Members' files with certified rectif ications and modifications of schedules; 
• Preparation of the CTS file for the newly acceded Member Tonga. 
  G/MA/M/45 
 Page 15 
 
 
   
ANNEX III 
 
 
Consolidated Tariff Schedule Database  
 
HS 2007  TRANSPOSITION  
 
As reported in the last meeting, the HS2007 documentation was sent out to all Members in 
January 2007 in accordance with the General Council decision WT/L/673. 
The procedures for the HS2007 transposition stipul ated that the Secretariat transposes the 
schedules of developing country Members, except  for those who undertake to prepare their own 
transposition and submit a notification to this ef fect before 31 March 2007.  As of today the 
Secretariat received five communications from developing Members who indicated their preference to prepare their own HS2007 transposition files.  I would like to remind you that only those Members 
that choose this option, i.e. to do the transposition th emselves, need to notify the Secretariat.  As of 
today we have also received the HS2007 files of  two developed Members:  Australia and Canada. 
  
No progress was made in the HS2007 transposition wo rk on the side of the Secretariat since the 
last meeting.  The constraints highlighted in our previous report are still valid today:  
 
1. uncertainty regarding the actual start of the scheduling since the negotiation modalities have 
not yet been finalized;  
2. missing certifications of HS02 changes which ha ve passed the multilateral review but which 
have not yet been approved by the Members themselves;  
3. ongoing work on the HS02 transposition;  
4. catching up with the backlog in IDB submissions;  
5. continuous flow of requests on calculations and simulations often related to the negotiations.  
 
In light of the above mentioned constraints, our first objective is to finalise the HS 2002 
transposition and encourage Members to approve their own files.  At the same time, we need to start on the HS2007 transposition work.  Only limited resour ces can be affected to this work in the coming 
months.  Our intention is to start with the review  the HS2007 submissions of Australia and Canada in 
order to gain experience.  We will then turn to  LDC Members whose schedules are fully certified in 
HS02 and not likely to undergo changes in the contex t of the DDA.  As of today, we have two LDC 
Members with fully certified files in HS02: Nepal and Cambodia. 
 
__________