RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/IT/M/39 
15 April 2005 
 (05-1561) 
Committee of Participants on the Expansion of 
Trade in Information Technology Products  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS OF 4 AND 28 JUNE 2004 
Chairmen: Mr. H. Yoshikawa (Jap an) and Mr. F. Seppey (Canada)  
Agenda of the Meeting            P a g e  
 1.
 Election of Chairperson........................................................................................................ 1 
2. Review of the Status of Implementation of the Ministerial Declaration on Trade in Information Technology Pro ducts (G/IT/1/Rev.31)...........................................................2 
- Request by the United States to Raise an Implementation/Classification  Matter Concerning Chinese Taipei 
3.
 EMC/EMI Pilot Project (G/IT/24 + Corr.1).......................................................................3  
4. Non-tariff Measures Work Program me (G/IT/SPEC/Q4/19/Rev.2 and 
G/IT/SPEC/Q2/11/Rev.1) .....................................................................................................4  
5. Divergences in Classifying Information Technology Products (G/IT/W/6/Rev.2 and 
G/IT/14/Rev.1/Add.1) ........................................................................................................... 5 
6. Proposal for an ITA Symposium (G/IT/W/10).................................................................11  
7. New Participants ............................................................................................................... ..15 
8. Other Bu siness................................................................................................................. ....15  
 
Introduction 
  The Chairman
 stated that the proposed agenda for this meeting was circulated in 
WTO/AIR/2319 on 19 May 2004. With reference to th e agenda, he asked if there were any other 
matters to be raised under "Other Business".  He stat ed the review of product coverage and the date of 
the next meeting of the Committee would be ta ken up under "Other Business".  The agenda was 
adopted  with these additions. 
 
1. Election of Chairperson 
1.1 The Chairman  stated that the Committee normally el ected a new Chairperson annually at the 
beginning of the calendar year.  Th is matter had been placed on the ag enda of the February meeting, 
however, there had not been agreemen t on a new Chairperson at that point  in time, and thus the matter 
was deferred to this meeting.  Purs uant to consultations by the Chairman of the Council for Trade in 
Goods, a consensus had been informally reached on the election of Mr. F. Seppey (Canada) as the new 
chairman of this Committee.   The Chairman proposed the election of Mr. Seppey.    1.2 The Committee elected
 Mr. Seppey as the new Chairman of the Committee of Participants on 
the Expansion of Trade in Information Technology Products. 
 
1.3 Mr. Seppey assumed  his role as Chairm an of the Committee. 
 G/IT/M/39 
Page 2  
 
1.4 The outgoing Chairman
 (Mr. Yoshikawa) expressed his thanks to Members of the Committee, of 
the Secretariat, and the new Chairman. 1.5 The incoming Chairman
, Mr. Seppey, expressed his apprec iation to the outgoing Chairman, 
Mr. Yoshikawa.   2. Review of the Status of Implementation of  the Ministerial Declaration on Trade in 
Information Technology Products (G/IT/1/Rev.31) 
- Request by the United States to Raise an Implementation/Classification Matter 
  Concerning Chinese Taipei 
 2.1 The Chairman
 stated that an overview of the implementation of the Ministerial Declaration on 
Trade in Information Technology Products was c ontained in document G/IT/1/Rev.31.  This 
document showed the participants and the issues pertaining to the WTO procedures for 
implementation.  He also noted there was a sub- agenda item under this agenda item today, which 
concerned a particular matter raised by the United States concerning an implementation/classification 
matter of Chinese Taipei.  Furthermore, he  informed the Committee on the outstanding 
implementation matter related to Pa nama which had consistently been reflected as outstanding in 
many revisions of the document.  He reported that  the delegate of Panama  had informed him that 
there had been no news from his capital concer ning possible progress on this matter and the matter 
remained unresolved at the parliamentary level in Pa nama.  The delegate said  efforts would be taken 
up by the Geneva-based delegation to make progress on this matter in capital.   
 
2.2 The delegate of the European Communities  commented on the status of implementation, as it 
had been prepared by the WTO Secretar iat.  He stated that for the EC, 1 May 2004 was a very 
important date as they welcomed 10 new member States within the EU and this had an impact with regard to the ITA and to the coverage of this agreement.  On 19 January 2004 the EC communicated 
to the WTO, the intention to withdraw the 10 sch edules and these schedules would be replaced by the 
EC schedule, which was still Schedule CXL.  This  was applied to the enlarged community of 25 
members as of 1
 May 2004.  With regard to ITA coverage for the former Community of 15, there was 
no change whatsoever.  Before 1 May, they app lied zero rates for all the products covered under the 
ITA and this situation continued to be the same afte r 1 May.  This was also the situation for the 8 new 
member States which were already participants to  the ITA:  Cyprus, Czech Re public, Estonia, Latvia, 
Lithuania, Poland, Slovak Republic, and Slovenia. These new member States were already 
participants to the ITA and they applied ITA treat ment, zero rate of duty, for all ITA products.  For 
them, there was no change either, they had applied a zero rate and they continued to do so after 
1 May.  However, the enlargement of the Community was further trade liberaliz ation with regard to 2 
of the new member States: Hungary and Malta.  Both of these new member States were not 
previously participants to the ITA, so they applie d whatever the appropriate tariffs they had on these 
products, and as 1 May, they applied zero rates. This  was the situation and he thought it appropriate if 
this could be incorporated in the document whic h had been drawn up by the Secretariat concerning 
the status of implementation.  The new composition of the EU should be properly reflected and this 
concerned the footnote where 25 members States should be noted instead of 15.  He requested that 
this be updated by the WTO Secretariat. 
 
2.3 The Chairman  confirmed that this would be updated in the next revision of the document. 
 2.4 The delegate of Japan
 noted that at several previous m eetings they had reported that one 
participant was applying tariffs to digital cameras.  With regard to this issue, they received a response 
from the country concerned in April 2004.  Accordi ng to this letter, digital cameras had not been 
included in the coverage of ITA products si nce 2002 because still image video cameras did not 
include digital cameras based on an HS2002 Explanat ory Note.  However, digital cameras had been 
imported into the country concerned without tariffs until 2001 under cove rage of the ITA.  Even after 
applying HS2002, digital cameras were part of s till image video cameras of subheading 8525.40.  He  G/IT/M/39
 Page 3 
 
 
understood that the HS codes only determined the classification of goods.  The idea that the ITA 
coverage had changed by the amendments to the HS codes was not acceptable.  In this sense, he 
thought this was not only a bilateral issue, but also a systemic issue for the Committee.  He hoped this could be settled very soon.   
2.5 The delegate of the United States
 stated that this issue was placed on the agenda due to a 
difference of opinion on what the US viewed as an ITA product.  His delegation had a different  view 
on where the item would be classified, and conseque ntly it has been charged duty entering Chinese 
Taipei.  They had engaged in very fruitful consu ltations with Chinese Taipei on this matter and hoped, 
by the time of the next meeting, he would be in a position to report a mutually satisfactory conclusion 
to the issue. 
 2.6 The delegate of Chinese Taipei
 stated they would work closely with the US on this matter.  In 
the interest of facilitating a mutual understanding and without prejudice to any decision already taken, 
they would be happy to provide the US with materi als relevant to this matter and hoped they could 
address the issue as soon as possible.  He brought some samples of the product concerned and offered 
to share them with the US delegation or any other interested delegation. 
 2.7 The Committee took note
 of the statements made. 
 
3. EMC/EMI Pilot Project (G/IT/24 + Corr.1) 
3.1 The Chairman  recalled that the Committee had been focussing on this particular NTM as part 
of the NTM Work Programme and had gradually made progress on this issue.  In this respect, a paper 
from Canada was distributed just prior to the last meeting, in document G/IT/24+Corr.1.  While there were good preliminary discussions at that meeting, he believed many needed more time to reflect on 
the paper and have their capitals examine it more cl osely.  Thus, he hoped to resume the discussions 
at this meeting. 
 3.2 The delegate of Canada
 stated that they had received a number of comments on their paper, 
and most of them were positive.  He stated he w ould provide any further clarification if necessary, but 
in the meantime suggested to move forward by de veloping 'guidelines' based on this paper.  He 
suggested that the Secretariat develop such 'gui delines' based on the paper from Canada including 
comments of others, and any inputs from other particip ants.  He hoped this could be prepared for the 
next meeting.  3.3 The delegate of Switzerland
 supported the communication from Canada and the practices put 
forward by this communication.  Her delegation hoped  to achieve a concrete result of the work.  She 
agreed with Canada that the procedures and requi rements to determine compliance should not become 
impediments to trade, therefore she supported the idea of turning these 'best practices' into 
'guidelines'.  3.4 The delegate of the European Communities
 supported the idea which had been put forth by 
Canada to develop 'guideli nes' on the basis of their paper that w as presented at the February meeting.  
He thought that the conformity assessment procedures were a very important element in the trade of 
ITA products.  The EC had observed that ITA produ cts had a relatively short life cycle and hence it 
was very important for the industry concerned to ha ve rapid, effective, and efficient conformity 
assessment procedures.  He thought that the proposal  by Canada pointed exactly in that direction and 
thus gave it full support. 
 
3.5 The delegate of Japan  expressed his delegation's desire to ha ve a concrete result for this work 
on EMC/EMI. In this context, he thought the 'guidelines' for EMC/EMI procedures, based on the paper by Canada, would be a useful and realistic next step for the Committee.  He supported the idea 
of achieving concrete results.  He agreed to the basic concept in the paper, to pursue consistent, G/IT/M/39 
Page 4  
 
transparent, and simple procedures.  So Japan was ready to contribute to the next step in order to 
achieve concrete results.  3.6 The delegate of the United States
 supported the approach put forward by Canada.  They also 
believed that standards in this area were a particul arly important element to the trade given the fast-
moving aspect of the technology.  The regulation itself was often a substantial ba rrier to trade.  Thus, 
the 'guidelines', as proposed by Canada, for EMC/EM I were a good start to address this problem and 
also served as a model if this approach was expanded to other areas as well.  3.7 The delegate of Singapore
 thought the Canadian paper was very useful.  They liked the ideas 
contained in the paper and fully supported it. 
 3.8 The delegate of Romania
 supported the statements made by the previous speakers.  She 
considered that the proposal of Canada would improve trade, and this was a very positive aspect and a 
reason to support it.  She also supported the idea th at the conformity assessment procedures were very 
important for facilitating trade in this area of fast-d eveloping products.  The proposal pointed in this 
important direction and they were supportive of it.  3.9 The delegate of Australia
 expressed support for the proposal to produce 'guidelines' based on 
the Canadian paper for conformity of assessment procedures in the area of EMC/EMI.  This would be a useful way to proceed and he urged others to su pport this proposal and to ensure it generated a 
concrete outcome for this work. 
 3.10 The delegate of Chinese Taipei
 thanked Canada for the paper previously submitted.  With 
regard to the proposal, he thought the 'guidelines' would be a good step towards improving transparency and reducing NTMs.  In this regard , he supported the proposal and looked forward to 
examining the new text. 
 3.11 The delegate of Malaysia
 welcomed Canada's proposal on 'best practices' for EMC/EMI.  She 
noted that the 'best practices' could be one step fo rward, as it was important for this industry that 
relied on speed and efficiency to have a set of optimum regulatory approaches for EMC/EMI.  She 
noted there were already EMC/EMI standards, and thus the main thing to examine was conformity 
assessment.  If there was consensus to pursue the 'guidelines', she hoped that theses guidelines would 
be based on a set of appropriate options for regul atory approaches for the recognition of conformity 
assessment.  She looked forward to the draft, but requested some options that could be used by 
regulators for conformity assessment.  
3.12 The Chairman
 stated there were good discussions on formulating possible 'guidelines' for 
EMC/EMI.  Therefore, he suggested following th e proposal of Canada--that the Secretariat would 
compile the 'guidelines' based on input from participan ts.  The Secretariat would send a fax that would 
contain the details for submissions, including a d eadline.  The draft 'guidelines' would then be 
prepared for the next meeting.  
3.13 It was so agreed
. 
  
4. Non-tariff Measures Work Program me (G/IT/SPEC/Q4/19/Rev.2 and 
G/IT/SPEC/Q2/11/Rev.1) 
4.1 The Chairman  stated that this subject had been the fo cus of a lot of work for some time and 
had led to the EMC/EMI Pilot Project.  The Committ ee had before it an overview of proposals to the 
NTM Work Programme, in document G/IT/SPEC/Q 2/11/Rev.1, and the overview of Survey 
Responses in G/IT/SPEC/Q4/19/Rev.2.  From the discu ssions earlier this year, the Committee wanted  
to focus the work on the EMC/EM I Pilot Project as a first priority, and then move ahead to address 
other NTMs as necessary.   G/IT/M/39
 Page 5 
 
 
 4.2 The Committee took note
 of the Chairman's statement. 
 
5. Divergences in Classifying Information Technology Products (G/IT/W/6/Rev.2 and 
G/IT/14/Rev.1/Add.1) 
5.1 The Chairman  made a number of observations on the stat us of this work.  First, the Committee 
had before it the updated overview of the situation as shown in document G/IT/W/6/Rev.2.  He believed the Committee had already commenced with a step-by-step approach with respect to the various lists contained in that document.    
5.2 As regarded List III
, the Committee had agreed to send this item to the WCO for their 
classification opinion.  He informed the Committee that since the last meeting, the WCO had received the request and had taken up this matter at its meeting in May.  The Secretariat staff was in attendance at that meeting of the WCO and reported th at preliminary discussions were held, but that the WCO Committee 
deferred an in-depth discussion on the matter as it  was awaiting additional information from its members 
and from the observer representative from industry, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC).  
They would revert to the matter at th eir next meeting in the fall 2004.   
 5.3 With respect to Lists I (A) and I (B)
, there was agreement at the last  meeting of the Committee to 
revert to those lists in detail at this meeting with the view to endorsi ng the classification opinions listed 
therein.  The discussions were deferred from the last meeting to allow the Secretariat to provide technical 
assistance and to give some participants more time to examine the documentation.   
 5.4 Finally, with respect to the other lists, Lists II, IV, and V
, the process was not very clear and the 
Committee would need further discussions on how to  proceed.  He hoped the Committee could find a 
way forward on all these outsta nding classification issues. 
 
5.5 The Chairman suggested to structure the discussi on in two parts—first, to address Lists I (A) and 
I (B) as had been agreed last time, and secondly to further the discussions on a way forward, especially in 
respect to possible procedures for the other lists .   
 5.6 The Chairman emphasized that the Committee was trying to make progress on this important 
issue that had been before the Committee for some time.  He acknowledged that there were still some 
delegations that were uncomfortable with the prospect of endorsing these classifications listed here.  He  noted that the Committee was at the beginning, not the end, of a process.  His hope was to try and 
'capture' the work accomplished so far and confirm the endorsement of the classification options identified by customs experts.  Such an endorsement would not prejudge in any way the discussions the 
Committee would have in the future regarding th e implementation of the results of the work on 
classification divergences.  Clearly that  would involve another discussion.   
 5.7 He hoped to concentrate purely on the technica l work done by the customs experts on Lists I (A) 
and I (B)  today.  As seen from the title of these list s, these were products where the group of customs 
experts had 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.    5.8 The delegate of El Salvador
 had taken note of the introductory remarks of the Chairman, 
which reaffirmed their position.  His delegation wanted  to inform the Committee of their position with 
respect to both Lists I (A) and I (B).  As express ed at the previous meeting, the request for an 
extended time period to raise specific concerns in  respect of document G/IT/W/6/Rev.2 had been 
voiced by the experts in their capital, as they had not been able to take part in the relevant meetings.  
Their first concern related to the technical aspects of the exercise as the ITA schedule of El Salvador 
was still undergoing a ratification per se .  Despite the enormous work undertaken, they had not been G/IT/M/39 
Page 6  
 
in the position to complete this work.  However,  he could confirm the classification opinions the 
experts had given in Lists I (A) and I (B) of th e relevant document.  This would not have an 
immediate impact on their own schedule which was still undergoing ratification.  He underscored the 
importance of technical assistance from the Secretariat in this regard.  
5.9 The delegate of China
 stated that in respect of Lists I (A) and I (B), his government 
acknowledged the importance attached to this work.  Since the last meeting, they approached the 
Secretariat for technical assistance were grateful fo r this.  His capital was working very hard on this 
matter and, owing to lack of resources with to o many issues on the age nda, discussions were still 
ongoing and had not yet been finalized so they were unable to give approval to those classifications in 
Lists I (A) and I (B). 
 5.10 The delegate of Malaysia
 stated that her officials in capital had undertaken a number of 
consultations, especially on List I (A). Alt hough they had agreement on numbers 1 to 13, her 
authorities still had some difficulties with numbers 14, 15, and 16 on the List.  The problem was in 
terms of understanding the exact nature of this appa ratus that was being used.  At the moment, they 
were classified under a different HS code.  Pending further consultations with the industry, she would 
not be able, at this stage, to endorse List I (A) but hoped to do so by the next meeting.  5.11 The Chairman
 sought clarification from Malaysia that they were still discussing three items on 
List I (A) but could endorse the others on the List today. 
 
5.12 The delegate of Malaysia  confirmed that they did not have any problem with the rest of the 
items except for numbers 14, 15, and 16.  They would come back at the next meeting, but could not  endorse all the items today.  
5.13 The delegate of Costa Rica
 stated that with respect to List I (A), his delegation did have some 
difficulties with respect to some of the items.  They  had been in contact with the Secretariat and had 
been working hard in capital to ha ve greater clarity with respect to these items, and in particular item 
numbers 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, and 17.  They had no  problems with the other items, but were not in a 
position to endorse the entire List.  If the Committee w as in a position to endorse the List, he could  
agree to it on an ad referendum  basis with the understanding that they would continue their 
consultation process on those items for which they had problems so as to give a final reply at the next 
meeting.   5.14 The delegate of  the Philippines
 stated that this issue had been a very important one for her 
delegation and she hoped that at some point, they would be able to reach ag reement.  Her delegation 
had sought technical assistant from the Secretariat and was grateful to the comments provided which 
were still being studied in the capital.  It was her full hope, that at some point, they could agree.  
Concerning a technical matter, she sought clarification from the Secretariat about the nomenclature of the codes, as she thought they were still based in HS96, and wondered if they would be affected by 
the implementation of HS2002.  
5.15 The Secretariat
 replied that the nomenclature was still in HS96, as there was no indication by 
the Committee, as yet, to move to HS2002.  The c odes still existed in the old nomenclature at the 
6-digit level.  She noted there were a few items contained in the ITA that were affected by HS2002 
changes but from a preliminary analysis, it was only with respect to a few items which were probably 
not the items in Lists I (A) and I (B).  This of cour se would have to be verified, but there was likely to 
be minimal impact from HS 2002 changes.  
 5.16 The delegate of Egypt
 stated that in respect to Lists I (A) and I (B), they had some technical 
problems, and like other delegations they could not endorse the two Lists at this meeting.  However, 
as mentioned by Costa Rica, if there were some pr oblems raised by some participants, this did not  G/IT/M/39
 Page 7 
 
 
mean that they wanted to stop the process.  He suggested that those who were ready could proceed 
and others could follow at a later stage.  5.17 The delegate of Singapore
 recalled that at the last meeti ng they were undertaking internal 
consultations on the classifications in Lists I (A) a nd I (B).  He informed the Committee that those 
consultations were completed and they could endor se the classifications in Lists I (A) and I (B). 
 5.18 The Chairman
 referred to the interventions of China and Egypt and understood more time was 
needed to examine the issues. He  asked if there was any informa tion they could share with the 
Committee on the specific issues or problems they f aced with respect to the items on List I (A). 
 
5.19 The delegate of China  indicated he did not have such information at this time. 
 5.20 The delegate of Egypt
 stated he did not have any more detailed information from his customs 
authorities, but according to some information re ceived, some items were not included in their 
schedule so they would likely have to introduce am endments to their customs regulations.  This 
referred to the technical problems he mentioned previously.   5.21 The Chairman
 clarified one important point.  As mentioned in his introductory remarks, in 
terms of Lists I (A) and I (B), when the work of  the customs experts was examined, it was important 
to distinguish the technical aspects of the classifi cation options from implementing the results.  If the 
classification options were agreed and further steps were taken to implement these in the schedules, it 
would lead to procedures for rectification and modification of the schedules.  He indicated it was important to distinguish these two issues because he thought that some of the concerns raised by 
delegations related to the second poi nt, which was the changes to the schedule.  It was important to 
keep in mind that the Committee was at the beginning of the process, and not the end.  At this time, 
the Committee was discussing the technical aspects of  the classification options and that was without 
prejudice to the implementation of the results.   5.22 The delegate of the United States
 referred to the statements of Costa Rica and Egypt, and 
suggested that if the Committee could reach agreement on an ad referendum  basis, then those 
delegations that had expressed a need for more ti me could set themselves a deadline for agreement at 
a later date.  He thought this was preferab le compared to leaving it open and waiting for 
developments.  5.23 The delegate of the European Communities
 stated that he was one of the 'survivors' of the 
initial ITA negotiations and that there was a deadline for sorting out the classification issues, but it 
had long passed.  He also noted that he was one who participated in the customs experts meetings, 
which involved a number of meetings, so it was not an easy topic.  However, for the last two years the 
results of the work of the customs experts had been  before the Committee.  As a customs expert, he 
was somewhat frustrated because there was no forwar d movement.  He wanted to be helpful to the 
others in the room who might be encountering th e same kinds of problems the customs experts had 
already gone through.  He appreciated the proposal by the US and thought that it would be the right 
way to move forward because it was important to move ahead on these issues.  
 5.24 The delegate of Mauritius
 was happy to report that he ha d been able to get his Customs 
Department to react to the work of the customs e xperts and they agreed with the classification options 
in Lists I (A) and I (B).  His authorities made certain remarks, but he preferred to verify these first 
with the Secretariat. 
 5.25 The delegate of Japan
 supported the suggestion made by the United States. 
 5.26 The Chairman
 noted that the comments had addressed Li st I (A) only, and suspected that the 
comments made by delegations equally  applied to List I (B) as well.  He was pleased to see that the G/IT/M/39 
Page 8  
 
majority of participants appeared to agree with the classification options that had been presented by 
the customs experts.  There were a few delegations  that either needed mo re time to complete the 
review, or indicated specific items where they had con cerns and were still reviewing the issue.  In that 
context, there was a suggestion from the US  to endorse the classification options on an ad referendum  
basis.  He welcomed reactions to this proposal .  In terms of the time-frame, some delegations 
indicated that they would be able to report by the next meeting and he asked if this would be 
acceptable to the Committee.  He hoped the Committee could make a decision on this procedural matter, because as the EC mentioned, it was importa nt to acknowledge the hard work that had been 
done by many delegations in terms of reviewing the issues and it was important to take concrete steps.  
In that regard, he thought an ad referendum  adoption would allow the Committee to maintain the 
momentum, while at the same time allow those delega tions that still had to complete the review more 
time to address their needs.  He pr oposed that the Committee endorse, on an ad referendum  basis, the 
classification options.  Those delegations that needed  more time would have until the next meeting to 
clarify their position.  
5.27 The delegate of China
 questioned whether this was a propo sal to endorse the classifications in 
Lists I (A) and I (B) at this meeting or at the next meeting, on an ad referendum  basis. 
 5.28 The Chairman
 clarified that he was only referring to List I (A).  If the Committee endorsed 
the classification options in List I (A) on an ad referendum  basis, then at the next meeting if there 
were no concerns expressed, the classification options  in List I (A) would be considered adopted.  
However, if by the time of the next meeting, a delegation among those that had expressed the need for 
further time to review the issue raised an objectio n, then it would not be endorsed and discussions 
would continue at the next meeting.  5.29 The delegate of China
 stated that such a suggestion was not within his instructions from 
capital.  Therefore, he would not be in a position to prejudge whether they could have an answer 
before the next meeting or not.  If they could repl y at the next meeting, it meant they could endorse it 
on an ad referendum  basis at the next meeting.  
 5.30 The delegate of the United States
 elaborated on the implications of this ad referendum  process.  
This procedure would leave China's hands completely  free with respect to this issue.  For example 
with respect to item number 9 on List I (A), if Ch ina decided that between now and the next meeting 
that they had a problem with this classification, then they had not committed themselves to anything. 
Item number 9 would remain under discussion and it would basically come out of List I (A).  
Furthermore, if by the next meeting China was not  in a position to join the consensus, they would 
only have to say so.  This ad referendum  approach did not create a firm deadline, it was just a 
technique used to send a signal to capitals that ther e was a wide measure of agreement, and that this 
was an element of some importance, so it was hope d that the remaining capitals could turn their 
attention to it.  If China was not ready in time fo r the next meeting and needed additional time until 
the meeting after that, they were free to do so.  He  made an appeal to China to allow this to go 
forward on this understanding, as his concerns  were accommodated in this procedure. 
 
5.31 The delegate of China  thanked the US for their explanation.  He understood the matter  
completely before the last comments and he could no t move beyond the mandate given by his capital.   
He did not know what would happen before the next  meeting, therefore he could not agree to the 
proposal.  
5.32 The Chairman
 suggested taking up List I (B) to see the reactions of delegations, and then 
come back to this procedural issue to see how to move forward.   5.33 The delegate of El Salvador
 clarified that their previous statement also applied to List I (B). 
  G/IT/M/39
 Page 9 
 
 
5.34 The Chairman  returned to the procedural issue.  He  referred to the Chinese intervention which 
made it clear that they were not in the positi on, today, to proceed with the adoption on an 
ad referendum  basis.  So one possibility would be to tu rn to other aspects of this agenda item and 
consider suspending the meeting on this agenda, pending informal consultations on the matter. 
 
5.35 The delegate of China  suggested setting a deadline, perhaps 3 or 4 weeks to decide on the 
proposal.  If there was no opposition to that proposal on an ad referendum  basis, which was 
communicated to the Secretariat, then the proposal would be deemed acceptable.  5.36 The Chairman
 sought clarification that the consideration of the proposal for adoption ad 
referendum  would be ad referendum . 
 5.37 The delegate of Egypt
 understood that when the Committee endorsed List I (A), it was 
relatively easy because there was only one option, but  he wondered how this could be applied to 
List I (B) where there were two or more options. 
 
5.38 The delegate of the European Communities  stated that the Lists were  the result of the work of 
the customs experts.  This group consisted of customs experts from those ITA participants who 
wanted to attend.  It was open to everybody, so there were experts from India, Norway, EC, US, Canada, Switzerland, etc.  The group discussed the di fferent Attachment B ite ms which were covered 
by the ITA wherever they were cl assified, because at the time of negotiation of the ITA, it was not 
clear where each participant classified the product.  The point was that they wanted to cover certain 
groups of products.  In some cases, it was very eas y because they would fall into one HS heading, but 
for some others, it was discovered there might be two or more options, which was dependent on the 
physical characteristics of the goods.  The whole point of the exercise was to identify those where 
there was agreement on the classifications, either one code or two or more, and those where no 
agreement could be reached or in those cases where the description in the ITA would not be sufficient 
to determine classification.  That was why there we re these different Lists, and Lists I (A) and I (B) 
reflected where the customs experts reached agreement. 
 5.39 The delegate of Romania
 responded to the question raised by Egypt.  For example, if one took 
a product on List I (B) and there were two possibl e HS classifications, she understood that in the 
future, this product was to be cove red under both headings in their customs tariff, or each participant 
should decide according to their customs experts if this product was under one heading or another 
heading.   5.40 The delegate of the European Communities
 referred to page 8 of document 
G/IT/14/Rev.1/Add.1 for 'die attach apparatus', a nd noted that participants were classifying these 
products in five different HS headings in the no menclature.  Thus, some may have given the zero 
tariff treatment under one HS code listed, or may al so have given tariff treatment for more than one 
HS code.  The ITA description could cover products in classification 'a' or 'b' for example.  Therefore, 
the conclusion of the group was that these products w ould be classified in 847989 if they had certain 
characteristics, and they would be classified in 851580 if they had other characteristics, but they 
would both be covered by the ITA.  Therefore, for the EC, they would have two lines in their tariff, 
one under 847989 and one in  851580, for the coverage of these products. 
 5.41 The Chairman
 suggested taking up the suggestion ma de by China, that the Committee agree 
to an ad referendum  endorsement of List I (A), on an ad referendum  basis by 25 June 2004.  In other 
words, if there was no responses from delegations  by 25 June, then the Committee would proceed 
with the endorsement of List I (A) and I (B) on an ad referendum  basis, which would be until the time 
of the next meeting.   Thus, dele gations would have three weeks to consider whether they could agree 
to the ad referendum  endorsement of Lists I (A) and I (B) by the time of the next meeting. 
 G/IT/M/39 
Page 10  
 
5.42 The delegate of China
 stated that according to his instru ctions, there was a certain possibility 
that at the next meeting they still would have nothing  to report, so he thought it would be better to say 
this now, rather than come to the meeting next time and say they were sorry they could not agree 
because they were still working on it.   
5.43 The Chairman
 stated that the suggestion made was to build on what the US stated earlier, to 
reflect the fact that there were a vast majority of  participants that were ready to proceed with the 
endorsement, and that did not diminish the validity of  the concerns that other delegations had or the 
fact that some were not ready at th is time.  That was the idea of an ad referendum  adoption as 
proposed.  It would preserve the right of any delegation to say at the next meeting they could not 
endorse Lists I (A) and I (B) and also those other dele gations that did not want to block the emerging 
consensus, to allow the process to move forward.    5.44 The delegate of Hong Kong, China
 stated that if the Committee could agree on the ad 
referendum  approach to endorse the classifications, it w as important to do so as it would keep the 
momentum going with regard to those items that certain members still had problems with, or maybe 
with the whole List if that were the case.  He suggested that for those participants who still had 
problems, to come up with more specific comments to  identify those problems if they had not already 
done so, or perhaps to come with a more firm dead line by which they could provide specific views or 
possible endorsement.  
5.45 The delegate of Malaysia
 noted that the latest suggestion was based on what China had 
proposed earlier, that they could go back to thei r capital and seek authorisa tion on whether they could 
address this later.  In any case, it seemed that China had a problem with adopting ad referendum  now, 
and then waiting until the next meeting to see if th ere were still problems.  Perhaps, the Committee 
could revert to an earlier suggestion of adopting the Lists at the next meeting.  There would be one 
more meeting to resolve the outstanding problems, and then at the next meeting there could be formal 
endorsement.  Perhaps having one mo re meeting would help China. 
 5.46 The delegate of the United States
 agreed with the Malaysian suggestion with a slight 
modification.  He hoped the Committee could reach fu ll agreement as the next meeting, and not just 
an ad referendum  agreement.  If for some reason a delegati on was still not in the position to give full 
endorsement to these Lists,  then the Committee could revert to this ad referendum  procedure.  But he 
thought it was possible to have full agreement on this if capitals were willing to examine this further. 
 5.47 The delegate of Egypt
 agreed with the suggestion from Malaysia that, at the next meeting, the 
Committee would be prepared to have an ad referendum  decision, and then from now until then, any 
delegation that faced some problems could seek t echnical assistance from the Secretariat to identify 
the specific problem.   5.48 The delegate of Australia
 appreciated the statement of Egypt, but wondered why technical 
assistance could not be sought earlier.  
5.49 The Chairman
 stated that there had been good di scussions because there was a better 
understanding of what the situation was for each dele gation.  In that regard there was some progress 
made today, so he proposed that the Committee take note and keep in mind the progress made until 
now, and revert to this issue at the next meeting w ith the view of endorsing Lists I (A) and I (B) at 
that time.  This was the goal that had been set for th e last meeting.  It was not possible to achieve that 
goal at this meeting, so he hoped the Committee could aim and achieve that goal at the next meeting.  
The Secretariat had offered technical assistance in th e past to help those delegations that wanted to  
clarify issues related to Lists I (A) and I (B).  He assumed that this offer remained available and hoped 
it would help endorsement of the Lists at the next  meeting.  If there was still a problem, adoption of 
the Lists on an ad referendum  basis would still be available. In that regard, it would capture the 
concept presented by Malaysia.  He urged all de legations to continue their hard work in the  G/IT/M/39
 Page 11 
 
 
consideration of the items on these two lists, and noted that it might be necessary to hold informal 
consultations before the time of the next  meeting in order to make progress.  
 5.50 The delegate of the Philippines
 raised a technical question concerning the items on List V.  For 
some of the classifications, the numbers were bol ded and others were not bolded.  She wondered 
about the significance of the bolding. 
 5.51 The delegate of the European Communities
 responded to the Philippines.  He noted that the 
report stated that the classifications listed in bold were still outstanding issues from the group, 
therefore the ones 'not bolded' were agreed.  However, the cu stoms experts noted that these 
outstanding issues were not a customs classification i ssues, but rather a question of intended coverage 
of the ITA.  5.52 The Secretariat
 responded to the Philippines and stated that anything that was not bolded should 
be treated as the same way as Lists I (A) and I (B ), it was where the customs experts came to an 
agreement.  With respect to the bolded items, ther e was agreement that they did not agree at the 
technical level and that was the reason for the ques tions listed in document G/IT/14/Rev.1/Add.1.  
These should be examined by each par ticipant before List V was discussed. 
 5.53 The Chairman
 noted that the customs experts had suggested a possible way to address the 
items on List V.  He suggested that the Committee,  building on what the EC had mentioned, examine 
the in-depth background information as to what  was the nature of each of these items and the 
questions to be addressed by the policy experts.  In this respect, it would be useful for the Secretariat 
to compile a separate document with those questions that were contained in G/IT/14/Rev.1/Add.1 and 
the participants would be able to see, in one place, what were the questions being posed in relation to 
the items on List V.  
 
5.54 It was so agreed . 
 
6. Proposal for an ITA Symposium (G/IT/W/10) 
6.1 The Chairman  recalled that at the last meeting there was a proposal from two participants 
concerning an ITA Symposium.  This proposal was circulated in document G/IT/W/10 and emanated 
from the earlier informal discussions on holding a symposium or seminar that would demonstrate 
developments and trends in the IT industry.  He believed this paper was well  received at the last 
meeting, but many had indicated they wished to re flect further on the subject and provide feedback.  
There was agreement, in principal, to move ahead with such a symposium provided that the agenda be 
further developed, including fixing a date, and that funding be made availabl e for developing country 
participation.  With respect to the first issue, the draft agenda, he believed the Committee could work 
on the basis of document G/IT/W/10, and with the help of the Secretariat, could produce a further draft that reflected the comments.  Secondly, with  respect to the issue of funding for developing 
country participants, this was a matter that still rema ined unresolved but in which a lot of effort had 
been expended by the outgoing Chairman and the Secr etariat since the last meeting.  He was hopeful 
that things were moving the right direction, but the funds were not yet secured, and therefore he 
suggested suspending the meeting for this agenda item , with the view of reverting back to it in the 
coming weeks once a better picture of the funding situation became clear.   6.2 The delegate of the United States
 stated that document G/IT/W/10 was a very useful outline 
for the symposium and supported the idea in principle as well as the specific elements listed in the 
document.  As indicated by the Chairman, the key question was funding, and he awaited the outcome 
of consultations to see wh at could be worked out. 
 6.3 The delegate of European Communities
, as stated previously, noted their support for the 
symposium, as it was a useful and timely initiative.   He was aware that funding was the critical G/IT/M/39 
Page 12  
 
element at this stage, and if it would help the di scussion, he announced that  the EC, especially with 
the help of their member States,  was ready to co-fund the symposium and thus looked forward to  
further consultations on this matter.  6.4 The Chairman
 thanked those delegations for their effo rts as concerned the funding issue.  He 
proposed that the Committee take note of the statements made and suspend  the meeting for this agenda 
item.  It was so agreed  and the meeting was suspended . 
 6.5 The meeting was reconvened
 on 28 June 2004 .   
 
6.6 The Chairman  stated that a draft programme for the symp osium had been circulated by fax to all 
delegations.  He hoped to take up three issues at th e meeting, 1) funding, 2) date, and 3) programme for 
the symposium.  With respect to funding, he recal led that in order to have a successful symposium, 
funding would have to be secured to ensure partic ipation from developing countries.  The previous 
Chairman had carried out a lot of wo rk in order to secure funding.  He was pleased to announce that 
funding had been secured for one capital based participan t from each ITA participant developing country.  
In addition, funding was also available for developing country speakers to particip ate as panellists.  He 
hoped this was acceptable, as the symp osium could be held this year.  Regarding the date , he recalled 
there was a  preference to have  the symposium in 2004.  When examining the WTO programme of 
meetings, it seemed that the best dates would be 18-19 October 2004.  This would allow the symposium 
to be held over a day and a half, and the formal meeting of the Commit tee could be held in the afternoon 
of 19 October.  Turning to the draft programme, he not ed that the Secretariat had prepared the draft based 
on previous input and discussions.  He noted that it was important for the Committee to provide further 
views and comments on the draft programme.  In this regard, it was especially important for delegations 
to provide input on potential speakers  for the symposium, and this should be provided to the Secretariat 
by the end of July 2004.  Concerning the participa tion of representatives from capital for developing 
country ITA participants, it was important for delegations to start identifying such a person.   
 6.7 The delegate of the Philippines
 thanked the Chairman and the Secretariat for the resolution to 
the funding issue for the symposium, which was ve ry good news for developing countries.  She 
sought clarification on whether there would be fundi ng available for developing country participants 
and also for panellists from developing countries. 
 
6.8 The Chairman  confirmed that there were two aspects to  the funding issue--1) that there would 
be funding for each developing country ITA particip ant to send a government representative to attend 
the meeting as a participant to the symposium; a nd 2) there would be money to fund, the notional 
number he had in mind was five, speakers from developing countries.  That was not to say that there 
would necessarily be only five speakers from developing countries, because a government official 
could also be a panellist.   6.9 The delegate of the Philippines
 commented on the programme and stated it would be useful 
for each of the panels to have at least one speake r from a developed and a developing country so that 
there would be a good perspective and representation from all participants. 
 
6.10 The delegate of Malaysia  inquired about the last part of th e draft programme with respect to  
participation.  It said, in the second tiret, that  the symposium was open to all WTO Members and 
Observers, private sector IT industry representativ es, etc., and she asked if it meant that each 
delegation was free to invite all these people provided  they fund themselves.  Secondly, regarding the 
conclusion of this symposium, she understood from pr evious discussions, that this was meant more 
for information exchange and there would be no form al record or any conclusions drawn from this 
symposium.  She sought clarification of this understanding.  6.11 The delegate of Romania
 sought clarification in respect of the panellists.  She asked how this 
process would be organised with the Secretariat in case her country wanted to suggest a panellist, as  G/IT/M/39
 Page 13 
 
 
IT was very important and a fast moving industry in Romania. She asked who to contact and how the selection would be made.  6.12 The delegate of Egypt
 stated that the draft programme was generally acceptable by his 
delegation, and they welcomed the reference to including representatives from the private sector and 
participation of WTO Members who were not ITA pa rticipants.  He stated they would provide the 
Secretariat with the name of their government repr esentative.  As to the programme, they thought the 
topics suggested were logical, and particularly  were encouraged by the panel focussing on 
development gains, which could be the main focus of the seminar.  In order to ensure synergy 
between the activities here and elsewhere in the WTO, he suggested that  this particular panel could 
include a clear reference to how the ITA could help in the transfer of technology.  This would be 
important for the linkage with the Working Gr oup on Trade and Transfer of Technology and 
information technology was becoming one of th e most important elements/components of the 
technology transfer issue.  So if the Symposiu m could focus on this, it would be very helpful. 
 
6.13 The Chairman  responded to a number of interventions  made.  He stated that it was very 
important to have a balance of de veloped and developing country speaker s in the panels, and to ensure 
there was balance throughout the symposium.  He refe rred to the fourth tiret of the operational details, 
which specifically referred to this point.  Th is was why it was important to have input from 
participants in terms of the panellists they would li ke to suggest.  He intended, that after the meeting 
today, if there was agreement in the Committee on the overall structure, the date, and the format, then 
a fax would be sent to seek formal comments on pane llists so the information would be provided to 
the Secretariat by the end of July.  With respect to Malaysia's point, he confirmed the terms of the second tiret, that the symposium was open to all WTO Members.  Funding would be provided for 
capital-based government officials from ITA part icipants, but all WTO Members, i.e. non-ITA 
participants, could attend.  In terms of the pr ivate sector, IT industry representatives, academic 
experts, etc., they were also invited to attend because based on previous discussions, it was important 
to invite those who were involved in the IT sector  on a daily basis.  As for the output from the 
symposium, he thought the symposium would essen tially provide background for the work of the 
Committee, but it was not a substitute.  Thus, there was no intention to draw any agreed conclusions 
in that sense, but the practice that could be followed would be very similar to the one followed in the 
past in which a summary could be made.  It woul d be up to the ITA Committee if they wanted to 
build on an idea that arose in the symposium and take the initiative to develop it accordingly.  He 
recalled the purpose of the symposium--to inform and to provide the background from the expertise of 
panellists and participants.  It was important for the Committee to know the situation of the IT sector, 
which could help in its subsequent work.  He not ed the point made by Egypt on  the transfer of 
technology and he thought ther e would be ways to address this in one of the sessions. 
 
6.14 The delegate of Chinese Taipei
 was satisfied with the resolu tions reached on funding and the 
date.  His delegation wanted to note their inter est in nominating a panellist to demonstrate their 
experience in the ITA during the past six years.  He sought clarification on two points in the programme.  With reference to the panel on "Assi stance to New Participants or Interested WTO 
Members and Observers", he noted there were ma ny acceding countries that still had reservations 
about participating in the ITA, so he thought this co uld be a very useful forum for them to learn more 
about the ITA.  He was interested to know how the officials from observer governments could 
participate in this symposium--would they send offici als or would they participate from Geneva only.   
He thought that if officials in the capital were in  charge of IT, it would be useful for them to 
participate, but if this was dependent on funding,  he was not sure if this was possible.  His second 
point was in respect of the small groups dialogue  session and inquired whether the groupings were 
based on geographical region, or how would such gro upings be determined as the IT sector was very 
globally focused.  6.15 The delegate of Malaysia
 sought clarification on the panel concerning "Assessment of Key 
Remaining Barriers to Trade in IT Products".  Sh e asked if this was in relation to the Committee's G/IT/M/39 
Page 14  
 
work on NTMs or whether this session was supposed to address other remaining barriers that had not 
yet been addressed by the Committee.  6.16 The delegate of Peru
 referred to the question posed by Ch inese Taipei.  As an observer to the 
Committee, they had a great interest in particip ating in the symposium, as it would disseminate 
information.  He stated that it would be extremely useful if Peru could participate as observers and 
inquired whether there was a possibility of funding a delegate from capital.  6.17 The delegate of the Philippines
 responded to the proposal of Egypt with regard to linkages of  
development to the trade and transfer of technology.  She stated that this was very important because 
for all IT businesses and trade, it was import that tec hnology was transferred to developing countries.  
Regarding the comment of Malaysia, she noted that  in the Committee it was not the 'key' remaining 
barriers, but 'identifying' NTMs to be addressed.  So far the Committee had identified one NTM to 
work on.  Thus, instead of referring to 'assessment of key' maybe it was better to refer to 'what were 
the NTMs faced by the traders of IT products'. 
 
6.18 The delegate of the European Communities  noted their agreement with the suggested 
programme as well as with the dates for the sy mposium.  He furthermore indicated they would 
provide names of possible panellists very soon.  6.19 The Chairman
 responded to the questions raised.  In respect of Chinese Taipei's question on 
the "Assistance to New Participants..." session, he thought it was important to address both the 
challenges faced by new ITA participants as well as  those that were in accession negotiations.  He 
noted it was an interesting idea to encourage acceding countries to participate in the symposium, but 
would have to reflect on whether funding could be made available for participation by capital-based 
representatives, since what has been secured is fund ing for developing country ITA participants.  In 
terms of the groups referred to in panel B of da y 2, grouping by region was one possibility but there 
would be other ways of grouping as well.  He noted there was a need to break down the group to allow for more efficient discussions but it did not ne ed to be on a regional basis.  Other suggestions 
were welcomed on this.  With respect to the poin t made by Malaysia and the Philippines concerning 
panel C of the first day, the idea was to try to help  participants of the ITA Committee to have a better 
sense of the NTMs faced by  industry.  The choice of the word "assessment" might be misleading in 
that regard, because what would be useful would be to hear from governments and practitioners about 
what barriers they faced,  so maybe this could be re-worded to "identification of remaining barriers to trade in IT products".  Such an id entification exercise by participants in the symposium could help to 
guide the Committee on where efforts should be focused .  Concerning the last point raised by Peru on 
the possibility of funding capital-based participants  from non-ITA participants, this was an issue 
where Peru's interest was noted and would need to be  explored further.  It was already a challenge to 
secure funding for ITA participants, but the more pe ople participating from developing countries, the 
more productive the symposium would be.  This aspect would be looked into with a view to providing 
an answer at a future date.  6.20 The delegate of Hong Kong, China
 was pleased with the outcome of the funding situation so 
that developing country participants  could participate and benefit from the symposium.  They did not 
have any problems with the proposed dates for the symposium as well as the tentative program 
suggested.  However, he sought clarification on th e explanatory note at the end of the programme 
because it suggested that the symposium was open to all WTO Members and observers, the private 
sector, and academics.  He asked if persons from the private sector and academia should register 
through the Members or directly with the WTO Secretariat. 
 6.21 The Chairman
 responded that for logistical reasons  this would have to go through the 
Secretariat in order for persons to access the buildi ng, etc.  Therefore, it would help if delegations 
could assist in that regard, i.e. if they could bring the symposium to their attention and also to inform 
the Secretariat if there was interest from the pr ivate sector to participate in the symposium. The  G/IT/M/39
 Page 15 
 
 
delegations could play a useful role in that regard, but at the end of the day the Secretariat needed to 
have the information so to process the logistical details.   6.22 The conclusions he drew from the discussi ons were that in te rms of the programme, 
participants were comfortable with this, but he t ook note of the comments made by some participants 
on how to address specific topics in the symposium, and therefore the programme would be slightly 
revised based on the comments and re -circulated.  Further informati on on the speakers, date, and other 
details would be faxe d to delegations.  
 6.23 It was so agreed
. 
 
7. New Participants 
7.1 The Chairman  recalled that there was a proposal by Nicaragua  made at the last meeting and it 
was agreed to circulate the schedule, when it was ready,  and participants were to have time to examine it 
for approval.  In the period shortly thereafter, he was informed that the delegation of Nicaragua had 
decided to undertake some more work on the schedule in conjun ction with other members of their 
customs union, and therefore asked that the schedule not be circulated for the time being.  They furthermore indicated that they would inform the Co mmittee when they were in a position to proceed.  
 7.2 The delegate of Honduras
 stated that in the last three months, Honduras had gone through an 
internal analysis process includi ng consultations and review of the products in the Ministerial 
Declaration with respect to the ITA which was a dopted at the Singapore Ministerial Conference.  
They recognised that the major function of trade in these products and its impact on the development 
of the world economy was quite significant and therefor e wanted to express their interest to join the 
ITA.  Thus, they wanted to participate actively in the activities of this Committee.  There was no 
doubt that this work would require flexibility and pol itical will on the part of her government.  They 
were convinced nonetheless, that thanks to these acti ons, they would be able to set up a trade system 
that would reduce poverty and promote the development of Honduras.  7.3 The Committee took note
 of the statement made. 
 
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 4 October 2004, 
subject to further confirmation.   
__________