RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/IT/M/44 
17 February 2006 
 (06-0680) 
Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in 
Information Technology Products  
 
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 20 OCTOBER 2005 
Chairman: Mr. Simon S.M. Chan (Hong Kong, China)  
Agenda of the Meeting            P a g e  
 
1. Review of the Status of Implementation of the Ministerial Declaration on Trade 
in Information Technology Pr oducts (G/IT/1/Rev.36) ..........................................................2  
 - Request by the United States to Raise an Implementation/Classification Matter 
Concerning Chinese Taipei 
2. EMC/EMI Pilo t Project.......................................................................................................... ..3 
 - Draft List of the Types of Conformi ty Assessment Procedures for EMC/EMI 
used by ITA Participants (G/IT/W/17)   
3. Non-tariff Measures Work Programme (G/IT/SPEC/Q4/19/Rev.2 and 
G/IT/SPEC/Q2/11/Rev.1) ......................................................................................................... 5 
4. Divergences in Classifying In formation Technology Products 
(G/IT/14/Rev.1/Add.1, G/IT/W/6/Rev.3, and G/IT/W/11).....................................................5  
 - List V of G/IT/W/6/Rev.3 - Items a nd Specific Questions Referred to the 
Committee to be addressed (G/IT/W/15) 
 - Summary of Discussions - The First 11 Items of List V (G/IT/W/16/Rev.1)  - Summary pf Discussions - The Remaining 9 Items of List V (G/IT/W/18/Rev.1)    
5.
 Follow-up Discussions from the IT Symposium.....................................................................7  
6. New Participants ............................................................................................................... ........9  
7. Draft Annual Report of the Committee (2005) (G/IT/W/19) ..............................................10  
8. Other Bu siness................................................................................................................. ........11  
 
Introduction 
 
 The Chairman  stated that the proposed agenda for this  meeting was circulat ed in WTO/AIR/2676 
on 5 October 2005.  With reference to the agenda, he  asked if any delegation would wish to raise any 
matter under "Other Business".  The representative of the United States  stated that he would like to 
briefly inform the Committee about the results of an APEC seminar on IT that might be of interest to 
the participants. The representative of Guatemala  stated that she would like to inform the Committee of 
her Government's decision to accede to the ITA as soon  as possible and hoped to complete it in the course 
of this year. Additionally, the Chairman stated that the review of product coverage and the date of the 
next meeting of the Committee would be taken up under "Other Business". The agenda was adopted  with 
these additions.   G/IT/M/44 
Page 2  
 
  1. Review of the Status of Implementation of the Ministerial Declaration on Trade in 
Information Technology Products (G/IT/1/Rev.36) 
 -  Request by the United States to Rais e an Implementation/Classification Matter 
Concerning Chinese Taipei 
 1.1 The Chairman
 stated that an overview of implementation of the Ministerial Declaration on 
Trade in Information Technology Products was c ontained in document G/IT/1/Rev.36.  This 
document showed the participants and the implem entation issues pertaining to the WTO procedures 
for implementation.  He looked forward to upda tes or comments concerning these implementation 
matters. Secondly, he noted that there was a sub-agenda item which involved an 
implementation/classification matter raised by the United States concerning Chinese Taipei. 
 1.2 The representative of Japan
 stated that as a participant in the ITA, Indonesia, as Japan 
understood, had committed to eliminate import duti es on digital cameras wh ich were covered under 
HS 8525.40 ex digital still image video cameras lis ted in the Attachment A of the ITA.  Although 
Indonesia had committed, in its accession schedule, to  eliminate tariffs on digital still image video 
cameras from 1 January 2003, five per cent import du ties had still been levied on digital still image 
video cameras as before.  Moreover, Indon esia had subdivided the HS code 8525.40 on 
1 January 2004 and started to levy 15 per cent import  duties on digital cameras, claiming that digital 
cameras were different from digital still image video cameras.  Japan believed that this practice taken 
by Indonesia was inconsistent with its internati onal commitment to eliminate customs duties on digital 
cameras, which were covered under the ITA.  He said that Japan had asked Indonesia to respect its 
commitments on various occasions.  In May this y ear, in the Committee meeting, Indonesia requested 
Japan to hold an informal meeting to better unders tand the issue. Responding to this request, Japan 
sent an official to Jakarta and explained Japan's position, but still no improvement had been made.  
Japan asked Indonesia to clarify its position and urged to reconsider the practice in question. 
 
1.3 The representative of Indonesia  thanked the representative of Japan for his statement 
regarding Indonesia's commitment under the ITA, in particular, the product of digital still image video 
cameras - HS Code ex.8525.40.  He wished to in form the participants that since January 2004 the 
Government of Indonesia had introduced ASEA N Harmonized Tariff Nomenclature in which 
HS 8525.40 consisted of several sub-headings name ly: digital still image video camera; other video 
camera records; digital cameras; and other video ca meras. They were subdivided to 10 digits of the 
HS Code and the details were as follows: HS  8525.40.10.00 (digital still image video cameras); 
HS 8525.40.20.00 (other still image video cameras); HS 8525.40.30.00 (digital cameras); and 
HS 8525.40.40.00 (other video cameras). He stated that of the tariff classifications as mentioned 
above, only HS 8525.40.10.00 (digital still image vi deo cameras), which the current tariff duty was 
five per cent and covered under Indonesia's commitment to the ITA.  Therefore, other sub-headings of 
HS 8525.40 were outside the commitment of Indonesi a as the tariff level in place was 15 per cent and 
thus, Indonesia had no obligation to reduce or elimin ate those tariffs imposed under the ITA. He noted 
that Indonesia was fully aware that, for particul ar products of HS 8525.40.10.00, the tariff level 
should have been zero per cent.  However, the Na tional Team for Tariffs, Ministry of Finance of 
Indonesia, was working to reduce its import duty ta riff to zero per cent.  At present, the Harmonized 
Import Duty Tariff Programme for 2005-2010 had been  prepared and coordinated by the Team for 
Tariffs, Ministry of Finance.  Indonesia expected that the tariff duty programme for camera products 
other than HS 8525.40.10.00, for which their prevailing tariff was 15 per cent, would be reduced as 
appropriate through the Harmonized Import Du ty Tariff Programme based on the level of 
competitiveness of the industries concerned.  Th rough a couple of informal discussions conducted 
between Indonesia and Japan, he hoped that this ex planation would meet with the satisfaction of the 
Japanese delegation. 
  G/IT/M/44 
 Page 3 
 
 
  1.4 The Chairman  suggested that the Committee take note of the information provided and 
encouraged the two parties to continue their di scussions with a view to identifying the possible 
solution. He noted that he might also consider holding informal consultations with the concerned 
parties if necessary.  He then turned to the sub- agenda item, the request by the United States to raise 
an implementation/classification matter concerning Chinese Taipei. 
 
1.5 The representative of the United States  stated that the particular problem was that there was a 
mis-classification of the product concerned. It w as classified by Chinese Taipei in 8536 while the 
United States believed it should be classified in 853 3.  He was pleased to re port that Chinese Taipei 
had in fact now reclassified these products to 8533, which qualified for duty-free treatment under the 
ITA.  The only remaining issue was that for those products which had entered Chinese Taipei in what 
the United States felt had been the incorrect sub-heading 8536, and therefore duties should also be assessed.  The United States was hoping that this wa s an issue that Chine se Taipei and the US 
companies involved were able to resolve.  
1.6 The representative of Chinese Taipei
 stated that, as the representative of United States had 
mentioned in his intervention, his authorities announced the reclassification of PPTC devices from 
HS 8536 to HS 8533.29.00 on 7 October 2005, which followed the opinion provided by the HS Committee of the World Customs Organization.  He pointed out that it was only through the tremendous efforts of the relevant authorities that  Chinese Taipei was finally able to make this 
decision on reclassification.  Following this statement, he trusted that there would be no more such 
issues regarding the implementation/classification matter on the agenda item.  As regards the old 
cases prior to the reclassification, which were also  mentioned by the United States' representative, 
these were being dealt with separately.  In his opinion, it would be preferable to discuss these cases through the bilateral channel rather than in th is Committee and Chinese Taipei would continue to 
follow up on these cases with the United States. 
 
1.7 The Committee took note
 of the statements made. 
 
2. EMC/EMI Pilot Project  
 -  Draft List of the Types of Confor mity Assessment Procedures for EMC/EMI 
used by ITA Participants (G/IT/W/17) 
 
2.1 The Chairman  recalled that at the Committee meeting of 24 February 2005,  he referred to 
Section III on Transparency of the Guideline for EMC/EMI Conformity Assessment Procedures 
(G/IT/25), which suggested that a list of ITA partic ipants should be drawn up and categorized by the 
type of assessment procedures adopted.  In this conn ection, he raised two issues for the Committee to 
discuss, i.e. (1) information availability, and (2) stru cture/format of such a list.  With respect to the 
first issue, it was agreed to enc ourage those participants who had not submitted a survey response to 
do so, and those whose situation had changed to amend their previous submission.  On the second 
issue, the Secretariat was asked, as per Section III of  the Guidelines to draw up a list, indicating for 
each ITA participants which type of conformity assessment procedure it used based on the information available 
 
2.2 The Chairman
 reported that the Secretariat had completed the preparations of the draft list, 
which was circulated to participants for veri fication of the accuracy of the information on 
6 September 2005, as document G/IT/W/17.  
2.3 The representative of Korea
 thanked the Secretariat for preparing this draft list.  He added that 
Korea was planning to adopt the SDoC in the information and communication products.  Currently conformity assessment was being carried out by th e delegated entity, the Radio Research Laboratory 
under the Ministry of Information and Communication. Korea was in the process of revising the G/IT/M/44 
Page 4  
 
  Radio Act to introduce the SDoC. He informed the Committee that the process would hopefully be 
completed by the first half of 2006 and, if it pr oceeded as planned, Korea was planning to adopt 
SDoC in the second half of 2006 for the informati on and communication products.  The type of SDoC 
would be type one which was type “c” according to the guidelines that Korea would adopt.  Korea 
was planning to inform the Committee about its procedures and so this list could be updated 
accordingly. 
 2.4 The representative of Japan
 thanked the Secretariat for providing the draft list of the types of 
conformity assessment procedures for EMC/EMI.  Regarding the format of the list, Japan supposed the draft by the Secretariat was ex amining the information contained in the table of the list that had 
been prepared by the Secretariat and intended to inform the Committee of any new findings as 
necessary.   2.5 The representative of Chinese Taipei
 thanked the Secretariat for preparing this document and 
updated the information that was contained in this do cument.  He said that on page 4, there had been 
some relevant information about the Separate Cust oms Territory of TPKM and he was told to update 
this information as follows: “There had been 19 ite ms of IT products announced as being applicable 
to the declaration of conformity procedures from Ja nuary 2002 and this had increased to 30 items as 
of October 2005.  However, product testing should be carried out by  a designated testing laboratory 
recognized by the BSMI.”  
2.6 The representative of Canada
 welcomed the document prepared by the Secretariat at the 
request of the Committee.  He noted that in light  of the comments made by Korea and Chinese Taipei 
it showed the relevance of both the guidelines in this document in terms of ensuring that the 
Committee was aware of any developmen ts in this area.  He stated th at the participants should always 
remind themselves that the EMC/EMI pilot project had been a fairly long process to get to its 
conclusion but now the participants were starting to  see the fruits from this effort.  Therefore, he 
encouraged the sixteen participants, for which inform ation was not yet available, to review it and to 
see whether it would be possible to utilize this very  useful draft to provide their information at the 
earliest possible opportunity.  In his opinion, it was a user-friendly format prepared by the Secretariat. 
 2.7 The representative of China
 thanked the Secretariat for preparing this draft list. In responding 
to Canada for sake of transparency, he stated that although China had not notified formally its 
conformity assessment procedures to the Committee it had indicated that China, in an earlier 
communication with capital, was using the third party of conformity assessment procedures for EMC/EMI. He assured the Committee that his delega tion was going to check and confirm with capital 
on this and would inform the Committee formally in due course. If that was the case, he believed 
China would fall under type 'b' of the list. 
 2.8 The Committee took note
 of the information provided and statements made. 
 2.9 Given the fact that the list was drafted by the Secretariat on the information available as 
contained in G/IT/SPEC/Q4 series and compiled in G/IT/SPEC/Q4/19Rev.2 dated back quite 
sometime ago, the Chairman
 encouraged once again those par ticipants who had not submitted a 
survey response to do so, and tho se whose situation had changed to am end their previous submission.  
The Secretariat would revise the draft list with the updated information to be provided by the 
participants by 31 January 2006.  
2.10 It was so agreed
. 
  G/IT/M/44 
 Page 5 
 
 
  3. Non-tariff Measures Work Program me (G/IT/SPEC/Q4/19/Rev.2 and 
G/IT/SPEC/Q2/11/Rev.1) 
3.1 The Chairman  stated that with the completion of the EMC/EMI Pilot Project, participants 
would need to consider whether the Committee could usefully undertake any other matter.  Some initial ideas had been offered at the Committee meeti ngs on 3 December 2004 a nd 24 February 2005.  
At the last meeting, the Chair s uggested that the Committee would reve rt to this item at this meeting 
while at the same time also urged delegations  to reflect and review the issue based on the 
interventions made over the previous two meetings, and to see whether the participants could build on 
these discussions and identify what useful work th is Committee could undertake on the NTMs in the 
future.  He therefore encouraged participants to  give further thought on this and welcomed any 
suggestion to identify the possible areas of future wo rk for the Committee in that regard.  In view of 
the current state-of-play in the NAMA negotiations , and the limited time for this meeting, he 
understood that some participants might need some ti me for reflection.  Nevertheless, he would still 
open the floor for any comments and suggestions.    
3.2 The representative of the United States
 stated that, consistent with  what the Chairman had just 
said, it was clear that the NAMA group had got the lead on this issue but it was also important that the ITA Committee and the NAMA group continue to co mmunicate with each other effectively and that 
the ITA Committee be in a position to render whatev er assistance that the NAMA group might ask 
for.  He was aware, for example, that in November 2004 Korea tabled a paper on NTBs and the electronic sector. The United States was also work ing on a proposal for submission to the NAMA 
group that would address certain regulatory barriers in the electronics and IT industries. He believed 
that this was built on the work that this Committee had already don e on EMC/EMI.  The US proposal 
was to increase and facilitate trade through the prevention and elimination of unnecessary NTBs to 
trade.  He was also aware that Japan had done thor ough work with respect to customs classification of 
electronics on IT products and that Korea had put forward some ideas on minimum import pricing 
which the United States was in the process of reviewing.   He did not think that there was at this point 
on many of these issues, anything that the ITA Committee should launch into but it was entirely possible that something could come to the participants from the NAMA group.  3.3 The representative of Korea
 stated that as mentioned by the representative of the United 
States, Korea was leading discussions on NTBs in the electronics industry in the context of NAMA 
negotiations.  Korea had recently submitted a progr ess report for the sake of transparency in the 
context of NAMA negotiations and more detailed  information could be found in document 
TN/MA/W/6/Add.5.  While he did not want to repe at the details at this meeting he, nevertheless, 
would like to inform the participants that Korea was considering that if there was any constructive 
role the ITA Committee could play in order to contribute to the process of NTB discussions in 
NAMA.  He said that as the discussion was concreti sing materials he hoped Korea would be able to 
propose more concrete ideas and that the ITA Comm ittee could provide to reinforce the discussions 
on NTBs in the NAMA negotiations.  3.4 The Committee took note
 of the statements made and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting.  4. Divergences in Classifying Information T echnology Products (G/IT/14/Rev.1/Add.1, 
G/IT/W/6/Rev.3, and G/IT/W/11)  
 -  List V of G/IT/W/6/Rev.3 – Item s and Specific Questions Referred to the 
Committee to be addressed (G/IT/W/15)   
-  Summary of Discussions – The First 11 Items of List V (G/IT/W/16/Rev.1) 
-  Summary of Discussions – The Remaining  9 Items of List V (G/IT/W/18/Rev.1)  G/IT/M/44 
Page 6  
 
  4.1 The Chairman
 provided the Committee with an update of the work in this area and believed 
important progress had been made.  At the last m eeting, participants completed the first round of 
review for the remaining nine items of List V.  He drew participants' attention to the summary note 
prepared by the Secretariat (G/IT/W/18/Rev.1), which showed the remaining 9 Items of List V of document G/IT/W/15, including the original qu estions that were posed, and the corresponding 
summary of the discussions.  He noticed that both the discussions at the meeting of 25 May 2005 and 
the written submissions that had been received ther eafter were used to produce the summary and that 
delegations had until 17 June 2005 to submit comments in writing.   
  4.2 He said that at the last m eeting, participants also had an opportunity to revisit the first 
11 items of List V.  He drew participants' atten tion to the summary note prepared by the Secretariat 
(G/IT/W/16/Rev.1), which showed the first 11 items of List V of document G/IT/W/15, including the 
original questions that had been posed, and the corresponding summary of the discussions by the Committee at its meetings on 24 February 2005 and 25 May 2005.  It had also taken into account the 
written submissions that were received by the S ecretariat thereafter as delegations had until 
17 June 2005 to submit comments in writing.  
 4.3 He noted that in order to facilitate the discussions, the same sequential numbering of the first 11 items listed in List V of G/IT /W/15 and G/IT/W/6/Rev.3 had been reproduced in this summary note 
for ease of reference.  He also noted that classifi cations indicated in bold ha d still issues outstanding  
which had been noted by the Customs Expert Group , whereas those not in bol d had been essentially 
agreed by the Customs Expert Group at the technical level.  
 4.4 With the above introduction, the Chairman
 stated that he would first like to give the floor to 
delegations for more inputs on the 20 items of List V,  and then, he wished to invite participants, based on 
the discussions that they had had so far for List V, to look into those items to see whether some 
convergences could be achieved on some of these items or not.  
 4.5 The representative of the United States
 noted that at the last meeting of the Committee he was 
not in a position to make a comment on the remain ing 9 items but now he has instructions with 
respect to those items.  He proposed to submit these comments to the Secretariat and perhaps an 
updated document, collating the comments to various de legations, could be re-issued.  He stated that 
he did not think he was really in a position to engage in a technical discussion because there were 
points of convergence and divergence.  He suggested that it might be worthwhile to have an informal 
meeting of participants to see if there were any othe r delegations that had further comments, including  
any of the 20 items .  Once this had been collated it would be worthwhile to sit down and discuss as to 
how they might proceed if there were further ques tions that the Secretariat might put in order to 
highlight the key questions that needed to be answer ed in order for a decision to be taken one way or 
the other.  4.6 The representative of Korea
 said that since the last meeting his capital had been conducting 
the work to complete Korea's comments on those 20 items but at this point of time it was not ready to present its positions on those issues;  however his cap ital was accelerating this work and in a very 
short time Korea could be in a position to submit a written opinion which could be combined in the 
Secretariat paper so that it could be incor porated into the basis for the discussion.  
 4.7 The representative of the European Communities
 noted that with regard to the outstanding 
issues, these were not pure classification issues becau se if they had been pure classification issues the 
customs experts should have been able to sort th em out.  For the European Communities, in a number 
of these cases it was also a question about how the Committee would interpret a certain text in the 
ITA.  He thought that the proposal by the United States of making new submissions and having a meeting in informal mode, would be the most effect ive way to move forward to follow. He therefore 
believed it would be best way to proceed.    G/IT/M/44 
 Page 7 
 
 
  4.8 The Chairman  suggested that the Committee take note of the statements made and 
participants agree on a deadline of 30 November 2005 to allow time for the delegations who had not 
participated in the discussion but wished to submit  their comments in writing.  For those delegations 
who participated in the discussion but wished to come  back to submit new comments in writing or to 
complement or supplement their oral statements they could also do so by 30 November 2005.  He 
noted that he would also give thought to the sugg estion that had been raised by the United States and 
other Members regarding holding informal consulta tions to see if whether the Committee could move 
forward on this issue.   4.9 The representative of Canada
 stated that he too could agree to the suggestion made by the 
United States. He said that, if he had heard correc tly, the US delegate was suggesting that once the 
Secretariat had done a revision participants could have an informal meeting. However, in the 
Chairman's concluding remarks where the Chairman talked about informal c onsultations perhaps they 
meant the same thing. Thus, he sought a clarification from the Chair on this.       
4.10 The Chairman
 clarified that he had meant the informal meeting.  He said that it was also his 
intention that at the next meeting the Committee would spend sometime to update the development on 
the other lists apart from List V.   4.11 It was so agreed
. 
 5. Follow-up Discussions from the IT Symposium 
5.1 The Chairman
 recalled that at the last meeting, one of the delegations raised the ITA 
classification issue in relation to the introduction of  HS2002 nomenclature, and it was agreed that the 
Committee would invite the Economic Research and Sta tistical Division to make a presentation at this 
Committee meeting on what had been the changes th at had taken place due to the introduction of 
HS2002 nomenclature. He said that in response to th is request, the Economic Research and Statistical 
Division, in consultation with the Market Access Division, prepared a technical note to explain the changes that were taken place due to the introduc tion of HS2002 nomenclature as far as IT products 
were concerned.  This technical note now had been circulated at the meeting as a room document. He 
then gave the floor to the Secretariat to make a short presentation in relation to the on-going exercise 
of the transposition of schedules from HS1996 to HS 2002, and introduce the Secretariat's technical 
note. 
 5.2 A member of the Secretariat
 (Mr. J. Richtering) informed that this project concerned the 
transposition of developing country Members' ta riff concessions to HS 2002 nomenclature and the 
preparation of transposition files for the multilate ral review.  This process was based on the tariff 
schedules as contained in the CTS database and it in cluded the transposition of ITA-relevant tariff 
lines. He said that for the information of this  Committee, the Secretariat had prepared a room 
document which highlighted the changes as they rela ted to Attachment A of the IT Agreement. These 
changes were a subset of the changes which the S ecretariat would introduce in the context of the 
HS2002 transposition project.  The document was fair ly self-explanatory. He mentioned that the ITA 
commitments had been identified in most CTS schedules as separate instruments as far as the ITA 
participants were concerned and could thus be identified.  For the remaining Members, the ITA 
commitments – as long as they had been clearly docum ented – would be included in the course of the 
transposition to HS2002 nomenclature that meant bot h the HS96 and the HS2002 versions of the CTS 
would have ITA items clearly identified.   
5.3 He informed the Committee that the procedural and technical aspects of the HS2002 
transposition project were approved in General Council Decision WT/L/605 of 2 March 2005 and 
funding was provided by the General Trust Fund.  Under this project the Secretariat would assist 
developing country Members in their submission for the HS2002 transposition exercise. The G/IT/M/44 
Page 8  
 
  verification of the developed country Members' sche dules would also be carried out by the Secretariat 
using regular budget resources.  He said that the work on the transposition of developing Members' 
schedules was well underway.  Out of the 113 schedules of developing Members covered by the project, 24 draft HS2002 files had already been sent to  Members for their review.  The next batch of 
20-30 files would be sent by the end of November a nd it was expected that most of the fully certified 
schedules would be transposed by the Secretariat by the end of the first quarter of 2006. 
 5.4 He further introduced the Secretariat's techni cal notes, which had two parts; one explained the 
ITA changes in the context of the project and the ot her one gave a brief explanation of the process of 
transposition that the Secretariat was undertaking currently.  
 
5.5 The representative of Japan
 recalled that at the last meeting Japan proposed that the 
Secretariat prepare a convergence list for ITA pr oducts based on HS2002 because Japan believed that 
such a list would help the participants as well as prospective participants to have a better 
understanding of where they were.  In this rega rd Japan highly appreciated that the Secretariat 
provided the two papers, including useful inform ation and interesting charts, as well as the 
explanation provided by the Secretariat today. He stated that Japan would like to examine these 
papers in the capital and make some comme nts, if any, at the next meeting. 
 5.6 The representative of the European Communities
 stated that in 2007, the HS would change 
again and it would change significantly for Chapters 84, 85 and 90.  He added that he did see that 
there was a link to this exercise and they welcomed  the way the Secretariat was approaching the so-
called correlation between tariff convergences in  HS96, 2002 and 2007.  However, his first 
understanding was that all particip ants were supposed to update th eir tariff schedules and submit them 
to WTO.  In so doing, of course, they had to change  their current tariffs.  He said that based on what 
he had been involved in the past in that exercise , it was not only a question of doing an automatic 
transposition from one number to another.  One had to  do that first because then one could have an 
idea of the universe one were in but after that it was necessary to go through case-by-case and in 
particular in Table 2 example it was necessary to l ook at trade volumes in the light to determine what 
would be the correct duty rates.  Therefore, it was not necessarily just going from point A to point B by a number-counting exercise.  There was another aspect to this and that was that the correlation 
tables were not binding and when the correlati on tables were discussed in the WCO one would 
discover that there were disagreements amongst HS c ontracting parties on certain ways of transposing 
from one heading to another.  This kind of disag reement had also been seen during the process of 
updating the HS explanatory notes for 2007.  Sometimes it was the case that somebody had classified a certain type of product in one heading and another HS  contracting party in another.  So, it was not as 
simple as it seemed, and for them it was informative to try to do this exercise but one could ask the 
basic question what added value would be in it. The participants all had to do their work, their 
transposition and their submission of new tariff sche dules. In any event, these correlation tables were 
not binding. although the participants followed them  to a large extent. Anyway, it was a helpful but 
not definitive tool.  5.7 The representative of Canada
 thanked the Secretariat for an insightful presentation and for the 
note.  He also posed one question for the Secret ariat regarding Section 2,  the second category of 
changes in HS2002 in order to understand the nature of that change.  He took, for example, IT 
item 86, the first one in table 2. He suspected that what was involved was that in the HS2002 
document showing the changes where these seven HS 96 sub-headings should be substituted by these 
five new HS2002 sub-headings.  But if one took item 86 one would note that it became 854210 and IT 
item 90 which was 854230 was also moving in part to new 854210 but a part of it was going to 
854229.  He therefore questioned whether taking the example of IT items 86 and 90, could one 
assume that the totality of item 90 was subs umed by the new HS2002 854210 and 854229, and 
whether HS2002 854229 included other products th at might not be covered by the IT. 
  G/IT/M/44 
 Page 9 
 
 
  5.8 The member of the Secretariat  responded and noted that although he had not done this 
rearrangement, his understanding was that the rearrange ment was only in the products that were listed 
in the table.  There were no pr oducts going out of these categories or coming from outside, in addition 
to these new sub-headings.  
5.9 The representative of the European Communities
 said that the question put by Canada showed 
that things were not as simple as they seemed.  For this example it was quite simple because one 
stayed with an IT heading and remained in an IT heading as 8542 was an IT heading from the change 
of HS96 to HS2002.  The interesting thing was that when you got to HS2007, the smart cards and the types of smart cards because not all smart cards were  current in 8542, which a lot of people did not 
know.  However, if a smart card got more than one chip it was not in 8542.  In HS2007 what would 
happen was that a smart card would move into anothe r heading, so there would be a transfer from one 
heading to another.  The heading it moved into would not be a heading that exclusively covered ITA products.  That was the problem with so-called auto matic transposition arises and an area where there 
was a need to go into details.  He would prefer if the participants were ready to do these explanations 
it would be better in an informal mode and he w ould be preparing to explain how the EC saw it. 
 5.10 The Secretariat
 explained the background of why it was decided that the Secretariat should do 
these technical works.  From past experience with the transposition to HS96 it had become apparent 
that not many Members had made submissions and the process of the approval and certification of 
these submission took a very long time.  In fact , the HS96 transposition was not even formally 
concluded.  A majority of Members had never ma de any submissions on HS96.  With the process of 
the HS2002 transposition the same picture emerged a nd in addition it was felt that the Secretariat 
could take a role in terms of verification of the tec hnical aspects of the transpositions.  He agreed that 
the Secretariat could not resolve all the detailed pr oduct-specific issues involved, this would still be 
up to the Members to resolve and maybe modify, but it was felt that only this way could be possible to 
have all the schedules transposed.  It would be th en up to Members to agree or disagree with the 
Secretariat.    5.11 The Chairman
 appreciated participants' interest in discussing this classification matter. On  
how the Committee would move forward, he suggested that he would consult the interested parties on 
an informal basis to see how to f acilitate the discussion and revert to this matter at the next meeting. 
 
5.12 In addition to the classification issue, he noted that the Committee had had a good discussion 
on several other issues contained in document G/IT/W/15 at the last meting.  However, given the limited time that the Committee had for this m eeting, he suggested the Committee continue  
discussion on these issues at the next meeting in 2006. 
 
5.13 The representative of the European Communities
 said that it had been suggested earlier to 
have an informal meeting concerning the previous lis t, perhaps the same approach could be used here. 
 5.14 The Chairman
 stated that on the suggestion from the EC he would hold an informal meeting 
on the follow up of those issues.   
 
5.15 The Committee took note  of the statements made and agreed to revert to this item  at the next 
meeting.  
6. New Participants  
6.1 The Chairman
 recalled that over the past weeks ther e had been three new schedules submitted 
to the Committee for consideration at this meeti ng, i.e. Honduras, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and 
Nicaragua.  He said that the schedule of H onduras was circulated to all participants on 
29 September 2005 for consideration.  The Secretaria t had performed the electronic verification of the G/IT/M/44 
Page 10  
 
  schedule which showed there were no discrepancies.  This information was circulated along with the 
schedule.  He noted that the participants now we re in a position to take up the schedule of Honduras 
for approval.  6.2 The representative of Honduras
 thanked the Secretariat for the valuable technical assistance in 
the preparation of the schedule of Honduras. He stat ed that his Government wanted gradually to bring 
tariffs down to zero over a five-year period starting from 2006.  He felt that Honduras' decision to become a participant of this Committee would result in major liberalization of this sector which would 
create an environment propitious for an attraction of investment achieving a better insertion of the Honduras economy in the world economy. 
 
6.3 The Committee approved
 the schedule of Honduras.  
 6.4 The Chairman
 welcomed Honduras as the 64th participant to the Committ ee. He then turned to 
the schedule of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. He sa id that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was in the 
final stage of its WTO accession negotiation with WT O Members.  The schedule of the Kingdom of 
Saudi Arabia was circulated to all participants  on 30 September 2005 for consideration.  The 
Secretariat had performed the electronic verificati on of the schedule which showed there were no 
discrepancies.  This information was circulated along with the schedule.  He noted that as part of its 
WTO accession commitment the concessions contained in the schedule would come into effect on the 
date of the accession of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to the WTO.   He believed that participants 
were in a position to take up the schedule of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for approval.   
 6.5 The Committee approved
 the schedule of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.  
 6.6 The Chairman
 welcomed the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as the 65th participant to the 
Committee. He also noted that the concessions cont ained in the schedule would come into effect upon 
the date of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's accession to the WTO. He then tu rned to the schedule of 
Nicaragua which was circulated to all particip ants on 3 October 2005 for consideration.  The 
Secretariat had also performed the electronic verification of the schedule which showed no 
discrepancies.  This information had also been ci rculated along with the schedule.  Similarly, he 
believed participants coul d take up the schedule of Nicaragua for approval. 
  
6.7 The representative of Nicaragua  apologised to the Members of the Committee for the late 
submission of the schedule of its products since 2004 meeting in February when they had first 
expressed their interest in joining the Agreement.  He  extended his thanks to Members, in particular to 
the Secretariat for their invaluable  support and cooperation in the preparation of this schedule.  He 
reiterated his interest in participating actively in  this Committee's debates and activities.  He noted 
that with the presentation of its schedule Nicaragua was showing its interest in Membership in the 
Agreement taking into account the fact that in th e present reality of information technology products 
these products had a fundamental role for the develo pment of their economy and development of their 
people.  Nicaragua was assuming the commitment to gradually liberalise its market for these products 
in a four-year period thus giving better prospects for this sector.   
 
6.8 The Committee approved  the schedule of Nicaragua.  
 6.9 The Chairman
 welcomed Nicaragua as the 66th participant to this Committee.  
 7. Draft Annual Report of the Committee (2005) (G/IT/W/19) 
7.1 The Chairman
 recalled that the Committee reported annually to the Council for Trade in 
Goods. The draft report for this year had been circulated in document G/IT/W/19. The report was a  G/IT/M/44 
 Page 11 
 
 
  factual summary of the work undertaken in the Committee during the year. Furthermore, it would  
likely need to be updated in light of the discussions in the Committee today.   7.2 The draft annual report was approved
 with the updates in light of the discussions in the 
Committee's meeting today.  
 
8. Other Business 
8.1 The representative of Guatemala  informed the Committee of her Government's decision to 
become a participant in the ITA and to that eff ect Guatemala would begin its initial participation 
process as soon as possible. 
 
8.2 The Chairman  suggested the Secretariat verify Guat emala's schedule soon after receiving it 
and circulate it to participants for comments.  He  also suggested that th e Committee agree that the 
schedules of Guatemala would be deemed to be approved unless any pa rticipant notified any 
objection or comment to the Secretariat within two week s of the date of circulation of the schedule.   
 
8.3 It was so agreed . 
 8.4 The Chairman
 stated that the issue of the review of  product coverage con tinued to be a matter 
under consultation, and he encouraged de legations to continue their efforts. 
 
8.5 Furthermore, he proposed the Committee hold its next meeting during the first quarter of 
2006 with the exact date to be settle d in consultation with delegations.  
 8.6 It was so agreed
. 
 
__________