RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/IT/M/42 
15 April  2005 
 (05-1564) 
Committee of Participants on the Expansion of 
Trade in Information Technology Products  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 24 FEBRUARY 2005 
Chairman: Mr. F. Seppey (Canada)  
Agenda of the Meeting            P a g e  
 1.
 Review of the Status of Implementation of the Ministerial Declaration on Trade in Information Technology Products  (G/IT/1/Rev.34 and Corr.1).......................................1 
                  - Request by the Unit ed States to Raise an Implementation/Classification  
                    Matter Concerning Chinese Taipei 
2.
 EMC/EMI Pilo t Project........................................................................................................3  
                   - Guidelines for EMC/EMI Conformity Assessment Procedures (G/IT/25)  
3. Non-tariff Measures Work Program me (G/IT/SPEC/Q4/19/Rev.2 and 
G/IT/SPEC/Q2/11/Rev.1) .....................................................................................................3  
4. Divergences in Classifying Information T echnology Products (G/IT/14/Rev.1/Add.1, 
G/IT/W/6/Rev.3, and G/IT/W/11)........................................................................................5  
5. Follow-up Discussions from the IT Symposium...............................................................10  
6. New Participants ............................................................................................................... ..12 
7. Other Bu siness................................................................................................................. ....13  
 
Introduction 
  The Chairman
 stated that the proposed agenda for this meeting was circulated in 
WTO/AIR/2509 on 14 February 2005.  He furthermore asked if there were any matters to be raised under "Other Business".  He stated the review of pr oduct coverage and the date of the next meeting of 
the Committee would be taken up under "Oth er Business".  The agenda was adopted
 with these 
additions. 
 
1. Review of the Status of Implementation of  the Ministerial Declaration on Trade in 
Information Technology Products (G/IT/1/Rev.34) 
- Request by the United States to Raise an  Implementation/Classification Matter   
Concerning Chinese Taipei 
 1.1 The Chairman
 stated that an overview of the implementation of the Ministerial Declaration on 
Trade in Information Technology Products was contai ned in G/IT/1/Rev.34.  This document showed 
the participants and the implementation issues pert aining to the WTO procedures for implementation.  
Secondly, he noted that there was a sub-agenda item which involved an implementation/classification 
matter raised by the United St ates concerning Chinese Taipei. 
  
1.2 The delegate of Japan  stated the practice by the Thai government to impose a duty on digital 
cameras since January 2002 was inconsistent with th e ITA, and had asked the Thai delegation in the G/IT/M/42 
Page 2  
 
past two Committee meetings, in October and in Dece mber of last year, for satisfactory explanations 
of this matter.  He once again asked the Thai delegation to report on the status  of this matter. 
 1.3 The delegate of Thailand
 reported on the problem of digital cameras raised by the Japanese 
delegate.  He informed the Japanese delegate and also the Committee that this problem had been 
solved in a very positive manner by their relevant authorities.  He did not want to go into specific 
details of the problem, however a brief description of this issue was whether the product digital 
cameras should be covered by the description of di gital still-image cameras, HS code 852540.  The 
notification of the Thailand Ministry of Finance,  dated 28 December 2001, provided duty exemption 
and reduction on some 13 products from 1 January 2002 in accordance w ith the HS 2002 version.  For 
the products of HS 852540 there was duty exemption, but this was a problem of interpretation of the 
product coverage of HS 852540 in the notification, not a problem of the notification itself.   1.4 The problem had been solved in a positive way, as it was considered by the Review and 
Appeal Committee of the Customs Department, wh ich was the highest body for a customs dispute 
case.  In January of this year, the Committee reached the final conclusion that the products in HS code 
852540 described as digital still image cameras in the Notification of Thailand Ministry of Finance 
dated 28 December 2001, had also re ferred to digital cameras.  So , such decision confirmed their 
intentions and he believed that it showed Thailand's commitment to th e spirit of the IT Agreement.  
 1.5 The delegate of Japan
 welcomed the decision by the Thai  Government and thanked the Thai 
delegation for all the efforts made.  He noted that  Japan would appreciate it if the Thai Government 
would announce publicly the decision, so that the companies and persons involved would be knowledgeable of the facts in a fair and transparen t manner.  Finally, Japan stressed once again that 
digital cameras were an ITA product which all IT A participants agreed to, and furthermore he 
highlighted the importance and the need for all partic ipants to comply with the ITA and to contribute 
to the expansion of trade in IT products. 
 1.6 The delegate of Thailand
 reiterated their commitment to trad e in ITA products and also the IT 
Agreement.  Regarding the publishing of this decisi on for this particular problem, he said that to the 
best of his knowledge and understanding, the no rmal practice was once the Committee reached a 
decision, it would circulate such a decision to all relevant officers and authorities, with immediate 
effect. 
 1.7 The Chairman
 turned to the sub-agenda item, the request by the United States to raise an 
implementation/classification matter concerning Chinese Taipei.  
1.8 The delegate of the United States
 recalled that the US and Chinese Taipei had been engaged in 
discussions on the classification of thermistor de vices.  The recent consensus decision of the 
Harmonized System Committee of the World Custom s Organization (WCO) on the classification of 
this product demonstrated that this product was i ndeed ITA qualifying.  His delegation was continuing 
their consultations with Chinese Taipei on this issue and urged Chinese Taipei to recognize and 
comply with the WCO decision on the classification of  this product so that they could quickly and 
expeditiously resolve this issue. 
 1.9 The delegate of Chinese Taipei
 responded to the matter raised by the US delegation, and noted 
he had two points to raise to the Committee today.  First, his delegation had received some queries 
from other delegations regarding the details and natu re of this matter, and he wanted to take the 
opportunity to provide more details on this matter.  The issue at stake was whether a certain product 
from the US which was imported into Chinese Taipei, should be classified as a poly-switch re-setable 
fuse under HS code 8536, which would not be an IT A product; or a resistor, in HS code 8533, which 
would make it an ITA product.  Both delegations  concerned had different views on the classification, 
so from the view of his delegation, this was an issu e of classification, and he did not think it was an 
implementation issue.  His delegation had already pa rticipated in the ITA before their accession, so  G/IT/M/42
 Page 3 
 
 
they were committed to the zero-tariff treatment in accordance with the terms of the ITA.  Secondly, 
regarding the request from the US delegation, he no ted it was well understood from his delegation.  In 
fact, they had held several inter-agency meetings, however there was no constructive solution as yet.  
He would continue to work internally as well as bi laterally with the US delegation with a view to 
reaching a satisfactory solution as soon as possible. 
 
1.10 The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
 
2. EMC/EMI Pilot Project 
 - Guidelines for EMC/EMI Conformity Assessment Procedures (G/IT/25) 
 
2.1 The Chairman  recalled that the Committee had been focussing on the ‘Guidelines’ in recent 
meetings.  There were a number of  delegations who commented on the draft Guidelines at the last 
meeting and progress was made as the Committee had agreed to approve those 'Guidelines' on an ad 
referendum  basis.  At the time, two delegations were  not in a position to formally agree to the 
Guidelines and were given until 14 January 2005 to i ndicate whether they had objections to the formal 
adoption of the Guidelines.  He understood that tho se two delegations could now join the consensus.  
Therefore, the Committee had before it document G/IT/25 containing the final Guidelines.  He believed this was a great accomplishment and commende d all participants on their efforts to conclude 
this important project on EMC/EMI as it pertained to the work on NTMs.  
2.2 Regarding Section III of the Guidelines on Transparency, he noted there were some 
preliminary discussions in the past on this matter, but believed it would be im portant to operationalise 
this aspect of the Guide lines as soon as possible, and therefore ra ised two issues for the Committee to 
discuss in this respect—1) informa tion availability, and 2) structure/format of such a list.  With 
respect to the first issue, information availability , from his understanding, the existing ‘survey results’ 
as circulated in the G/IT/SPEC/Q4 series and compiled in G/IT/SPEC/Q4/19/Rev.2 could be used to 
provide such information.  However, it was noted th at not all participants had submitted a response to 
the survey as yet, and as the survey was conducted so me time ago, it appeared that the situation may 
have changed for a number of participants and it should be updated.  If the Committee agreed, he 
would encourage those participants who had not submitted a survey response to do so, and those 
whose situation has changed to amend their previous  submission.  He recalled that the survey was 
circulated originally in document G/IT/22. 
 2.3 With respect to the second point, structure/format  of the list, he suggested that, as per Section 
III of the Guidelines, the Secretariat could draw up  such a list, indicating for each ITA participant 
which type of conformity assessment procedure it u sed based on the information available.  Once the 
Secretariat had prepared a draft, it would be circulat ed to participants for verification of the accuracy 
of the information.  2.4 It was so agreed
. 
 
3. Non-tariff Measures Work Program me (G/IT/SPEC/Q4/19/Rev.2 and 
G/IT/SPEC/Q2/11/Rev.1) 
3.1 The Chairman  recalled that this work on NTMs had led to the EMC/EMI Pilot Project.  Now 
that this project was completed, the participants needed to consider what  work the Committee could 
usefully undertake.  Some initial ideas had been o ffered at the last meeting.  There were also 
discussions on how to best proceed with the work on NTMs given the simultaneous discussions on 
NTBs in a broader sense in the negotiations on Non-Ag ricultural Market Access.  In this respect, there 
was a suggestion that he could somehow communi cate this information to the Chairman of the 
NGMA, informing him about the work on NTMs in this Committee.  A number of delegations G/IT/M/42 
Page 4  
 
indicated they wanted to reflect further on such an idea.  Thus, he thought  it was important that 
discussions continue on these two important issues as they pertained to the NTM Work Programme.   
 3.2 The delegate of the United States
 stated that with respect to other subjects that might be taken 
up now that the EMC/EMI exercise was completed,  he thought that the Committee had developed 
expertise having gone through this process, which was partly a learning process.  It was identified as a 
‘pilot project’ with the expectation that if it proved to  be valuable, that it could be repeated in other 
areas as well.  He thought there were basically two questions that had to be asked and assessed 
collectively; 1) whether the Committee thought that the time and effort expended on the EMC/EMI project was worthwhile.  If the answer to that questi on was no, then that was the end of it, but if the 
answer was yes, then one should continue to the next  question-- 2) what topics might be taken up.  As 
regarded the second question, it was something the US was open about.  Noting that the EMC/EMI proposal originally came from Canada, he thought that developing countries had particular areas of 
concern that might be examined.  He thought the best way to proceed would be to consult with 
capitals and have informal consultations to decide if there was a desire to proceed, and if so, what 
topics should be taken up.   
 3.3 With respect to cooperation between the NGMA  and the ITA Committee, he thought that this 
was an area that the Committee could contribute .  He recalled that in November 2004, Korea 
submitted a paper on NTBs in the ITA area, and th ere had been discussions within the NGMA.  He 
understood those meetings would cont inue in March, so he did not think that the Committee should 
duplicate or get in the way of what went on in th e NGMA, but perhaps just be aware of what they 
were doing there.  The Chairman could be in cont act with the NGMA to see if they felt any of this 
work could be usefully delegated to the ITA Committ ee, or to give them some additional assistance as 
they proceeded on this topic.   
3.4 The delegate of Canada
 stated that in terms of possible future work on NTMs in the 
Committee, he wanted to draw attention to a pa per Canada circulated in 2001, G/IT/SPEC/Q2/2, 
which dealt with import licensing.  When thinking a bout the future work that could be undertaken in 
the Committee, this was certainly one of the them es that Canada had in mind and wanted to draw 
attention to it.  
3.5 The delegate of the European Communities
 thought they had a good experience with the 
EMC/EMI pilot project, to answer one of the questi ons that had been put forward by the US.  They 
were open to continued discussions in this context.   For the moment, he did not have any specific 
suggestions, but would look into areas that may be of  importance to developing countries, so that was 
something to consider.  When it came to the cooperation between the NGMA and the ITA Committee, 
he thought it would be a good idea if the Chairm an could make a factual report to the NGMA, 
informing them of the situation here--what had been  done, especially on EMC/EMI, and to keep them 
informed.  His delegation was of the view that NTBs were now discussed in the NGMA, and if the 
NGMA should decide that they need technical expertise or any input from other bodies, then the Committee should wait for it to be expressed by the NGMA and then take the appropriate follow-up. 
 
3.6 The delegate of Japan
 stated that with regard to the interaction with the NGMA, it would be 
beneficial to exchange and share information on each  others' activities.  So, he thought it would be 
beneficial to share the experience of the ITA Co mmittee, i.e. what has been discussed and what had 
been achieved so far, with the NGMA.  The NGMA could then think about how to proceed, based on 
this Committee's experience. 
 
3.7 The delegate of Chinese Taipei  stated that their opinion on these issues was similar to that 
stated by previous delegations.  With regard to identifying other NTMs, they were open to having 
discussions on the matter.  His capital had alread y been working quite hard on identifying other 
NTMs to be discussed in this Committee, and woul d report back if there was constructive input.  
Secondly, with regard to the relationship between the NGMA and the ITA Committee, from the point  G/IT/M/42
 Page 5 
 
 
of view of information exchange, he believed it would be very useful  to both bodies if this Committee 
could agree to forward their experience to the NGMA.  He suggested that the letter could also include 
reciprocity, so that if the NGMA had discussions on anything related to ITA products, whether on 
tariffs or NTMs, this Committee would appreci ate receiving their information as well. 
 
3.8 The Chairman  suggested that with respect to the iden tification of NTMs, or what elements of 
NTMs the Committee could take up next, it seemed that  delegations were still reflecting.  There was 
reference that the last NTM was taken up at the su ggestion of Canada, so perhaps the next one could 
be one that was of primary inte rest to developing countries.  So, he suggested having informal 
consultations in order to identify the possible areas of future work for the Co mmittee in that regard.  
The second aspect, regarding informing the NGMA of the Committee's work, was something the 
Committee saw as useful, as it was clear that sharing su ch information could only be of benefit.  In 
this respect, he suggested he would send a letter to  the Chairman of the NGMA, informing them of 
the Committee's work on NTMs by providing factual information on the work done until now in the 
ITA Committee, and also the accomplishments that ha d been realised.  Then it would be up to the 
participants of the NGMA to decide whether or not there was a role to be played by the ITA 
Committee in supporting their negotiating efforts.  3.9 The delegate of Malaysia
 welcomed the idea of sending a letter informing the NGMA of the 
Committee's work, but asked whether the Chairman woul d first circulate the letter to the participants 
of this Committee, so that they could examine it before forwarding it to the NGMA, if that were 
possible. 
 3.10 The Chairman
 replied that a draft would be prepared a nd then faxed to all delegations so that 
they could provide comments.  A few days would be  given for delegations to provide comments, and 
then the letter would be forwarded. 
 
3.11 It was so agreed .  
 
4. Divergences in Classifying Information Technology Products (G/IT/14/Rev.1/Add.1, 
G/IT/W/6/Rev.3, and G/IT/W/11) 
-List V of G/IT/W/6/Rev.3 – Items and Specific Questions Referred to the  
Committee to be Addressed (G/IT/W/15) 
   
4.1 The Chairman  provided an overview and update of th e work in this area since the last 
meeting, as he believed important  progress had been made.  He noted that the basic overview 
document, G/IT/W/6, had been updated as a result of the previous discussions and the Committee had 
before it, Revision 3, of this document.  With respect to Lists I (A) and I (B) , the Committee had 
endorsed these Lists, or parts or these Lists, at the last meeting on an ad referendum  basis, as at least one 
delegation needed more time to examine the matter.  He understood that the delegations concerned could 
now formally join the consensus by endorsing the two Lists. Therefore they could be set aside and the Committee could welcome this significant accomplishment that had been achieved.  As regarded List III
, 
he had updated the Committee at the last meeting concerning the developments at the WCO, and there 
had been no further developments to report since that  time.  The matter would be taken up at the WCO at 
its March meeting of the Harmonized System Committee.  4.2 With respect to List V
, he noted the good discussions at recent meetings on how to proceed, and 
document G/IT/W/11 had been prepar ed for the last meeting.  After further discussions, another 
document was requested to aide the work on this  matter and thus G/IT/W/15 had been circulated 
containing a list of questions pertaining to each item .  In addition, it was requested that the Chairman 
bring this important policy matter to the attention of all delegations, and in December last year a letter was sent to all heads of delegations.  Thus, all delegations should be well prepared for the discussions today with respect to the first 11 items on List V.  With respect to List II,
 he noted that there were no G/IT/M/42 
Page 6  
 
more items on this list as a result of the discussions last time and they would be taken up later in the discussions on List V.  As for List IV
, they remained outstanding and he believed the Committee should 
keep these items under review.  4.3 He proceeded with taking up List V
, and noted that document G/IT/W/15 would be used as the 
basis for the discussions.  Furthermore, as agreed last time, the Committee should be prepared to discuss 
the first 11 items on that List as they pertained to semiconductor manufacturing and testing equipment.  
He furthermore noted that the delegation of Japan ha d provided a room document with their responses to 
the questions, which he thought would be very useful  to the discussions.  He proceeded sequentially 
down the List, starting with number 1 . 
 
4.4 The delegate of Japan  referred to question number 1 , and stated that etching and stripping 
were different processes respectively, and in genera l, while the process of 'etching' corresponded to 
the process of eliminating film or the semiconducto r itself, the process of 'stripping' corresponded to 
the process of eliminating a photoresist coated on the semiconductors.  So they were very different.  
With respect to the second part of the question, wet versus dry processes, he noted that both wet 
processes and dry processes were covered by the ITA.  However, referring to products defined by 
item #142 and #168, which described apparatus for wet etching, developing, stripping or cleaning 
semiconductor wafers and flat pane l displays, he assumed they covered wet processes.  So, the three 
classifications defined by #122 as apparatus for st ripping or cleaning semiconductor wafers, could be 
assumed to cover 'dry processes' and cl assified in 855691,  845699 and 847989. 
 
4.5 The delegate of the European Communities  noted that the Committee was confronted with 
something that went back to the negotiation of the ITA, and the real question was what did they want 
to cover at the time the negotiations took place.  He  thought they faced a rather difficult situation, 
because on the one hand, with the deep conviction th at they wanted to cover all the products and 
machinery which were used for the production, t esting, and assembly of semiconductors; but on the 
other hand, they were confronted with the problem  that when discussing with industry, the language 
used by industry was not necessarily the same language  used by customs, i.e. the Harmonized System.  
This had led to the difficulties identified by the customs experts, so the Committee had to give 
guidance and inform them.  With respect to the European Communities, th ey did not care whether 
there was a process for wet or dry, rather, it was im portant that the products and machines that were 
necessary for the production, testing, and assembly of  semiconductors were covered.  So they saw it 
as very broad coverage, because it would not make sen se, if it turned out that technically there were 
two processes possible, to eliminate one process versus the other.  So, with regard to number 1 , #122, 
apparatus for stripping or cleaning semi-conductor wa fers, their response was broad coverage and the 
products would be covered regardless if they were wet or dry processes. 
 
4.6 The delegate of the United States  agreed that both wet and dry processes should be covered, 
but the point was that since item #142 dealt with wet processes, it seemed redundant to include this 
description for #122.  Furthermore, if any partic ipant wanted to include subheadings 845610 or 
845620, they should have literature  to support their claim that stripping and cleaning could be 
performed by laser, other light, photon beam, or ultrasonic processes.  He noted that those two 6-digit 
subheadings were included in brackets for this item. 
 4.7 The delegate of Malaysia
 reported on the issue of apparatus for stripping or cleaning 
semiconductor wafers.  For the first question, they we re of the view that this process or rather the 
etching and stripping processes, were synonymous with  only the dry process.  Therefore if it was both 
etching and stripping, it was just the dry process.  However, she preferred to question her capital 
further and check whether this apparatus should also  cover both wet and dry processes, since they had 
indicated that etching and stripping were only synonymous with dry processes.    4.8 The Secretariat
 clarified the issue raised by the US in respect of classifications 845610 and 
845620.  If one looked at the report from the cust oms experts, those two classifications had been  G/IT/M/42
 Page 7 
 
 
eliminated or suggested for elimination.  The only ones that still remained outstanding with respect to 
this item were the three HS classifications at the top of the page ( 845691 , 845699, 847989).  
Furthermore, the two items not bolded (845699, 84 7989) were agreed, and the other one, 845691 was 
the one still under review due to the outstanding polic y issues, which related to the two questions put 
to the Committee.  Thus, classifications 845610 an d 845620 had been set aside earlier as no one 
supported them.   
 4.9 The Chairman
 turned to question number 2 , parts for machines for sawing monocrystal 
semiconductor boules into slices, or wafers into chips.    
4.10 The delegate of Japan
 stated that with regard to #129, tool holders, work holders, dividing 
heads, and other special attachments for machin es for sawing monocrystal semiconductor boules into 
slices or wafers into chips, were 'parts' specially designed for those machines and were covered by the 
ITA.  These parts were integral to the machine in order to perform their intrinsic functions and were 
not 'accessories'.  It was accepta ble for them to be classified in 846610, 846620 and 846630 as ITA 
products. 
 4.11 The delegate of the European Communities
 explained that the work of the customs experts 
was to look at the classification issues, and in those cases where there were difficulties with the 
classification issues, they suggested sending them to the WCO's Harmonized System Committee.  The 
problem with this item was a 'customs' versus 'tra de' language issue.  When  'parts' and 'accessories' 
were referred to in customs terminologies, there wa s a difference.  However, if the industry indicated 
that the reading should be 'parts and accessories', then the negotiators forgot to use the term 'and 
accessories'.  There were a number of examples wh ere the question was effectively--do you include 
some additional headings in the HS when only 'par ts' was referred to.  So for the EC, they believed 
one should read the text as 'parts and accessories' but  that was not for the customs experts to decide.  
That was the terminology that should have been u sed if the trade had used the customs language.  If 
the trade people had consciously followed the norma l language of customs, they would have actually 
said 'parts and accessories', because that would have b een the normal way of saying it.  So basically, 
from the Community perspective, it said  'parts', so that restricted it, but if it was meant to say 'parts 
and accessories' they would be more than happy with this outcome.  
4.12 The delegate of Malaysia
 agreed with the views of the EC for this item #129, parts for 
machines for sawing etc., as it could be considered both as 'accessories' and as 'parts', although she 
understood that some of these 'parts' were 'acces sories'.  It was a speci alised 'accessory' but 
indispensable for the functioning of the machine, so they considered them as both 'parts' and 
'accessories'. 
 
4.13 The delegate of the United States  indicated that his instructions did not clearly answer the 
question posed by the EC.  He was not sure if this  was 'parts and accessories' or just 'parts' so he 
would ask his capital for the answer to that  question and communicate it to the Committee. 
 4.14 The Chairman 
suggested that for item numbers 3, 4, and 5 , as the questions were the same as 
for item number 2, that the comments given on numbe r 2 would equally apply to numbers 3, 4 and 5.  
It was so agreed .  He turned to item number 6 , which was automated machines for the transport, 
handling, and storage of semiconductor wafers, etc.  4.15 The delegate of Japan
 stated that there were machines which had just one function and 
machines that had two or more functions, including  transport, handling, and storage.  The former 
machines and the latter machines were both e qually necessary for semiconductor manufacturing 
processes and both of them were covered by the ITA.  Therefore, both types of machines were included in #139.  G/IT/M/42 
Page 8  
 
4.16 The delegate of the European Communities
 shared the same point of view as Japan.  There 
were machines which were combined by two or mo re machines, so there were set-ups where there 
was a complete machine that carried out various functions or a modular set-up where there were 
several machines performing the functions.  
4.17 The delegate of the United States
 believed that #139 should be classified only in heading 
8428, which provided for 'other lifting, handling, loading or unloading machinery'.  The fact that the heading did not list 'storage' did not mean that these automated devices were excluded.  Any device that performed 'handling', 'loading', or 'unloading' mu st also be able to temporarily store the products 
being handled.  The US further believed that  the subheadings under heading 8479 were not 
appropriate.  Robots for handling these ITA articles were dedicated to this purpose and were not 
general purpose robots of subheading 847950.  Mach inery for storing these articles incorporated 
devices to load and unload the storage unit, and t hus were more specifically provided for in 8428 
rather than 847989.  
4.18 The delegate of Malaysia
 had similar views regarding the functions of the automated 
machines, and noted that automate d handling systems could be customised or configured to perform 
part or all of the functions during the initial insta llation, which could then be  upgraded to the complete 
system at a later stage to perform all the functions  mentioned.  Therefore, Malaysia believed that 
842839 and 842890 would be the appropriate cl assifications for this particular item. 
 
4.19 The Chairman  turned to item number 7  and noted that it posed the same question as the item 
number 2, so he proposed that the Committee take  note of the comments made under number 2 for 
this item as well.  It was so agreed .  With respect to number 8 , this had a certain relationship with 
number 6, as it was the 'parts' of automated ma chines for transport, handling, and storage of 
semiconductor wafers, etc.  Thus, if the Committee c ould resolve the issue of the machine, it would in 
turn address the issue of the 'parts', so he suggested skipping number 8 at this time, and revert to it 
after number 6 was addressed.  It was so agreed .  He then turned to number 9  which posed the same 
question as number 2, so once again he suggested th at the Committee take note of the comments made 
for number 2.  He turned to number 10 , which concerned wafer probers.   
 4.20 The delegate of Japan
 stated that with regard to #166, he believed that entire apparatus of 
wafer probers and their parts, which include tips and accessories, were all covered by the ITA.  Wafer 
probers in #166 denoted the entire apparatus of th e wafer prober and the 'tips' were their parts. 
 4.21 The delegate of the European Communities
 agreed with the position of Japan.  However, he 
noted that when negotiating the ITA, the term 'waf er prober' only appeared in the EU tariff under HS 
8536, which was a 'parts' heading.  Later, they f ound out that there were also products that were 
complete machines referred to as wafe r probers, and he also believed th at they were to be covered by 
the ITA.  4.22 The delegate of the United States
 noted that #166 was from Attachment A, Section 2.  When 
implementing the ITA, his delegation assumed that th e negotiators did not duplicate their efforts by 
referring to products twice.  All of subheading 903082 was covered in Attachment A, Section 2 and 
was not an 'ex-out' provision.  Wafer probers were sp ecifically listed in Attachment A, Section 2, with 
at indicative code of 853690.  The US and several  other participants had taken the position that a 
wafer prober was a type of electrical contact.  As such, subheading 853690 was applicable.  The 
machines for which the wafer probers were part of  were covered in Attachment A, Section 2; see 
903082 for instruments and apparatus for measuring or checking semiconductor wafers or devices.  
They interpreted it to mean that the ITA was to c over the part of the machines, which was not in a 
'parts' heading/provision.  Other administrations be lieved that the term wafer probers referred to the 
machine itself and notified only 903082.   G/IT/M/42
 Page 9 
 
 
4.23 The delegate of Malaysia  reported that her delegation did not have an answer to whether the 
entire apparatus or just the tip to probe was covered.  However, she noted that at the 6-digit level, it 
covered a number of items that were non-semiconduc tors, and therefore they may have to do some 
'ex-ing out' of the HS heading.  Although they did not have any preferences as to the two HS codes, 
she noted that since it was broad coverage, ther e needed to be an ex-out for both of them. 
 
4.24 The Chairman  turned to number 11  and noted it was a similar question as number 2 so he 
suggested that the Committee take note of the comm ents made under number 2 for this item as well.  
It was so agreed . 
 
4.25 The delegate of China  made a comment on the 11 questions.  His capital had prepared answers 
to the set of 20 questions, but they were in Chinese .  So due to the highly technical nature of the 
discussions, it would take them more time to translate them all into English.  4.26 The Chairman
 thanked China for their comment and as this was a first discussion, noted there 
would be an opportunity to come back to these issues. 
 4.27 The delegate of Japan
 stated that since the discussions we re very technical, he asked those 
delegations who had intervened to distribute their interventions in written form, perhaps as a room 
document.  
4.28 The Chairman
 proposed a possible way forward.  First, he thought it was a good initial 
discussion and the Committee had finally found a wa y to address these highly technical issues which 
started to make sense to the trade policy negotiators .  Secondly, he suggested that the Secretariat 
prepare a factual summary of the issues raised on the 11 items.  The summary would be issued as a 
working document of the Committee, and it would a llow delegations to consult with their capitals, 
consult with their experts on the issues, and revert to these issues in greater detail.  This would allow 
the Committee to resolve the differences and reach consensus on the policy issues, which in turn 
would determine the classifications.  Thereafter, he ho ped to arrive at a point where those items could 
be like Lists I (A) and I (B), and be endorsed.  Bu t the Committee was not there yet, and he thought 
that having a summary of the discussions would help in this regard.    
4.29 The delegate of the United States
 agreed with the direction provided by the Chairman, but 
suggested an elaboration of the procedures.  Ordi narily, in proceedings in  the WTO, individual 
members were not identified, as it was usually less st ressful that way.  In this case, because the topic 
was so technical and it was important to know what  others were talking about, it was imperative to 
have a dialogue between capital-based experts, ev en though they were not in the room.  So he 
suggested, that for each of the ite ms discussed, the positions laid out by the participants would be 
identified as such, and that areas of convergence, clear divergences, or lack of engagement be 
identified by the Secretariat.  Thus a qualitative an alysis should be provided.  If it was necessary to 
have a different set of questions, or the same qu estions, whatever was neces sary as long as they were 
pertinent, but it was important to build up a record and engage with each other.   He noted that China 
had material to submit, so he suggested this could be drafted directly into this summary document.  
He also had some additional information that was no t presented here, which could also be a part of the 
document.  He thought the valuable part would r eally be in this analytical section where the 
Secretariat could indicate the points of convergen ce or divergence, and additional questions that 
needed to be asked based on the discussions. 
 
4.30 The delegate of Malaysia  welcomed the suggestion of the Chairman to compile the 
information stated with respect to the 11 items.  Sh e agreed that they sometimes received instructions 
that could be shared with the Committee, but if there was a summary document, she asked if it could 
just be a compilation of what was said, without id entifying participants, unless delegations had a room 
document they wanted to submit.  As this was th e first exchange, she hoped that the summary would 
not identify delegations unless they wanted to be iden tified, so that there was still room to come back G/IT/M/42 
Page 10  
 
to the views at the next stage and they were not locked  in by the discussions today.  So if this could be 
done, she would appreciate the compilation of the is sues with the identification of convergence and 
divergence.  4.31 The Chairman
 referred to the suggestions made by th e US and Malaysia.  He thought that the 
summary could include both what had been said today and also other technical or detailed views 
delegations may have in writing which they would submit.  For those delegations who wanted to 
provide their more detailed comments, perhaps by th e end of next week to the Secretariat, that 
information would be incorporated into the docu ment, which would be a factual summary of the 
initial views expressed by delegations.  The second aspect concerned the identification of the 
participants.  He noted that this was a formal mee ting, so when the minutes of this meeting would be 
issued, each delegation would have its statement attri buted to itself.  That be ing said, perhaps for the 
purpose of the summary, which was not intended to be a narrative of what was said but rather a 
summary of what had been expressed orally, or in wr itten form, could be more generic.  He suggested 
that a special effort could be made by the Secretariat to have the minutes of the meeting drafted 
quickly and then there would also be a summary, with qualitative analysis and the identification of 
points where there were differences or convergen ce of views, including the possibility of providing 
further questions.  4.32 The delegate of Chinese Taipei
 supported the US suggestion to prepare a summary, as he 
thought it would be very useful.  Regarding addi tional information from delegations, his delegation 
had a very similar situation as China had just menti oned, therefore he asked if the deadline could be 
more flexible to allow more time.  4.33 The delegate of Malaysia
 noted that today’s meeting would be compiled into the minutes of 
the meeting, but she thought that this particular  discussion was in informal mode.  As it was a 
technical discussion, she assumed it was informal.  As a suggestion, she asked if the minutes could 
reflect that a discussion had taken place in the Committee on these 11 items, and the summary of the 
discussions, identifying countries that wanted be iden tified, would be attached.  For Malaysia she 
preferred that the document simply reflect that "there was one participant that said this or that, etc.".  
She preferred that type of arrangement if th ere were no objections from participants.  
 
4.34 The Chairman  referred to the question from Chinese Taipei and suggested to add an 
additional week, so the deadline would be Friday, 11 March 2005, for the submission of supplementary material.  Turning to Malaysia's poi nt, he proposed that given the discussion had taken 
place in formal mode, the summary would be issu ed as a separate document and as it was a summary, 
it would be more generic and not specifically identify  participants.  If delegations were interested in 
more specific details of what delegations had sai d, that information would be contained in the 
minutes.  So two documents would be in issued in a timely manner.  From this initial discussion, he thought there was a very good exchange of vi ews that had informed the Committee, without 
prejudicing any delegation that may have an e volving position.  He welcomed supplementary 
contributions from delegations by Friday, 11 March 2005.  He furthe rmore reminded delegations that 
at the next meeting the remaining 9 items of List V would be taken up, and if  time allowed, the first 
11 items would be reverted to. 
 4.35 It was so agreed
. 
 
5. Follow-up Discussions from the IT Symposium 
-Indicative List of Issues (G/IT/W/14) 
5.1 The Chairman  recalled that at the last formal meeti ng, the Committee requested the Secretariat 
to draw up a list of issues that had arisen from the Symposium.  These were suggestions that arose immediately following the Symposium itself, and dur ing the meetings since that time.  Thus, the  G/IT/M/42
 Page 11 
 
 
Committee had before it, document G/IT/W/15, contai ning the indicative list of issues.  From his view 
as Chairman, it seemed important to not lose this valu able work and information that has arisen from 
the Symposium, and therefore he thought it would be im portant for participants to give indications or 
feedback on what issues may be of importance to them  and may be of value for the Committee's work.   
 
5.2 The delegate of Japan  thanked the Secretariat for the indicative list of issues arising from the 
ITA Symposium last year.  The issues listed were  all important, but taking into account the emergence 
of new IT products and convergence of technologies at a very rapid speed, Japan believed that item 
numbers 2, 3, and 4  were the issues the Committee should give priority to.  It was important to not let 
the ITA become obsolete.  In add ition, he also believed number 6  was important, in more practical 
terms.  His delegation was concerned that the IT A product list, agreed in HS96 nomenclature, was 
behind as the world moved toward HS2007 nomenclatur e.  The agreed list and the real world were 
diverging, and the issue may become more compli cated and harm the effectiveness of the ITA.  
Therefore, he thought it would be helpful to make  a correlation table for the ITA products, including 
those classifications being discussed at the moment.  This would include HS96, HS2002, and HS 
2007 nomenclatures.  He furthermore noted that the NAMA negotiations were to be finalized in 
HS2002, so it would make it easier for NAMA negotia tors if the ITA product list could be put in 
HS2002, for the purposes of multilateral verification.  5.3 The delegate of the United States
 stated that with respect to item number 1 , the US supported 
further dialogue on this issue in the Committee, particularly where developing countries could offer 
further examples of how participation in the ITA had helped spur economic  growth and industrial 
development.  With developing country exports of  ITA products growing more than 10 percent per 
year it was more important than ever that other de veloping countries be encouraged to participate in 
the ITA.  With respect to number 2 , this would continue to be very  important as technology continued 
to rapidly evolve.  It would be important that th e ITA Committee continue to learn about and discuss 
these products, and as appropriate, forward them  for discussion to the NGMA where tariff 
concessions would be made as part of the Doha Round.  For number 3 , the conversion of product 
technologies was a growing issue in the classification of IT products, as evidenced by the Lists of 
classification divergences on IT products currently being examined by the Committee.  He believed 
that it would be increasingly important that th e Committee monitor these i ssues and closely follow 
how convergence of technologies may impact particip ants' implementation of the ITA.  Without a 
good process for resolution, these divergences and ty pes of problems would continue to occur. 
 5.4 With respect to product coverage of the ITA, item number 4
, he believed that this was a 
dynamic and rapidly evolving sector and the question of product coverage woul d continue to be an 
issue that the Committee would need to address.   As the WTO was currently in the midst of 
multilateral trade negotiations, he suggested that  it was important to continue discussing the 
importance of broadening the scope of the Agr eement in this Committee, and how it may be 
coordinated with work in conj unction with the NGMA, specifically the discussions on sectorial 
initiatives.  He stated he would appreciate heari ng from other delegations on how, and what was the 
best way to proceed on this issue.  On item numbers 5, 6 and 8 , they had expressed their position 
during other interventions in the agenda, so did not need to reiterate them.   
 
5.5 For number 9 , as mentioned previously, he believed th at the liberalization of information 
technology products through participation in the ITA had far reaching implicati ons for development.  
Opening markets to information technology products could benefit education, health, and other social 
initiatives in developing countries.  Further expl oration of these linkages could educate non-ITA 
participant developing countries on the benefits the Agreement could offer.  It would be important as 
the discussions in ITA Committee and the NGMA conti nued, that ITA participants continue to pass 
on this message to the larger WTO membership.  5.6 The delegate of Canada
 stated that in respect of item number 1 , he drew attention to the fact 
that a seminar was held on 21 February 2005 at the Canadian Mission which brought together G/IT/M/42 
Page 12  
 
participants of the World Summit on the Informa tion Society (WSIS) Prepcom and representatives of 
the WTO friends of telecom services and friends of computer-related services.  At this seminar, there were presentations made by the WTO Secretariat,  the Chairman of the WSIS Prepcom, the World 
Bank, and others.  This allowed for a full discu ssion of ICT trade liberalization and information 
society issues with a particular emphasis on devel opment.  They were especially pleased that the 
session was well attended by both developed and devel oping country participants and believed that 
these types of events, including the October 2004 ITA Symposium, could play a useful role in advancing both ICT trade liberali zation and development agendas. 
 5.7 The delegate of the European Communities
 expressed appreciation for the indicative list, 
which was helpful to focus on, as he found there we re four basic themes which were addressed.  One 
of the themes covered numbers 1, 9, and 10 , which was the theme of development.  He felt that this 
was certainly a very important subj ect which should be addressed furthe r in this work, and the US had 
already hinted to various links between the IT sector and other work in the WTO.  As for linkages, he 
also wanted to emphasize trade facilitation with  the computerization of customs procedures and 
processes, as this was also a link between the DDA and the IT sector.  So he was very much interested 
in addressing development aspects of the IT sector much further.  5.8 The second theme concerned product coverage, wh ich was in respect of numbers 2, 3, and 4
.  
The Communities had a distinct interest in the produc t coverage of the ITA.  He referred to the 
Chairman's usual statement under "other business" wher eby at the end of each meeting he reported on 
what had happened with the ITA II.  He stated that  in his opinion, this had not been put into the 
freezer, but rather still rested on the shelf.  Howe ver, there had not been any movement since 1998.  
So he wondered how to proceed and what could be done to address the product coverage in this 
context.  He wondered now that there was the DDA , and there were discussions in the NGMA, was it 
the appropriate body.  For item numbers 5 and 8 , as this concerned NTMs, he recalled the earlier 
exchange of views on that matter.  Finally, he refe rred to customs issues, and asked the Secretariat, 
who had drawn up the list, what was the difference between numbers 6 and 7 .  On the one hand there 
were issues and problems of HS classification that impeded the ability of producers to trade freely, 
which was somewhat linked to item number 3 .  For number 7 , there was reference to customs 
processes and procedures, so he wanted to  know some more about the two issues. 
 
5.9 The Secretariat  responded to the EC enquiry, first with respect to item number 7 .  It was meant 
to cover the general issue of customs processes and pr ocedures, one may use 'trade facilitation' type of 
things, i.e. the general issue of getting products across the border.  For number 6 , it was related to the 
subject discussed by one panellist when he referred to classification, but in fact it was also linked with 
the product coverage issue.  There were these ne w products that were being denied ITA duty-free 
treatment and there were problems with the classifi cation.  The panellist had suggested fixing the ITA 
to ensure clear coverage of these products, which the industry thought were covered. 
 5.10 The Chairman
 stated that it was a good discussion that provided some further ideas for the 
Committee.  He suggested that this matter be reverted to at the next meeting.  
 
5.11 The Committee took note  of the statements made and would revert to the matter  at the next 
meeting.  
6. New Participants 
6.1 The Chairman  stated that this item was placed on the agenda in case there was any new schedules that 
would be forthcoming and for anyone to make a statemen t with respect to this aspect of the work of the 
Committee.  However, at this point in time, there were no new schedules, nor any new pa rticipants to consider.   
 
6.2 The Committee took note  of the Chairman's statement. 
  G/IT/M/42
 Page 13 
 
 
7. Other Business 
7.1 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.   
 7.2 Furthermore, he proposed that  the Committee's next regular meeting be held on 11 April 2005, 
subject to further confirmation.   
__________