RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/MA/M/47 
7 November 2008 
 (08-5407) 
Committee on Market Access  
  
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 16 OCTOBER 2008 
 
Vice-Chairman: Mr. David Riley (United Kingdom)
 
  
Subject discussed
 Page  
 
1. Periodic report of the Committee to the Council for Trade  in Goods 
(G/MA/SPEC/39) ................................................................................................................. .....1 
2. Submission of HS96 documentation........................................................................................2  
3. Extension of the HS2002 waiver (G/C/W/601) .......................................................................4  
4. Extension of the HS2007 waiver (G/C/W/602) .......................................................................4  
5. Modalities and operation of the Integrated Data Base (IDB) ...............................................4  
6. Consolidated Tariff Sche dules (CTS) Database.....................................................................5  
7. Situation of schedules of WT O Members (G/MA/W/23/Rev.5)............................................6  
8. Transitional Review under Paragraph 18 of the Protocol of Accession of the 
People's Repub lic of China ..................................................................................................... .6 
9. Draft Report (2008) of the Committee to the Council for Trade in Goods 
(G/MA/SPEC/40) ................................................................................................................. ...10 
10. Election of Vice-Chairperson.................................................................................................10  
11. Other Bu siness................................................................................................................. ........10  
ANNEX I........................................................................................................................ .......................11  
ANNEX II ....................................................................................................................... ......................13  
ANNEX III...................................................................................................................... ......................14  
 
 
 In the absence of the Chairman, Dr Mohammad Saeed, the Vice-Chairman Mr. David Riley 
chaired the meeting pursuant to Rule 13 of the "R ules of Procedure for Meetings of the Committee on 
Market Access" (G/L/148).     The Committee adopted
 the agenda as reproduced in WTO/AIR/3252.  An annotated agenda 
was circulated in document JOB(08)/101. 
 
1. Periodic report of the Committee to the Council for Trade  in Goods (G/MA/SPEC/39) 
1.1 The Vice-Chairman  drew attention to document G/MA/SPEC/39 which contained the draft 
periodic report of the Committee.  He noted that this  report, which would be finalized in the light of G/MA/M/47 
Page 2  
 
  the discussion that would take place at this meeti ng, would be submitted to the Council for Trade in 
Goods (CTG) for examination.    1.2 He noted that there were no requests for ex tensions of HS96 waivers so no factual information 
on this issue had been provided in the Annex.  
 
1.3 The Committee took note
 of the periodic report1 and agreed  to forward it to the CTG for 
appropriate action.  
2. Submission of HS96 documentation 
2.1 The Vice-Chairman
 drew the Committee's attention to document G/MA/TAR/2/Rev.41. This 
document differed from the previous version insofar as references to the documents containing waiver 
extensions granted to Argentina and Panama had been included.  So the basic situation remained 
unchanged since the end of last year.  Th e HS96 submissions of Argentina and Panama  remained 
pending, and reactions from Venezuela were awaited in  respect of some documentation provided to it 
by the Secretariat.  
  2.2 Turning to the question of the uncertified HS96 changes, he recalled that at the April meeting 
the Chairman had raised the matter of the HS96 transpositions that had been undertaken by the 
Secretariat for a number of files in connection with the HS02 transposition exercise.  The files had been listed in JOB(05)/124/Add.2.  The issue f acing the Committee was that while the HS96 changes 
had been introduced to schedules, these changes ha d not been certified. The Committee had agreed 
that the Secretariat should look into this issue and come back with some ideas to address the matter.  
 2.3 Following some internal brainstorming, the S ecretariat wished to put before the Committee 
for its consideration the following approach which it  was hoped would impart legal certainty to those 
schedules containing the HS96 changes. This appr oach was based largely on the procedures the 
Committee was currently using in order to conduct the HS02 exercise.   2.4 The first step was: (1) the Secretariat would post on a specially created website the HS96 files 
of these Members;  (2) all Members including those whose files were posted would be given a certain 
period of time to examine those files; (3) after this  period of time had expired, an informal dedicated 
session of the Committee would be held in order to conduct a multilateral review of these files.  If 
there were comments on a file, the Committee would need  to revert to that file.  If there were no 
comments or objections raised on a file, then it would be certified in accordance with the Decision on Procedures for the Rectification and Modification of  Schedules. He recalled that this decision 
provided for the circulation of the documentation containing the proposed changes and provided three 
months to Members to examine the documentation, and to raise objections in case they had any. The 
Secretariat would prepare the documentation and would circulate it as it was doing under the HS02 procedures; (4) as this meant a departure from proced ures which had been used thus far to incorporate 
HS96 changes to schedules (see GATT document L/6905) , a specific decision by the General Council 
might be required.    
2.5 The representative of the United States
 wondered how many files were in this situation and 
how long it would take to post them on the website.   2.6 A member of the Secretariat
 (Mr. Jurgen Richtering) noted that there were about 65 files as 
mentioned in document JOB(05)/124/Add.2.  What the Secretariat intended to do was to extract from 
the CTS the headings that were concerned by the HS 96 transposition and to post this information on a 
country-by-country basis in special databases just as  was being done for the HS02 files. This could be 
                                                      
1 Issued as G/MA/216.  G/MA/M/47 
 Page 3 
 
 
  done at fairly short notice.  On the other hand, pr oviding standardized corr elation tables would be 
time-consuming and burdensome.  He further noted that these files had been on the website for five or 
six years, so many Members were familiar with th em which meant that there should not be too many 
problems in obtaining final approval.  So, the short answer was that the posting could be done quickly, 
but the Secretariat would then not provi de standardized correlation tables. 
 
2.7 The representative of the United States  wondered whether the Committee was going to be 
obliged to examine 65 files in a single meeting or w ould the process be staged. He also assumed that 
those HS96 files certified under the old proc ess would not be part of the new one.  
 
2.8 A member of the Secretariat  (Suja Rishikesh Mavroidis) stated that the intention was to post all 
the files at the same time and then to conduct the multilateral review where th e question asked would be 
"Does anybody have any objections to any of the 65 files?".  Also it had to  be noted that Members 
would have had time to examine these files prior to the meeting. The time accorded could be 6 months 
or even a year. That was for the Committee to decide.  Finally, the files which had followed or were still 
following the existing procedures under L/6905 would not be subject to this process. 
 2.9 The representative of the United States
 preferred to leave open th is question of timing.  He 
needed to consult with his authorities to see how much  time they thought was required to deal with these 
65 files.   But, the Committee could take an in itial decision and then change it if necessary.  
 
2.10 The representative of Argentina  said that he would need to consult with his authorities as 
regarded this process.  He also wanted to ensure that this pro cess would not be re-opening any old 
files. He also wondered whether such a process mi ght not incite a greater number of comments on 
files which were almost concluded.     
2.11 A member of the Secretariat
 (Suja Rishikesh Mavroidis) stated  that there was some risk of 
comments being made on files if Members examined these files very closely. They might discover issues which they had previously ignored. The advant age that the Secretariat saw in this process was 
the legal certainty that would be provided to the HS 96 changes at the end of the process.  In theory, 
the procedures which were contained in GATT doc ument L/6905  and which we re developed in 1991 
were supposed to be followed by GATT contracting parties in order to introduce HS96 changes to 
their schedules.  However, only some 40 Members had actually followed these procedures. Given that 
the Secretariat had done the work in the context of the HS02 exercise, it would be a pity to not benefit from this opportunity and to give this work a legal standing through certification of the changes. This 
explained the approach that was described whose objective it would be to certify these changes.  
Another option was to leave the situation as was, but  the question was whether one preferred a tidy or 
an untidy situation.  Argentina's file, as well as all others,  which had followed the L/6905 procedures 
would not be re-opened under these new procedures.    2.12 The representative of the United States
 asked whether adoption of these procedures would 
lead to a  certification of HS96 changes for the entire WTO Membership.   
2.13 A member of the Secretariat
 (Suja Rishikesh Mavoridis) stated that that would be the 
objective of this exercise.   2.14 The Vice-Chairman
 noted that this should be the Committee's collective objective and if the 
Committee could find a creative way to achieve that objective then it was in Members' interests. If 
Members thought that this might be the way to pr oceed then he proposed that the Secretariat could 
together with the Legal Affairs Division draw up a draft decision based on the outlined procedures. 
Once this had been done, the Vice-Chairman would c onsult on it with Members and once finalized the 
Committee could approve it and forward it to the General Council for formal adoption.   G/MA/M/47 
Page 4  
 
  2.15 The Committee so agreed
. 
 
3. Extension of the HS2002 waiver (G/C/W/601) 
3.1 The Vice-Chairman  recalled that a number of Members we re given an extension or granted a 
new waiver, through the form of a "collective decision", in order to introduce HS2002 changes 
domestically and to subsequently introduce these ch anges to their respective schedule of concessions 
and to undertake negotiations if re quired.  This waiver decision w as contained in document WT/L/712 
and would expire on 31 December 2008.    3.2 He noted that a number of the Members covere d by this waiver had yet to complete the HS02 
exercise and therefore he proposed that it be exte nded for another year.  If the Committee could agree 
to that then he would propose that the draft waiv er decision granting such an extension and contained 
in G/C/W/601 be forwarded to the CTG for approval .  At the same time, he observed that some 
Members might not require the waiver extension b ecause they had completed the  HS02 exercise.  He 
was thinking of for example Singapore who had no w a certified HS02 file.  The Secretariat would 
check this directly with such Members.  
 3.3 The representative of Singapore
 stated that he would need to consult with his capital to see if 
Singapore's name could be withdrawn from the list in the annex.    3.4 The Vice-Chairman
 indicated that such information shoul d be provided to the Secretariat at 
least ten days before the next CTG meeting.   
 3.5 The Committee agreed
 to forward the draft decision, amended as might be required2, to the 
CTG for approval.  4. Extension of the HS2007 waiver (G/C/W/602) 
4.1 The Vice-Chairman
  recalled that a number of Members were granted a waiver,  through the 
form of a "collective decision", in order to introduce HS2007 changes domestically and to 
subsequently introduce these changes to their r espective schedule of concessions and to undertake 
negotiations if required. This decision was contai ned in document WT/L/713 and would expire on 
31 December 2008.    Given that the HS2007 exercise  was far from over,  he proposed that the waiver 
be extended for a year.  If the Committee could agr ee to that then he also  proposed that the draft 
waiver decision granting such an extension and contained in document G/C/W/602 be forwarded to 
the CTG for approval.   4.2 The Committee agreed
 to forward the draft decision to the CTG for approval. 
 
5. Modalities and operation of the Integrated Data Base (IDB) 
- Status of submission of the required documen tation (G/MA/IDB/2/Rev.28) and Report by the 
Secretariat  
 5.1 The Vice-Chairman
 referred to document G/MA/IDB/2/Rev .28 which had been circulated to 
all Members and presented the situation of  IDB submissions as of 1 October 2008. 
 
5.2 A member of the Secretariat  (Mr. Jurgen Richtering) introduced the report which is contained 
in Annex I. 
                                                      
2 Singapore requested that its name be removed from the list of Members annexed to the decision, and 
the decision was re-issued as G/C/W/601/Rev.1.  G/MA/M/47 
 Page 5 
 
 
  5.3 The Committee took note  of the report. 
 
6. Consolidated Tariff Schedules (CTS) Database 
- Introduction of HS2002 changes to schedul es of concessions using the CTS Database  
(WT/L/605) – Report by the Secretariat on the status of work  
 
6.1 The Vice-Chairman  recalled that the Committee had held a multilateral review on 
16 April 2008, and another one just preceding this meeting.  As provided in paragraph 14 of the 
HS2002 procedures, the Secretariat had circulated  periodic reports for those meetings in the 
JOB(06)/8 series.   
 
6.2 A member of the Secretariat  (Mr. Jurgen Richtering) introduced the report which is contained 
in Annex II.  6.3 The Vice-Chairman
 referred to the Secretariat request to  post to the CTS website also the 
HS02 files of those Members which had successful ly passed the multilateral review but where the 
approval of the Member whose file had passed th e review was still missing which meant that these 
files remained uncertified.  As the Secretariat ha d  indicated, Members would have two months to 
review the files and to provide input before the f iles went out for wider dissemination to authorized 
users.   There were many benefits to the increased use of this data including its verification.  He 
wondered whether the Committee could agree to the posting on the CTS website of these files? 
 
6.4 The Committee took note  of the report and agreed   to the Secretariat request. 
 6.5 The representative of the European Communities
 stated that he wished to explain the situation 
of the EC schedule because as everyone had notic ed that the EC schedule was one of the four 
schedules that had not gone through the multilatera l review. The background was that the EC had 
been going through regular enlargements in recent hist ory.  As a consequence, the EC had to negotiate 
under Article XXIV:6 a new schedule which then in cluded compensation that was negotiated with 
those Members that had recognized claims afte r the enlargement. The exercise of the EC-12 
enlargement to EC-15 had concluded in 1995.  The ag reements with all partners concerned had been 
negotiated, signed and implemented since that da te. The EC had then presented a new schedule CXL 
on behalf of the EC-15 in 1996. However, there had been since 1996 four outstanding reservations on 
that schedule.  Those reservations did not relate to  the actual content of the schedule because that had 
been negotiated. However, those re servations continued to be mainta ined and for that reason the EC 
HS96 as well as the  EC HS02 transposition work w as blocked. This situation was not in anyone's 
interest and would cause problems when Members had to start preparing the Electronic Negotiating 
Files for the DDA.  This process need ed to move forward and in that connection he wished to state for 
the record that until outstanding reservations on EC's  schedule CXL had been lifted, the EC would not 
agree to the approval of the HS02 files of Au stralia, New Zealand and the United States.  
 6.6 The Committee took note
 of the statement.  
 
- Introduction of HS2007 changes to schedul es of concessions using the CTS Database  
(WT/L/673) – Report by the Secretariat on the status of work  
 6.7 The Vice-Chairman
 noted that pursuant to paragraph 2 of the procedures contained in 
WT/L/673, those Members preparing their own HS 07 files were supposed to submit the required 
information to the Secretariat no later than 30 September 2007. He underst ood that Australia and 
Canada had submitted their HS07 files.     G/MA/M/47 
Page 6  
 
  6.8 A member of the Secretariat
 (Mr. Jurgen Richtering) introduced the report which is contained 
in Annex III.  6.9 In light of the Secretariat report, the Vice-Chairman
 proposed that the Committee hold an 
informal meeting early next year to go through so me of the technical issues raised.  The discussion 
would be based on a technical paper to be prepared  and circulated by the Secretariat early 2009.  
 6.10 The representative of the United States
 thanked the Secretariat for pushing this issue forward.  
He understood that the Secretariat ha d been consumed by other issues but believed that it was time for 
the Committee to turn its attention to the HS07 transp osition exercise.  It would have been almost two 
years that those procedures had been in place and only two HS07 files had been submitted.  Obviously 
for those developed countries producing their own fil es as well as for the  five developing Members  
wishing to prepare their own files and having so not ified, the Committee needed to come up with a 
revised timing for their submission. It was always  good to be working against a deadline. So, he 
proposed that the Chairman hold consultations with  those Members preparing their own HS07 files to 
come up with an agreed date for submission of th ese files, recognizing that the Secretariat was going 
to be launching into this effort early in 2009.  He al so wished to suggest that the Chairman consult on 
the next steps in the process wh ich was the multilateral review.  The Committee had just been 
proposed a set of procedures for verifying about 65 HS 96 files that currently had not been certified by 
Members.  He thought that something similar could be proposed for the HS07 files as well.   
6.11 The Vice-Chairman
 noted that there were two proposals from the United States. The first was 
that the Chairman consult with those delegations  preparing their own HS07 files to agree on a 
deadline for the submission of those files.  The second one was that the Committee explore adopting a 
similar system to the one that had been discussed  earlier today under the agenda item B concerning 
the HS96 changes.   If there were no comments on th ese proposals, he proposed that in respect of the 
latter one the Committee adopt a similar procedure as  discussed under agenda item B, namely that the 
Secretariat draft a decision which elaborated on such procedures.  The Committee would need to 
discuss and finalize this decision before forwar ding it to the General Council  for adoption.  
 6.12 The Committee took note
 of the report and  agreed  with the proposals made.  
 7. Situation of schedules of WTO Members (G/MA/W/23/Rev.5) 
7.1 The Vice-Chairman
 noted that the Secretariat had prepared a document G/MA/W/23/Rev.5 
which provided information on the situation of schedules of WTO Members.   7.2 The Committee took note
 of the document.  
 
8. Transitional Review under Paragraph 18 of th e Protocol of Accession of the People's 
Republic of China 
- Questions and/or Comments submitted to Chin a by the European Communities, Japan and the 
United States in documents G/MA/W/95,  G/MA/W/93 and G/MA /W/94, respectively  
8.1 The Vice-Chairman  noted that the Committee would be conducting its seventh transitional 
review (TRM).  In this respect, he noted that a number of comments and questions had been put to 
China  by Japan, the United States and the European Communities in that order.   
 8.2 The representative of China
 was happy to have the opportunity to exchange views with 
Members on  issues of mutual interest.  He acknow ledged reception of questions from Japan and US.  
With regard to the EC communication, his dele gation had received the doc ument only yesterday and 
had immediately forwarded it to the capital. His ca pital was still processing the paper.  After studying  G/MA/M/47 
 Page 7 
 
 
  the questions from Japan and US, his delegation foun d that quite a number of them focused on export 
measures related to China.  He pointed out th at although his delegation was willing to clarify 
questions from Members in this Committee, it would not be appropriate to deal with export issues 
here.  Members had to observe the mandate of th e Committee on Market Access. He urged Members 
to study carefully the specific provisions of China's Protocol of Accession and especially Article 18 
concerning the transitional review as well as Annex 1A  for the specific information requirements. His 
delegation believed that A nnex 1A of China's Protocol of Accession clearly stipulated that issues 
regarding export administration should be dealt with  in the CTG. He recalled that last year his 
delegation had raised a similar concern and had gi ven a similar reminder to Members.  If Members 
could observe strictly the provisions which governed this exercise, it would facilitate the participation 
of Members, the smooth functioning of this Committee as well as the preparation of responses by his 
capital. For those issues related to export administ ration, China would respond to them in the session 
of the CTG. Although, his delegation had  seen the EC document only yesterday a quick glance over 
that document seemed to indicate that some of those questions were not new but old and were contained in previous submissions.  China recalle d that in earlier such sessions, China had reminded 
the EC to study carefully what the proper mandate of each Committee was to handle certain type of 
questions. China had felt that some of the questi ons raised by EC fell beyond the mandate of this 
Committee and fell under the purview of Committe es like TBT, TRIMs or General Council.   
 8.3 He wished to clarify the issue from the US regarding Diammonium Phosphate or DAP. From the US document, it seemed that the US regard ed MAP and DAP as competitive similar products 
which was obviously not China's view. In China, DAP was directly applied to manure while MAP 
was used mainly to produce a compound or mixed speci al fertilizers. Therefore they were not directly 
competitive or substitutable products in China. Rega rding the VAT on MAP and DAP, the Minister of 
Finance of China and the State Administration Taxation had promulgate d announcement No. 113 in 
2003 which exempted VAT on MAP while still imposing VAT on DAP.   China did not think that 
there was any breech of national treatment commitme nt because  in China there had been domestic 
production of DAP since 1965.  So, the VAT for DAP had been in place both for domestic and imported product. The final point on this issue w as a piece of good news for the US which was that 
China had already adjusted the VAT policy on DAP in 2007 for the purpose of stimulating the 
development of agriculture in face of the food crises all over the world. According to the Minister of 
Finance and the State Administration Taxation Announcement No. 171 of 2007 and the Minister of 
Finance and the State Administration Taxation Ann ouncement No.158 of 2007 and also according to 
a circular last year by the General Administrati on of Customs,  VAT on both domestic and imported 
DAP was exempted since 1 January 2008.  China belie ved that with this deve lopment the concerns of 
the US had been properly addressed.   
8.4 The representative of Japan
 thanked China for the initial res ponses and stated that the TRM 
was an important opportunity to ensure transparen cy,  to regularly update the state of  China's 
implementation of its commitments under the WTO,  and to mutually improve understanding on the 
interests and concerns among Members.  Japan welcom ed the fact that there had been certain progress 
made on the issues that had been rai sed in the past and thanked China fo r their efforts in this regard.  
However, as pointed out in Japan's communicati on in document G/MA/W/93, there still remained a 
number of unresolved issues which his delegation wished  to raise.  Mainly those relating to export 
restrictions and export taxes. While  the details of Japan's concern c ould be found in Japan's document, 
he wished to share with Members the points on wh ich Japan sought responses from China. Firstly, on 
the issue of export restrictions and export taxes on no n-ferrous metal.  On this  point, Japan understood 
that China implemented export licensing system on  various kinds of non-ferrous metals such as 
rare-earths, silver, zinc and so on.  In June 2007, some of these non-ferr ous metals had become 
subject to quantitative trade restrictions and the numb er of export licenses issued had been declining.  
In this respect,  Japan sought explanations on how China justified its export licensing scheme under 
the GATT.  Further, whether there were restri ctions in China on domestic production and/or 
consumption of these products, together with specifi c quantitative data.  On non-ferrous metal,  Japan G/MA/M/47 
Page 8  
 
  understood that China levied export taxes on a number  of products despite the fact that China had 
committed to eliminate export taxes for all products ex cept for those listed in Annex 6 to its Protocol 
of Accession. Japan wished to know how Chin a justified those export taxes under its accession 
commitments to the WTO together with China's plans for eliminating export licensing measures and 
export taxes.   
 
8.5 Secondly, on the issue of export taxes on chemi cal fertilizers and their raw materials, similar 
to the point made earlier on non-ferrous metals, Jap an wished to seek clarification from China on how 
it justified these export taxes under its WTO accession commitments.   
8.6 Thirdly, on the issue of export restrictions and export taxes on coal, Japan understood that 
China was implementing an export licensing scheme on coal and that the number of licenses issued 
had been declining in recent years while domestic  production and consumption of coal in China 
seemed to be increasing. Given such a situation, it was unclear to Japan whether such an export 
licensing scheme could be justified under GATT Arti cle XX(g) and thus, whether it was inconsistent 
with GATT Article XI.  Japan sought clarification from China on this point. Further, Japan 
understood that China levied export taxes on coal a nd wished to seek clarification from China on how 
it justified these export taxes under its commitmen ts to eliminate these taxes upon WTO accession. 
 8.7 Lastly, on the issue of export restrictions a nd export taxes on coke, similar to the points made 
earlier, Japan wished to seek cl arification from China on how it jus tified its export restrictions under 
the GATT and its export taxes under its commitments to eliminate these taxes in its Protocol of 
Accession.  Japan looked forward to hearing th e responses from China and where necessary, was 
willing to discuss the matter with China further in detail.  As China had mentioned,  if China was 
willing to respond to these questions in the meeti ng of CTG,  Japan would be duly submitting the 
same questions to that Council meeting.  
 
8.8 The representative of the United States
 thanked China for the responses that China had given 
at this meeting,  in particular the good news on DA P. Like Japan, the United States had questions that 
it wished to pose with respect to  export quotas and export duties particularly those that affected 
natural phosphates and yellow phosphorus.  His delegati on thought that the system as it was currently 
implemented in China resulted in an artificially low price in China compared to the world price giving 
an unfair advantage to Chinese consumers of these pr oducts.  On the one hand it was clear that this 
was an issue that could be taken up in the CTG.  However, his delegation did also see these issues as 
clearly falling within the jurisdiction of the Market  Access Committee.  There was nothing that should 
prevent Members from asking questions and receivi ng answers on these issues in this Committee.  
But he had taken note of the statement by China a nd he expected that Members would see these issues 
again in the CTG review. 
 8.9 The representative of the European Communities
 stated that China's TRM was part of China's 
accession and he believed that the Committee had to ma ke it as useful as possible. In that connection, 
his delegation thought that written an swers could be very useful.  He admitted that the EC questions 
had come in relatively late as China had said.  Bu t on the other hand, as also said by China, these 
questions basically had not changed much since last year because the problems had very much 
remained the same. Therefore, he hoped that it would not be too di fficult for the Chinese authorities to 
provide answers to these questions and he hoped that  China had found it useful to have this reminder 
from the EC as to where it thought there were pr oblems in the Chinese market and where this may 
cause problems with China's WTO obligations.  He also admitted that certain issues were maybe 
services-related for example, retail. But frankly, in dustry in the EC did not care in which of the 
Committees these questions were discus sed.  If China preferred to reply in the Services Council, that 
was perfectly acceptable. One area where the EC text  differed from last year's was in the area of 
export restrictions where he was afraid that Chin a was moving in the wrong direction. Instead of 
removing export restrictions which was what Chin a should do, new restrictions were coming into  G/MA/M/47 
 Page 9 
 
 
  place and some of them were actually very seri ous.  In this context, he wished to mention 
phosphorous. His delegation looked forward to answer s to those questions and such answers could be 
in the CTG if that was China's preference.  8.10 The representative of Switzerland
 stated that as many Members knew Switzerland had no 
natural resources and depended on imports. Free access to raw materials was therefore of crucial 
importance for her country.  Her delegation shar ed the concerns expressed by US, Japan and EC 
regarding exports taxes and other measures imposed by China on a certain number of raw materials.  
Switzerland's special concern related to the in crease of the export tax on yellow phosphorous from 
20% to 120% as of 20 May 2008, and the imposition of a minimum export price on that product.  
Switzerland very much encouraged and welcomed the answers that China would provide to clarify the 
purpose of the increase of the export tax on  yello w phosphorous beyond what was in China's Protocol 
of Accession as well as the imposition of a mi nimum export price on yellow phosphorous. She 
thanked China for continuing the bilateral dialogue on this issue.  
8.11 The representative of China
 thanked the Members who had expressed their views or concerns. 
and wished to make some additional clarifications. Concerning the request or the wish of the EC to 
see a written response from China to questions under the TRM.   On this subject, China was prepared 
to abide strictly by the provisions of China's Pr otocol of Accession, specifically paragraph 18. If 
paragraph 18 said that China was obliged to provid e answers in written form then China would have 
done so. China was prepared to do as the Protocol of Accession provided, no more no less. Therefore, 
he urged Members to refrain from raising requests th at went beyond those provisions.  China had been 
taught many times that this was a rules-based or ganisation.  He wished to remind Members that 
everyone should observe the rules. With regard to the point raised by the EC that EC industry did not care where an issue was handled, he noted that  the EC document was a broad-based document, 
covering a lot of issues. Some of these issues had nothing to do with China's WTO accession 
commitments or WTO rules at all. For instance,  some aspects of China's industrial policies or 
investment policies were covered.  But given that the TRIMs mandate was a limited one not all 
investment issues could be handled under general item TRM in the TRIMs Committee.  As mentioned 
by the EC, the issue of retail could perhaps be discu ssed in the Services Council.   China was ready to 
exchange views with EC on all those issues of concern under the proper agenda item in the proper 
place. He wanted to make that point clear. The last  point he wanted to make was in response to the 
comments made by Switzerland.  Bilateral efforts we re underway to exchange views and to intensify 
consultations. As a matter of fact, there was a high-leve l bilateral consultation either late last month or 
beginning of this month between China's vi siting Vice-Minister in Geneva and Swiss 
Ambassador Wasescha on this issue. After that meeti ng,  China had already appointed an official from 
the WTO Affairs Department of the Minister of Co mmerce to prepare the ground for further bilateral 
exchanges with the Swiss.   China was prepared to continue th is dialogue to try to find whether a 
mutually acceptable solution could be found.  8.12 The Vice-Chairman
 believed that all delegations wishi ng to take the floor had done so. 
Regarding the report3 of the review to the CTG, as in prev ious years, it would be a brief factual 
paragraph indicating that the review took place,  an acknowledgment of th e documentation submitted 
pursuant to the review, and a reference to the discuss ions that took place, as reflected in the minutes 
of this meeting.    8.13 The Committee took note
 of the statements.  
 
                                                      
3 Issued as G/MA/217. G/MA/M/47 
Page 10  
 
  9. Draft Report (2008) of the Committee to the Council for Trade in Goods 
(G/MA/SPEC/40) 
9.1 The Vice-Chairman
 noted that the Committee was required to submit annually a report on its 
activities to the CTG.  A draft report, covering th e activities of the Committee in 2007, was circulated 
in document G/MA/SPEC/40.  The report w ould be updated in light of the meeting4.  
 
9.2 Further, he noted that following the previous  year's procedure, the updated draft report would 
be sent to the Members by fax, and if no comment s were forthcoming within a certain time period 
then it would be considered adopted.  If there were minor changes, a revised report would be 
circulated with the changes mark ed clearly and if no comments were  submitted within a certain time 
frame, the revised report would be considered adopted. However, if the changes were more 
substantive in nature he would then had to  consider convening an informal meeting. 
 9.3 The Committee so agreed
.     
 10. Election of Vice-Chairperson 
10.1 The Vice-Chairman
 noted that the Chairman had completed his informal consultations on a 
Vice-Chair of the Committee for 2008.  On this basis, he proposed to elect Mr Barney Riley 
(New Zealand) as Vice-Chairman of this Committee by acclamation.   10.2 The Committee elected
 Mr Barney Riley as Vice-Chairman for 2008. 
 
11. Other Business 
- Date of the next meeting  
 11.1 The Committee took note
 that its next meeting would take place in the spring of 2009.   
                                                      
4 Final report was circulated as G/L/865.  G/MA/M/47 
 Page 11 
 
 
  ANNEX I 
 
Integrated Data Base  
 
 On IDB Submissions since the circulation of the Status of Submissions document, 
G/MA/IDB/2/Rev.28, the Secretariat received the following submissions: 
  •         Republic of Korea 2007 imports and 2008 tariff data •         Dominican Republic 2008 tariff data •         Tunisia 2008 tariff data 
•         Bangladesh 2008 tariff data 
•         Bahrain 2007 tari ff data and 2005-2007 import data 
•         Qatar 2003 tariff data •         Oman 2002, 2003 and 2007 tariff data •         United Arab Emirates  2003 tariff data and 2001-2006 imports 
  
IDB Dissemination and Uses
 
   Due to the resource reallocation for the DD A negotiations and the preparation of the 
electronic negotiating files, in particular in the second quarter of 2008, the Secretariat had not loaded IDB information onto the IDB Internet File Transf er Facility since April 2008. At present, the IDB 
Section's work priorities are again rebalanced towa rds a more regular work plan and the next IDB 
load is scheduled for the end of October. Current ly,  795 country-periods, covering data for 110 out of 
the 125 Members' schedules and data for five accedi ng countries, are available on the IDB website.   
   The following Members have not yet submitted any information to the IDB: Cambodia, Cape 
Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Democrat ic Republic of the Congo, Guinea Bissau, Haiti, 
Mozambique, Saudi Arabia and Viet Nam.    On the uses of IDB and CTS data I would like to mention:   •           IDB and CTS continue to be used for ad hoc requests from Members and the Secretariat; most 
 of these are related to the ongoing negotiations; 
•           They were used in the World Tariff Profiles 2008 publication, which will be launched on 
 17 October in a joint event, hosted by ITC; •           IDB and CTS are being used in the preparation of the electronic negotiating files.   
Technical Assistance
 
   Since the last meeting of the CMA in Ap ril 2008 the following TA activities have been 
undertaken:   - Regional NAMA workshops in: 
 
•
          Ecuador for Latin American countries 
•      Jamaica for the Caribbean countries •      China for the Asian countries   
- National workshops on Market Access and tariff data in: 
 • Pakistan, Gabon   G/MA/M/47 
Page 12  
 
   The IDB and CTS were also presented in the regional Trade Policy courses in Singapore and 
Benin.     Software Development
 
  
 The Secretariat has upgraded th e Internet Analysis Facility (IAF) to .NET technology and at 
the same time has introduced a number of improveme nts.  The application is currently being tested 
and, barring technical difficulties, will be released to  Members before the end of the year.  At that 
time the Secretariat will offer again training sessions for all newcomers and all those that would like 
to freshen up their skills in usin g this online analysis tool.  A fax indicating dates for the training 
sessions in the three official languages w ill then be sent out to all delegations. 
   The portable IAF as well as the CTS CD-ROM, bot h with data updates, will be distributed in 
January 2009.    
 The passwords to access the IDB/CTS intern et facilities were due to be changed in 
June 2008.  This was postponed because of the nego tiations and the Secretariat will distribute new 
passwords in January 2009.  G/MA/M/47 
 Page 13 
 
 
  ANNEX II 
Consolidated Tariff Schedule Database  
 HS02
 TRANSPOSITION  
  I will just give you a brief summary of the work on the HS2002 files.  A revised full report 
was issued as JOB(06)/8/Rev.8 on  6 October 2008.  The status of the HS 02 transposition is as 
follows:  A.
      4 draft HS02 files remain to be to be prepared 
B.      9 draft HS02 files have been completed and sent to Members for review (excluding files that 
are due for multilateral review)  
C.      10 draft HS02 files are currently released for multilateral review 
D.      66 HS02 files have been reviewed during passed the multilateral review 
E.      29 HS02 files are certified /or in the process for certification   
 
 I would just like to point out again that the number of certified files could be much higher if 
more Members could signal approval for their own files. The number of files subject to the transposition and having passed the multilateral re view has now reached 80 per cent of the WTO 
Membership.    
 The remaining work, apart from minor tariff line revisions, concerns only about 15 files and is 
basically in two areas:  1.
          More extensive follow up work on files that have  already been sent out to Members.  Here we 
have to verify and reconcile Members' subm issions or comments with the Secretariat's 
version.  This requires often contacts with nati onal experts to explain the Secretariat process 
and position and to better unders tand the Members' concerns. 
2.          Two HS 1996 transpositions are also still in the pipeline.  
  Since the vast majority of Members have by now seen their files approved and about a quarter of them are certified in their HS 2002 version it is time to reflect this in the CTS and make these files 
available to all authorized users subject to th e IDB/CTS dissemination policy (See G/MA/115).  The 
Secretariat  will therefore  post to the WTO IDB/ CTS website as of end October the HS 2002 version 
of the CTS for the certified files.  This should lead to a wider dissemination of these files and enable a broader range of users to use these files in their trade policy work.    
 Likewise, if no objection is raised, the Secretar iat would like to post to the website also the 
HS2002 version of the CTS for all other Member s that have successfully passed the multilateral 
review and where only their own approval to the HS 02 transposition is still outstanding.  The situation 
would thus be comparable to the HS96 transpos ition where we have for a large number of Members 
only the Secretariat version as reflected  in the current HS96 based CTS.   
 
 In any case, the files would first be posted to the provisional area, giving Members two 
months during which they can review the files a nd give us feedback before they go for wider 
dissemination but again only to authorized users.     From past experience we have learned that only through increased use and scrutiny of the 
CTS will we be able to achieve the reassurance that the electronic files reflect correctly the underlying 
commitments.  G/MA/M/47 
Page 14  
 
  ANNEX III 
Consolidated Tariff Schedule Database
 
 HS07
 TRANSPOSITION  
  Little progress was made in the HS 2007 transpos ition work on the side of the Secretariat and 
also on the side of Members there has been no ne w submission since October 2007.  The reasons for 
this was the focus on the very h eavy workload related to the nego tiations. Nevertheless, we have 
completed the review of HS 2007 submission of Ca nada and we are now working on Australia's file. 
Those two files could be made ready for multilateral review in early 2009. 
  The Secretariat plans to prepare a document which describes how it intends to implement the 
HS 2007 procedures adopted by the General Counc il in December 2006 (see document WT/L/673).  It 
will be based on lessons learned from the HS 2002 transposition.  This guideline will provide 
Members more details about HS 2007 changes and how the Secretariat intends to deal with them in 
transposing developing Member's schedules and re viewing Member's submissions.  The document 
will address   ·         The treatment of each HS 2007 change at HS 6-digit subheading level  ·         Methodology for reviewing Members' submissions  
·         Formats of the files prepared by the Secretariat for Members' comments and multilateral review  
·         Work plan   It is planned to issue this document for review by Members in early 2009.    
 In order to better manage the workload of the Secretariat, I would like to remind delegations 
that developing Members who intend to prepare their own transposition, need to notify the Secretariat as soon as possible. So far we have rece ived only 5 notifications from Members. 
 
Regular work
 
  As concerns the regular work on the CTS the focus is now on the preparation of complete 
CTS files in HS 2002 for all Members that passed th e multilateral review; this includes the integration 
of specific commitments in agriculture (tariff quotas and export subsidies) affected by both the HS96 
and HS02 transpositions with the unaffected parts into a revised CTS format.   
 The files of newly acceded Members Cape-Verde and Ukraine have been posted to the FTF 
site in early October.           
__________