RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/IT/M/48 
2 November 2007 
 (07-4767) 
Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in 
Information Technology Products  
 
 
 
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 29 MARCH 2007 
 
Chairman: Mr. Martin Pospíšil (Czech Republic)  
Agenda of the Meeting           P a g e  
 
1. Review of the Status of Implementation of the Ministerial Declaration on Trade 
in Information Technology Pr oducts (G/IT/1/Rev.39) ..........................................................1  
2. EMC/EMI Pilot Project - Draft List of the Types of Conformity Assessment 
Procedures for EMC/EMI used by IT A Participants (G/IT/W/17/Rev.3)...........................2  
3. Non-tariff Measures Work Programme (G/IT/SPEC/Q4/19/Rev.2 and 
G/IT/SPEC/Q2/11/Rev.1) ......................................................................................................... 3 
4. Divergences in Classifying In formation Technology Products 
(G/IT/14/Rev.1/Add.1, G/IT/W/6/Rev.3, and G/IT/W/11).....................................................3  
5. Follow-up Discussions from the IT Symposium.....................................................................6  
6. Proposals from the United States Concerning Product Coverage of the Current 
ITA ............................................................................................................................ ...............12  
7. New Participants ............................................................................................................... ......16  
8. Other Bu siness................................................................................................................. ........16  
9. Election of Chairperson........................................................................................................ ..16 
 
_______________ 
 
 Introduction 
  
 The Chairman
 welcomed participants to the fort y-eighth meeting of the Committee of 
Participants on the Expansion of Trade in Inform ation Technology Products.  He stated that the 
proposed agenda for this meeting was circulat ed in WTO/AIR/2982 on 19 March 2007.  With 
reference to the agenda, he asked if any delegatio n would wish to raise any matter under "Other 
Business". He stated that the review of product coverage and the date of the next meeting of the 
Committee would be taken up under "Other  Business".  The agenda was adopted  with these additions. 
 
1. Review of the Status of Implementation of the Ministerial Declaration on Trade in 
Information Technology Products (G/IT/1/Rev.39) 
1.1 The Chairman  stated that an overview of implementa tion of the Ministerial Declaration on 
Trade in Information Technology Products was c ontained in document G/IT/1/Rev.39.  This G/IT/M/48 
Page 2 
 
 
  document showed the participants and the implem entation issues pertaining to the WTO procedures 
for implementation.  He looked forward to par ticipants' updates or comments concerning these 
implementation matters.  
1.2 The Committee took note
 of the Chairman's statement as there were no updates or comments 
from the participants concerning these implementation matters. 
 
2. EMC/EMI Pilot Project - Draft List of the Types of Conformity Assessment Procedures 
for EMC/EMI used by ITA Participants (G/IT/W/17/Rev.3) 
2.1 The Chairman  recalled that at the Committee meeting on 24 February 2005, the Chair referred 
to Section III on Transparency of the Guideline for EMC/EMI Conformity Assessment Procedures 
(G/IT/25), which suggested that a list of ITA partic ipants should be drawn up and categorized by the 
type of assessment procedures adopted.  In this c onnection, the Chair raised two issues for the 
Committee to discuss, i.e. (1) information availability;  and (2) structure/format of such a list.  With 
respect to the first issue, it was agreed to encourage those particip ants who had not submitted a survey 
response to do so, and for those whose situation has ch anged, to amend their previous submission.  On 
the second issue, the Secretariat was asked, as per Section III of the Guideline, to draw up a list, 
indicating for each ITA participant which type of  conformity assessment procedure it was using, 
based on the information available.  
 2.2 The Chairman
 reported to the Committee on 31 Oct ober 2006 that three revisions to 
G/IT/W/17 were issued by the Secretariat.  Tho se included the updated information provided by three 
participants on their respective EMC/EMI conformity assessment procedures.   
2.3 The Chairman
 recalled that, at that meeting the Committee agreed that the Chair would write 
to those delegations who had not submitted a survey  response, in order to urge them to provide 
information concerning their conformity assessment  procedures for EMC/EMI as soon as possible. 
Based on that, he wrote to 20 delegations, incl uding 6 most recently joined participants on 
9 February 2007, respectively, and asked them to provide information to the Secretariat as soon as 
possible on the type of assessment procedures for EM C/EMI that was currently being used by their 
authorities, so as to enable the Co mmittee to complete this work.  
  
2.4 The representative of Malaysia  thanked the Chair for his letter and notified the Committee 
that there was no mandatory conformity assessment pr ocedure imposed by her authorities.  She told 
the Committee that a notification letter was sent to the Secretariat and hoped this information be duly 
updated.  
 2.5 The Chairman
 confirmed that the Secretariat had received the notification letter and the 
document (G/IT/W/17/Rev.3) w ould be updated accordingly. 
 2.6 The representative of the Dominican Republic
 stated that she had recently received 
instruction from her capital concerning her country's  response to the Chair's letter, which would be 
communicated to the Secretariat in writing in the fo llowing week.  She indicat ed that the Dominican 
Republic used Supplier's Declaration of Conformity (SDoC), type 4 (i.e. category (f) in 
G/IT/W/17/Rev. 3).  
2.7 The Committee took note
 of the statements made.   G/IT/M/48 
 Page 3 
 
 
  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 the Committee, at the meeting of 20 October 2005, had some 
discussions on what the Committee should do next in addition to EMC/EMI and agreed to revert to 
this matter at its future meetings.   
 
3.2 The Chairman  further recalled that at the last meet ing of 31 October 2007, two delegations 
had shared their views on how this Committee should work to advance its related NTBs notifications 
and forward them to NAMA, and on how to co ntinuously expand the work of this Committee on 
NTBs.   
    3.3 The representative of the European Communities
 felt it very important that non-tariff barriers 
were dealt with in the sector of ITA.  He made the link to the developments in NAMA, where his  
delegation made a proposal on NTBs in the electronic sector, covering those barriers that currently operated in the market of this particular sect or.  Those barriers included non-recognition of 
international standards, lack of transparency an d openness in domestic standardization processes, and 
unnecessary burdensome and duplicative conformity assessment procedures.  They corresponded to 
what were discussed in this Committee and which n eeded to be addressed in NAMA with a view to 
removing them from the market.  
 3.4 The Chairman
 suggested the Committee revert to this issue at the next formal meeting as the 
issue of NTBs was a subject that was raised at the Symposium, held prior to this Committee meeting.   
 3.5  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)   
-  Updated Summary of Discussions – List V (G/IT/W/20) 
- Communications from WCO Concerning the Classification of Set Top  Boxes 
(G/IT/W/26 and G/IT/W/26/Add. 1 + Add.2) 
 
4.1 On List V of G/IT/W/6/Rev.6 – classification divergence , the Chairman  said that several 
questions were posed at the previous meetings for consideration by the participants on the way 
forward, the structure to be used, new questions to be posed and the expected outcome of this 
exercise.  Some participants pointed out that these ite ms in List V were no longer technical as technical 
experts were not able to resolve them and thus, they were, in fact, policy issues.  He said that in the 
consultations the Chair held with some delegations, as  well as at the formal meetings in 2006, it was 
suggested that in order to narrow the difference the Committee could divide these issues under List V into two categories:  one category for the easy issu es for which convergence towards consensus was 
foreseeable and could be achieved and if necessary would pose some new questions that might help to 
achieve consensus;  the other category was for the more  difficult issues where no majority position or no 
consensus could be achieved.  Therefore, at the Committee meeting of 31 October 2006, in order to 
facilitate further discussion, the Secretariat, as re quested, prepared and circulated a draft room paper 
which tried to categorize the 20 items in List V in to two groups based on their prospect of finding a 
consensus or a common interpretation.  At the same time, it also tried to narrow or isolate those items 
where consensus was less foreseeable.  He hoped that the room paper prepared by the Secretariat, though 
it was a draft, could be used by the delegations to send to their capitals for verification and confirmation 
with a view to enabling the Committee to move as many items as possible from List V to List I of 
G/IT/W/6/Rev.3.  He reported that many delegations were satisfied with the format of the draft room G/IT/M/48 
Page 4 
 
 
  paper, but indicated that their capitals would need more time to consider its content.  On the question of 
silence, he mentioned that one delegation stated that having comments from seven participants was far 
from reaching a consensus.  He requested delegations to provide feedbacks received from their capitals. 
 
4.2 The representative of Thailand  said that she was fully aware of the urgent need of participants 
to accelerate and complete the on-going work relate d to Attachment B, especially on List V of 
G/IT/W/6/Rev.3. However, she stated that at the moment her delegation was not able to provide any 
comments as the internal consultations with vari ous relevant authorities were still on-going  and, 
therefore, more time was needed to examine this complicated work before they could give the best 
and appropriate answer to the Committee.  She urged participants to respond as soon as possible and 
said that Thailand would do its best to r espond to the Committee in the near future. 
 
4.3 The representative of the Philippines  informed that she had received some preliminary 
comments.  She was in the process of assembling and trying to put them together.  She hoped to submit the Philippines' responses by the next Committee meeting. 
 
4.4 The representative of Singapore
 informed the Committee that he had only just received 
preliminary views on the working document.  He woul d, therefore, need some more time to finalize 
them before coming back to the committee.  He also  intended to meet the Secretariat informally to 
clarify some of the questions that they might have.  
4.5 The Chairman
 reminded the participants that at th e informal meeting on 6 March 2007 one 
delegation commented that it would not be useful to restart or re-activate the process of discussions 
among the participants on these List V issues again, and suggested that a decision document could be 
prepared in the form of a Chair's paper.  In the view of that delegation the decision document, based 
on the discussions and information available with the Secretariat, should have been a simple, 
final-form of a formulation, indicating for each of these 20 issues whether there was a potential for a 
consensus or not.  Then, it could be presented to the participants for a yes or no answer.  He requested 
delegations to give their views on this suggestion.   
 
4.6 The representative of the Philippines  stated that while she had great sympathy for that 
particular suggestion. However, in view of wh at some of the ASEAN members were saying, she 
thought this action might be premature.  She suggested  to give it one last try in this meeting and to 
have a constant follow-up.  She said that at some poi nt, before the year ended, they would have to do 
something about it. 
 
4.7 The Chairman  said that he would wait for inputs fr om delegations and then look into the 
matter again with the view of moving things forwar d in the direction that delegation had proposed. 
 
4.8 The representative of the Korea  said that her authorities were still holding internal 
consultations on this matter.  With  regard to Item 20 concerning electric amplifiers when used as 
repeaters only in-line telephony product intended to be covered, she made a particular reference to the 
second question – "If repeaters are limited to lin e telephony, how should one distinguish between 
those intended for different uses?". She said that or iginally Korea did not give an answer to this 
question.  However, now, after inte rnal consultation, Korea's answer would be that the other should be 
classified by use itself.  
 
4.9 The Chairman  stated that since participants were not  in a position to ask the Chair to prepare 
such a document, he would wait for inputs from par ticipants, work with what he already had, and 
come back to this issue at the next meeting. 
 4.10 It was so agreed
.  
  G/IT/M/48 
 Page 5 
 
 
  4.11 On List III of G/IT/W/6/Rev.3 – classification of set top boxes , the Chairman  recalled  that on 
23 January 2004, the Chair forwarded this item to  the World Customs Organization requesting the 
Harmonized System Committee to provide its opinion on the classification of "set top boxes which 
have a communication function:  a microprocessor-based device incorporating a modem for gaining 
access to the internet, and having a function of inter active information exchange".  The participants 
were also reminded that in November 2005, the Deputy Director of Tariff and Trade Affairs 
Directorate of the WCO Secretariat inform ed the Committee of the WCO HS Committee's 
deliberations and decision on this issue. A decision was taken at its 36th Session of the WCO HS 
Committee held in September 2005.  It was reproduced and circulated as G/IT/26.   
 
4.12 The Chairman  also recalled that on 14 September 2006, the Director of the WCO Tariff and 
Trade Affairs Directorate informed the Committee that the WCO HS Committee decided to classify 
the apparatus as reception apparatus for televisi on, in heading 85.28 (sub-heading 8528.12), by 
application of General Interpretative Rules 1 a nd 6.  However, it remained for the WCO HS 
Committee to determine where the product would be  classified in HS2007 edition since the heading 
and sub-heading texts would change on 1 January  2007. This question was on the agenda for the 
38th Session of the WCO HS Committee which took place from 2 to 13 October 2006  
 
4.13 The Chairman  further recalled that on 16 Oct ober 2006, another communication from the 
Director of the WCO Tariff and Trade Affairs Directorate was received, indicating that at its the 38
th Session, which ended on 13 October 2006, the WCO HS Committee agreed by consensus that the 
same set top box would be classifiable in subheading 8528.71 in 2007.  However, it also stated that: 
"Pursuant to Article 8 of the HS Convention, C ontracting Parties may enter a reservation on the 
decision of the Committee for two months from th e beginning of November 2006.  A reservation 
would normally cause the matter to be sent back to  the Committee for reconsideration. In the absence 
of any such reservation, the corresponding chan ge to the Classification Opinion would become 
effective on 1 January 2007." 
 4.14 The Chairman
 informed the Committee that, on 12 Marc h 2007, the Secretariat was informed 
by the Director of the WCO Tariff and Trade Affa irs Directorate of the following: "No reservation 
was lodged during the period provided in Article 8 of the HS Convention.  Therefore, the decision to replace Classification Opinion 8528.12/4 with Classification Opinion 8528.71/4  became effective 
1 January 2007.  The change was reflected in Amending Supplement 7 to the Compendium of 
Classification Opinions, which was published in Janua ry 2007."  As the two-month reservation period 
was over, he asked participants if they were ready to consider this item and whether it could be moved 
from List III to List I. 
 4.15 The representative of the European Communities
 recalled that the question which was put to 
the HS Committee and discussed among the classifica tion experts was whether this product was a 
product of 8525.10 or 8525.20. He mentioned that at  that point of time, there were no discussions 
about 8528 for this type of product. However, he said that the model which was ultimately presented 
to the HS Committee was the model that most members thought it was a box and belonged to 8528.   
As the Chair pointed out 8528.71, which the EC be lieved it was correct. However, the real question 
for the EC representative was whether the ITA Committ ee had dealt with this issue with regard to 
Attachment B.  He asked for a period whereby they could reflect on the Chair's question.  He said that 
when the ITA was implemented in 1997 all participants had to inform  the other participants where 
they were to classify set top boxes as described in Att achment B.  For him, it was also clear from that 
description, that was the text after the colon that not all sorts of set top boxes would be ITA set top 
boxes; there would be some which would fall outside of the scope of the ITA. Otherwise, he asked, 
why had these very detailed texts after set top b oxes with the communication function code. He said 
that what happened at that time was that all th e administrations except three suggested 8517, 8525, 
and there were three who added 8528. He said that this issue was then discussed in the experts groups 
and the EC did not exclude this product provided that  certain text and parame ters were met would be G/IT/M/48 
Page 6 
 
 
  a 8528 product.  He warned about the consequences of this lack of clarity. The EC would regret to see 
that set top boxes which at that time met the conditions  of the ITA, but which were not classifiable for 
whichever  reason in 8528 suddenly would fall out of the ITA. In another words, as far as he recalled 
from the discussions among the classification experts, there were items in 8517 or other ITA set up 
boxes, which the participants did agree would fall into 8517; others types would go into 8525. He 
urged the committee to go back, reflect and look at the communications, and go back to find the 
original WCO document where the product was described in details.  
  4.16 The Chairman
 concluded that since there was a request of some time for reflection, the 
participants were not in a position to move this item from List III to List I yet. He proposed the 
delegations follow the proposed course of action and revert to this item at the next Committee 
meeting. 
 
4.17 It was so agreed . 
 5. Follow-up Discussions from the IT Symposium 
 - List of the Changes due to the introduction  of HS2007 Nomenclature in Relation to 
the ITA products (G/IT/W/22) 
 - Proposal from Japan on updating the list of products covered under the ITA 
(G/IT/W25) 
 - Report by Chairman on the Symposium to commemorate the 10-year anniversary 
of the ITA   
  
5.1 The Chairman
 recalled that at the last Committ ee meeting of 31 October 2006, several 
delegations suggested the Chair to hold informal meetings on the issue of transposition of HS2002 to 
HS2007 as well as on what role of the ITA Committee should play in this exercise.  
 
5.2 The Chairman  reported that in response to that request, he had organised two informal 
meetings on 19 January and 6 March 2007. Prior to the informal on 19 January 2007, he also had a 
meeting with the Secretariat, in which the Secret ariat, while emphasizing that transposing of ITA 
products was part of the overall exercise of the transposition work undertaken within the framework 
of the Market Access Committee, agreed to provid e participants with a technical briefing on HS2007 
transposition in relations to ITA products.  At the informal meeting on 19 January 2007, participants 
had a presentation and technical briefing by the S ecretariat on the HS2007 transposition, and agreed 
the Secretariat, based on its presentation, to prep are a note on changes due to the introduction of 
HS2007 Nomenclature in relation to ITA products. Participants also ag reed that the Secretariat would 
prepare a HS2007 "model" list of ITA products, based  on Attachment A and for Attachment B to the 
extent possible.  He further reported that at th e informal meeting on 6 March 2007, participants had 
another round of interesting interact with the Secr etariat on some of the specific details, such as how 
the Secretariat "model" list should look like.   
5.3 The Chairman
 then informed the Committee that th e Secretariat note together with the 
"model" list had been available for the participants.  On behalf of all participants of the Committee, he 
thanked the Secretariat, in particular Mr. Jurgen  Richtering and his colleagues for their hard work 
which required tremendous efforts.   
5.4 The Secretariat
 stated that this had been a purely t echnical exercise and did not resolve any 
pending divergence issues that existed, in particular with the concerns over Attachment B. He gave an 
explanation of the room document table by table in order to enable participants to understand exactly 
what had been done and so that they could then decide how to best make use of the information 
provided.  In Table 1, he said that the Secretariat had tried to put in a table format of the original ITA list as defined in HS96 Nomenclature, which includ ed the references to attachments, sections, item  G/IT/M/48 
 Page 7 
 
 
  number, HS code, description of a product, comment s made with reference to Attachment B in 
relation to Section 2 of Attachment A, and co mments by the Secretariat which explained some 
revisions of typos or code correc tions that were purely technical.  He mentioned that the tables also 
included a column which indicated where these revisi ons were made, which was then explained in the 
Secretariat comments column.  
 
5.5 The Secretariat  explained to the Committee that Tabl e 2 included all possible HS codes for 
Attachment B products contained in G/IT/W/6/Rev.3 . He drew the participants' attention to the 
column called divergence list, which made a refe rence to the lists in document G/IT/W/6/Rev.3 
showing where those codes came from. He said that a ll those referred to as Lists I (A) and I (B) could 
probably be considered as agreed, whereas those in Li st V were not yet agreed upon. He pointed out 
that the comments in the column "comments by the S ecretariat" were comments to the current table;  
they were additional comments, rather then a compilation of all earlier comments.   
 5.6 Regarding Table 3, the Secretariat
 explained how the list in Table 2 could be transposed into 
HS2002 nomenclature. He mentioned that the changes from HS1996 to HS2002 nomenclature did not 
have significant impact on the ITA list. There were  only 8 subheadings changed in the original ITA 
product list. However, when considering possible co des in G/IT/W/6/Rev.3, there were more than 
8 subheadings that were flagged as having been aff ected by changes in the nomenclature, of which 
none seemed to be controversial.   
5.7 In explaining Table 4, the Secretariat
 said that it was the correlation table which showed how 
the HS1996 codes could be correlated into HS2002 cod es.  He then turned to Table 5, which was a   
draft ITA model list in HS2007. He said that it followe d the structure of the ITA list; i.e. Sections 1 
and 2 of Attachment A, and then Attachment B. He mentioned that there were many instances where 
HS2007 subheadings referred to several items in the or iginal list. He also noted that the Secretariat 
used strictly the WCO correlation table, including  correlations that were flagged as having not had 
full consensus at the WCO, but he flagged all those subheadings which were composed at least partly 
or fully by such non consensus correlation.  Then, he explained Table 6, which was a correlation table 
for ITA products that changed from HS2002 into HS2007.  
 5.8 The Secretariat
 went on to Tables 7, 8, and 9. which were analytical tables showing how the 
model list was created based on the original ITA product list and the WCO correlation table between 
HS2002 and HS2007. Since these tables were rather complex and complicated, he felt that it was 
useful to go into more detail. He mentioned that in  Table 7, from the left side, there were the proposed 
new codes and descriptions in HS2007, the correla tion, the item number and then the description as it 
was in the ITA list corresponding to the HS2002 no menclature or the HS2002 descriptions for non-
ITA HS subheadings. He then explained the second item in the table, "printers", on which the 
Committee had a lot of discussion. He explained that  if participants went to column "Description 
ITA/HS2002", they would see that there were three items which started with the ITA in brackets. He 
said these were products from the ITA list. He t ook a subheading under HS2002 as an example, i.e. 
"ex 8471.60 - input or output units, whether or not containing storage units in the same housing". He 
said it was fully an ITA product as item 15 of the ITA list, therefore there was no "ex" in front. He 
said that under HS2007, part of this subheading went into code 8443.31, and that was why there was 
an 'ex'  in front of 8471.60 in the column unde r "correlation HS2007 and HS2002", and part of it went 
into the new HS2007 subheading. He said that the sa me applied to the next two items, the "facsimile 
machine" and the "electrostatic photocopying appara tus".  He went on further to another two items 
which were not covered by the ITA. He said it was exactly the same example he showed at the Symposium in the morning, i.e. the "ink-jet printing machines" under HS2002 subheading 8443.51 
and the "electrostatic photocopying machines" unde r HS 2002 subheading 9009.12. He indicated that 
the idea to list them in the documen t was just to make it more transparent on how the description that 
was on the left hand side was arrived at, because th ese two descriptions had to be excluded from the 
new subheading description of  844331 in HS2007. He said that Tables 8 and 9 were organised in a G/IT/M/48 
Page 8 
 
 
  similar way.  He drew participants' attention to Table 10. He said that Table 10 was again the same 
list in HS2007 nomenclature, but instead of organising it by sections and items, it was organised 
strictly by HS2007 codes.  He said that many of the items, the majority of new subheadings, still had 
an "ex" in front, which was striking in the case of "semi-conductor manufacturing equipment". He 
then turned to the new HS2007 code 8486.20 and indicated that it was composed of about 20 different 
descriptions which were all picked up from different  parts of the ITA list. Unfortunately he said that 
there was still an "ex" in front of these codes becau se out of the 23 correlations  that underlined this 
new code, only 20 or so referred to ITA products. Th erefore, he said that clearly, all the other three 
HS2002 subheadings transferred in 8486 were not in the original ITA list. Thus, he said that the 
standard descriptions of code could be retained as such because the non-IT A elements have to be 
excluded. He pointed out that this was a situation that did not make it easy for the Secretariat to 
undertake the transposition of the Members' schedules, if  it always had to go strictly by the ITA list. 
He wondered whether it was worthwhile for this Co mmittee to consider whethe r some of items that 
were still outside of the ITA coverage and which mi ght be considered subject to negotiations in the 
future, could be seen as covered in order to simpli fy some of the representation of the ITA list in 
HS2007. He emphasized that it was up to the Memb ers to decide. Since it was discussed in the 
context of the transposition exercise, he pointed out  that this process took place in the context of the 
Committee on Market Access and should a guidance, or any simplification be accepted, that the 
Secretariat applied in this transposition exercise that  would facilitate the task and would also result in 
a list that was easier to understand and read, than if  participants had to go by the full detail using all 
the correlations as it was proposed by WCO. He me ntioned that in practice some of the applied 
schedules that were present in 2007 went for a more simpler, simplified representation, possibly at the 
extent of granting some more duty free access, while othe rs tried to stick to the really strict definition 
of the ITA product list and to having a distinction of zero and non-zero items in particular in 8486. 
 
5.9 The representative of the United States  thanked the Secretariat for the extensive amount of 
work in preparing this room document.  He said th at the US was always in favour of updating the ITA 
product list to HS2007 because of the amount of cha nges in products from ITA and IT products in 
general from HS2002 to HS2007, and the fact that  many of the participants were already 
implementing applied tariff schedules based on the HS 2007 nomenclature.  He said that given it is a 
very extensive document, the US would need to take a closer look at it by their customs experts in the 
capital with a view to reviewing it and providing some comments, ideas and suggestions on how to 
move forward. 
 5.10 The representative of the Philippines
 also thanked the Secretariat for the amount of time and 
energy they had exerted on this exercise in cons idering the ITA schedule. However, she noted that it 
just demonstrated the complexity of this work and what members were encountered in the Market 
Access Committee was a much bigger exercise. Partic ipants would need to study and understand all 
these tables and they might need further technical a ssistance from the Secretariat to clarify what all 
these tables meant.    
5.11 The representative of Australia
 requested whether this docum ent would be made available 
electronically so that his capital could download it directly. In addition, he supported the last point 
made by the Secretariat, whether it was possible to  wait and see how participants having the idea of  
writing their schedules in HS2007 with references to what was not covered, and trying to find out 
what would seem to be inappropriate under a partic ular concession made by reference to HS2002. He 
emphasized the need to look for so me solution in this exercise. 
 5.12 The Chairman
 confirmed that the Secretariat would prepare an electronic file and get it posted  
on the WTO Members' site. 
 5.13 The representative of Japan
 thanked the Secretariat and stated that his delegation would ask 
their Customs and Trade experts to have a close look at the document, and provide feedback. He  G/IT/M/48 
 Page 9 
 
 
  believed that, as explained by the Secretariat, the IT A Committee was required to take its role in the 
transposition exercise in order to complete this HS transposition procedures, in particular, with regard 
to the ITA products such as multi-function machin es under the heading of 8443.31 in HS2007.  He 
said that it could be possible to update different a pplied rate based on  different interpretation of 
original commitment under the 1996 ITA List. He felt that the ITA Committee should advise, or give 
an input, to the Secretariat to finalise this work  in a timely manner. In his view, this was very 
important. If the Committee did not have any time frame work to do this or any mechanism to finalize 
this work in a timely manner, it would not only ha ve to meet the needs to transpose HS2007 but also 
to transpose HS2012. He agreed with the Philippin es that this was a very complicated task to 
accomplish. He suggested the establishment of a Wo rking Group to focus its discussions intensively 
on the list which was provided by the Secretariat. Th en, he suggested that the group be asked to make 
a report about its comments/recommendations within a certain period of time, such as 60 or 90 days. 
Based on the Working Group’s comments/recomme ndations, the ITA Committee might discuss and 
take a decisions on how to make an input to the Secretariat.   He emphasised once again that his 
delegation strongly considered it was quite important  for the Committee to take up this matter in a 
timely manner.   
 5.14 The representative of the European Communities
 congratulated the Secretariat for the room 
paper. He agreed with th e Secretariat that this was a rather co mplex exercise. As the EC was involved 
in the previous versions of the HS transposition,  he understood that the Secretariat had put an  
enormous amount of work into it. The complicati on of having more than 20 languages was really a 
challenge for the EC. In the view of the EC,  a mo re fundamental issue was what they had based their 
tariff concessions in the ITA at th e time when the agreement was en tered into in 1996. He hoped the 
suggestion by the Secretariat  was not an official one, but merely an idea of why not try to collapse 
some of the subdivisions. He used HS code 8486 of the EC 2007 nomenclature as an example, 
covering "Machines and apparatus of a kind used solely or principally for the manufacture of 
semiconductor boules or wafers, semiconductor devices, electronic integrated circuits or flat panel 
display; machines and apparatus specified in note 9(C)  to this chapter; parts and accessories".  While 
acknowledging it was a long description, he clarified that this heading basically included semi-
conductor manufacturing equipment, but not semi-conduc tor testing equipment. He said that in doing 
the transposition, a lot of these headings or su bdivisions came from the ITA, but he called 
participants' attention that not all products in this h eading were covered by the ITA. He said that if the 
EC was required to give duty free access for all 8486 it would cause an institutional problem, because 
it would make the EC change its tariff commitme nts under the ITA and the EC negotiators would 
need to go to the EC Council, Ministers and EC  Member States for agreement or disagreement. He 
explained that going beyond what was a technical tr ansposition of the old nomenclature/tariff into the 
new one needed to go through the EC legislature,  the Council, which was complicated. He said the 
EC would look at this comprehensive document  carefully and respond at the appropriate time. 
 
5.15 The representative of Thailand  thanked the Secretariat for its  work and said that it would 
bring this issue back to its customs authorities and other authorities involved. 
 
5.16 The Chairman  mentioned that there were two issues at hand linked to this paper. First, 
participants requested some time for discussion with in their individual administrations. He felt that 
the Committee could easily accommodate by postponing the discussions on this proposal.  Second, there was an idea to specify the role of the Co mmittee in the transposition exercise.  There was a 
proposal that the Committee could give an instructi on to the Secretariat, which would treat items on  
transposition that was being done in the Committ ee on Market Access.  He believed this matter 
required further consultations among participants and suggested that it would be a task of the new 
Chairman to discuss with participants and report back at the next formal meeting. 
 5.17 It was so agreed
. 
 G/IT/M/48 
Page 10 
 
 
  5.18 The Chairman  reminded participants  that at the Committee meeting on 31 October 2007, 
Japan presented a paper on updating the list of pr oducts covered under the ITA (G/IT/W/25). He 
stated that at that meeting, participants had a long and interesting discussion on the Japanese paper 
and agreed to continue this discussion at this mee ting. He mentioned that the Japanese paper was also 
discussed at the informal meetings on 19 January and 6 March 2007.   
 
5.19 The Chairman  opened the floor for discussion. As on one came forward, he decided to 
continue discussions on both proposals as the issues were somewhat linked.  
5.20 The representative of Japan
 agreed with the Chair and said that their proposal was closely 
related to the proposal or the work done by the Secr etariat.  He agreed to continue the work along 
with the work done by the Secretariat. 
 
5.21 It was so agreed . 
 
5.22 The Chairman  then turned to the IT Symposium which had just been organized to 
commemorate the 10-year anniversary of the ITA.  He expressed his appreciation to the Speakers and 
Panellists for their valuable contribution to the Sy mposium, and expressed his gratitude to those who 
attended the Symposium and made it a success.  
 5.23 The Chairman
 stated that the ITA Committee always wa nted to keep abreast of the latest 
developments in the IT industry, thus it was important and absolutely necessary to hear their views 
and to know how WTO trade policy affected them. He  thought that such a Symposium, of a regular 
feature, has helped participants to have a better understanding of the rapid changes in the IT sector.  
He was certain that this would further deepen par ticipants' thinking and stimulate the Committee work 
for the future. 
  
5.24 The Chairman  summarized some of the major themes and ideas emanating from the 
Symposium, and mentioned that it would be importa nt for the ITA Committee to revert to some of 
these very important issues.  He said that the Sy mposium had been very effective in meeting its 
purpose, which aimed at conducting a review of th e operation of the ITA over the past decade with 
the increased participation of developing countries;  providing an overview of the status quo or the 
dynamics of the IT sector, taking into account th e latest developments in technological convergence 
and the impact of globalisation; and highlighting th e prospects for and challenges to further expansion 
of trade in ITA products with a view to ensuring the original objective of the ITA is maintained.  He 
also summarized the following main points of discussi ons that ITA was a "product of its time"; a clear 
success story but there was a need for an update ; ITA was a unique instrument in the GATT/WTO 
history; there had been a growing importance of developing countries in the IT sector; all 
country-specific cases (Canada, Korea, India Poland,  the Philippines, etc.) showed that the ITA had 
helped their development and economic growth; there were repeated calls for enlargement of the ITA 
Membership (especially to Latin Am erica); there were calls for keep ing its product coverage updated. 
However, divergent views existed on how to achieve  that; ITA had successfully eliminated tariffs, 
which brought prices of IT products down. However,  to further expand trade in IT products, NTBs 
would certainly need to be effectively addr essed; trends and development of technological 
convergence and globalisation in the IT sector were not foreseen at the time the ITA was negotiated; 
while the IT sector continued to be a significant a nd growing share of the investment in developed 
countries. IT spending had increased most rapidl y in emerging economies; developing countries and 
economies benefited from the application of IT-ena bled industries and services, including their SMEs. 
Experience had also shown how, for small economies w ho were participants to the ITA, had benefited 
from the globalisation in the IT sector; and on the question of technological development, the 
important relations between innovati on and convergence were emphasised.   
  G/IT/M/48 
 Page 11 
 
 
  5.25 The Chairman  mentioned that all of these were very important for the work of the Committee, 
and raised the obvious question of what could or s hould be the role of this Trade Policy Body in 
addressing some of these very important issues.  He  mentioned that other more specific questions 
were raised during each of the panel sessions wh ich could require further examination by the 
Committee as well.  He noted that throughout this one and half day event, several speak ers discussed 
the issue of development and highlighted the opportunities that the ITA brought to many developing 
countries and economies. 
 5.26 The Chairman
 thought that the event was quite successful. He underlined that many 
representatives from the business community were satisfi ed with the fact that there was a dialogue 
between the participants and themselves and they ex pressed a wish to continue such dialogue, but this 
was fully at the hands of participants.  He tha nked the Secretariat and the Canadian delegation for 
their hard work. 
 5.27 The Chairman
 asked for participants' views on wh at to do with the outcome of the 
Symposium.  He reminded participants that the Sy mposium as such was a follow up to the previous 
one, and that they should let him know if they felt that there was a need for any future follow up. 
 
5.28 The representative of Hong Kong, China  thanked the Secretariat and all others involved in 
organising the Symposium. He said that it provided Members with a lot of information and views of 
the parties involved, including the industry repr esentatives and business Associations. He thought that 
the symposium showed the continuous importance of the ITA for the enhancement of trade in this 
sector and that the Speakers provided invariable co mments on the benefits and challenges ahead.  He 
suggested that it would be useful for Members to have all the speeches/presentation placed on the 
Members' website so that they could use it to  reflect on whether they needed to follow-up. 
 
5.29 The representative of the European Communities  thanked the Chairman and the Secretariat 
for making a successful event and said th at it was a worthwhile experience. 
 
5.30 The representative of the United States  thanked the Chairman and the Secretariat for their 
hard work in organising the symposium especially, as many of the Speakers were found at the very last minute. He said that the Symposium was interes ting and very enlightening, particularly seeing the 
different points of view of developing countries.  He was pleased to hear many developing countries 
representatives and SMEs talk about the success of the ITA.  He was interested  in speaking about how 
participants could maintain this agreement.  
 
5.31 The Chairman
 thanked the US representative for helping to find Speakers in order to make the 
event a success. 
 
5.32 The representative of Japan  thanked the Chair and the Secretariat and other Members for 
providing excellent Speakers. He thanked developing countries that provided speakers such as Korea, 
the Philippines, Chinese Taipei, India, Costa Ri ca, etc., and UNCTAD. Referring to the Egyptian 
question raised during the Symposium on whether the free-trade of IT contributed to the promotion of 
economic development, not only of th e developed countries, but also of the developing countries, he 
responded that participants  had received so many positive answer s at the Symposium. He then quoted 
one report by UNCTAD about the importance of the IT trade for developing countries. He said that 
according to the report that exports of IT produc ts doubled from 1996-2003, which was much faster 
than general merchandise exports which increased by 60% between 1996-2003.  He further quoted 
that in 2003, the total amount of IT goods expo rts exceeded US$ 1.1 trillion or 15% of world 
merchandise exports.  He indicated that the role of developing countries was becoming more 
important as lower production costs, economies of scal e, and the increased interest in investing in 
certain developing countries prompted the re location of ICT goods production to developing 
countries. He mentioned that as a result, exports  of the IT products from developing countries G/IT/M/48 
Page 12 
 
 
  accounted for almost 50% of world export in ICT goods. Japan considered that it was an important 
milestone that ITA Member countries reconfirmed th e fact that the ITA contributed significantly to 
the economic development of both de veloped and developing countries. 
 
5.33 The Chairman  agreed with the representative of Japan and said that some of the figures heard 
and presentations made were absolu tely amazing and helped to rectify some obvious ideas, especially 
concerning developing countries. 
 5.34 The representative of the Philippines
 speaking on behalf of ASEAN thanked the Secretariat 
for the assistance extended to them which enabled capital-based people to attend.  
 5.35 The representative of Chinese Taipei
 expressed strong appreciation of the Secretariat and the 
Chair's work during the last two days. He believed that this Symposium had provided a very efficient 
review of the current status quo and noted that some challenges remained to be addressed. He said 
that his delegation would participate in the discu ssions in a constructive manner in due course.  
 
6. Proposals from the United States Concerning Product Coverage of the Current ITA 
6.1 The Chairman  recalled that at the Comm ittee meeting of 31 October 2006, the participants 
had a good discussion on the US proposals (G/IT/W/21 and G/IT/W/23) and there was a wide support 
for consultations to be held by the Chair on the basi s of the US proposals. He stated that there were 
some requests for further information from the US de legation and the US was willing to offer a list or 
characteristics for those products in question. He also  stated that at that meeting, the Chair proposed, 
and it was agreed,  to hold informal consultations  on how to proceed with the discussions and on the 
US proposals themselves. He recalled that on 11 January 2007, the US submitted a new paper 
(G/IT/W/26) with some detailed informa tion on those products in question.   
  
6.2 The Chairman  informed the Committee that since then  he held two informal meetings, on 
19 January and 6 March 2007,  to discuss the US pr oposals. He said that at these informals, it was 
agreed to continue this discussion in the Committee and participants were invited to reflect on these 
proposals.  
 6.3 The representative of the United States
 thanked the Chair and the Committee for letting his 
delegation express its views and proposals on how to maintain commitments for existing ITA 
products. He appreciated and was encouraged by a ll the feedback that his delegation had received 
from other Members. He said that judging by comments from many of the Speakers during the 
Symposium, it seemed to him that it was an issue of great importance to participants. He said that the 
US commitments on existing products were really at  the core of the ITA as it was the bone marrow. 
He said that if Members could not maintain their ex isting commitments, then they would be in trouble 
enticing new Members to join the ITA or in creati ng new commitments.  He stated that what the EC 
was really talking about was an expansion of the ITA to cover additional pr oducts under Paragraph 3 
or an issue of customs divergence under Paragraph 5 of the Annex to the Ministerial Declaration. 
However, he felt what his delegation was looking at  were Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Ministerial 
Declaration itself rather then its Annex. He then quoted Paragraph 1, which says: "Each party's trade 
regime should evolve in a manner that enha nces market access opportunities for information 
technology  products." He assumed that Paragraph 1 c ould be interpreted in different ways, but in the 
least he did not think that it meant that duties shou ld be raised on IT products. Then,  he quoted  
Paragraph 2, which reads: "..., each party shall bi nd and eliminate customs duties and other duties and 
charges of any kind, within the meaning of Article  II:1(b) of the General Agreement on Tariffs and 
Trade 1994," with respect to products  in Attachments A and B.  He sa id that all this seemed to be 
obvious and why so many global IT industries were  so concerned as they were seeing one ITA 
Member - representing 27 countries – unilaterally rede fining what products were eligible for duty-free 
treatments. He said that 10 years after the product coverage was finalized, the EC seemed to be going  G/IT/M/48 
 Page 13 
 
 
  through Attachments A and B, and saying that it did not mean to call all products within these 
categories but only some of the products with certain features/technologies, and the only products that 
it would continue to guarantee duty-free treatment on  were older, less technologically sophisticated 
versions of the same products whic h no longer existed in today's mark et place. Moreover, he added  
that when asked exactly why it felt that its commi tments no longer covered these ITA products after 
they have been providing duty-free treatment on th ese products for some time , the answer was that 
these were now additional products a nd the participants had to wait until ITA II to negotiate on these 
products all over again. He then said that if he was an exporter of these products or any ITA products, 
and the tariff on these products suddenly jumped fro m 0 to 14%, thus, he would have been pretty 
concerned as well. He stated that he was also  concerned from a negotiation point of view, as if 
participants were asked to negotiate on new produc ts from products that were already covered in their 
commitments. In the view of the his delegation, th at would put all participants in a very weak and 
unacceptable negotiating position. He claimed that  all products, not just ITA products had new 
features of technologies over the past 10 years.  He  added that it would be hard pressed for one to 
think of any product which did not look different either on the inside or the outside than it did 
10 years ago. So, in his view, all ITA products coul d not be additional produc ts under Paragraph 3 of 
the Annex to the Ministerial Declaration. Otherwi se, there would be nothing covered. He raised the 
question of how could the Committee make a decision on what was truly an additional product and 
what was covered by participants' commitments. He  admitted that the ITA provided little guidance in 
this regard. However, he said that his delegation did not think that individual customs from Members 
should unilaterally make that decision nor a panel of  customs experts, as suggested by the EC during 
the last informal meeting. He felt it should be up to  ITA participants to review and interpret their 
commitments. As individual customs experts might differ on how to classify products and as the EC had outlined through Paragraph 5 of the Annex, he agreed that the participants should work with 
guidance from the WCO toward reaching a common classification, where appropriate, for ITA 
products.  However, he did not see in Paragraph 5 where the basis of the participants' commitments 
were based on decisions from the WCO or any cust oms authorities.   He argued that when the WCO 
could not come to agreement and the ITA participan ts could not arrive at a common classification, 
participants' commitment still applied. He said that ITA negotiators made the decision on what 
products the ITA should cover back in 1996, and hoped that the participants should not lose that 
power today.  
6.4 The representative of the European Communities
 stressed that he did not think there would 
have been an ITA when it was negotiated in 1996 without the efforts and the sacrifices made by the 
EC. He understood that the argument made by the US was that the ITA had become empty, which in 
his opinion was not in conformity with what Japan had just said, because he was talking about all the 
trade. In his view, the fundamental issue was how to  interpret a tariff schedule. He said that at the 
Symposium he had asked the Panel on which basis pa rticipants made tariff concessions, and as far as 
the EC was concerned the concessions were made  on the basis of the HS nomenclature. With 
reference to Attachment A, he pointed out that th e EC provided tariff treatment for those headings and 
indicated them with the associated d escription. He stated that the EC  disagreed with the US approach 
that by adding functionalities one did not change the classification. According to him, a chip added 
with a few things, such as a chassis, a motor, etc. could turn out to be a car. And a car could not be 
driven without the electronics working in it, but that did not mean that a car was covered by the ITA.  
Then, he further referred to a vi deo monitor being put into a tuner . He said that according to his 
understanding, the US would argue that a video monitor was HS 8471 with a functionality being 
added, it was still HS 8471. However,  he doubted that anyone among th e participants would classify a 
product which was a monitor plus a TV tuner as an IT A product.  He mentioned that when the request 
was made under the ITA II the answer was that TV set s did not fall within the ITA.  He stressed that  
participants based a tariff commitment on the nom enclature of the HS for a large number of the 
products. For others the EC had communicated back in 1997 on how it would provide tariff treatment 
for those product categories mentioned in Attachment  B. Therefore, he suggested to use the existing 
provisions in the Agreement to increase and expand  the scope of product coverage, such as with TV G/IT/M/48 
Page 14 
 
 
  sets.  He said that there were ways to classify pr oducts by raising the issues under Paragraphs 5 and 7. 
He urged the US to provide the EC with a list of the exact products of which they had their concerns, 
so that the EC could decide how to proceed from there. He was upset that the US gave a general 
impression that the EC was disrespectful of its ITA tariff commitments. 
 
6.5 The representative of Malaysia  took note of the EC comments. She stated that after reviewing 
its national data and information pr ovided bilaterally by the US on Ma laysia's standing in world trade 
in relation to these affected products, she found that  this issue could potentially have a significant 
impact on its exports. Malaysia agreed to conti nue the discussion on this issue with the view of 
clarifying and solving potential issues. However, in doing so she wanted participants to understand 
that Malaysia, as a developing country nation and ad vancing forward, was contingent upon its limited 
negotiating resources. She felt that a simple, transp arent, inclusive and expeditious way forward in 
this regard was the most suitable. 
 6.6 The representative of Japan
 agreed with the US position which insisted on differentiating the 
issue of tariff classification from interpretation of the duty rates. He said that he could not agree with 
the EC that the issue was only a tariff classificati on issue and the participants just referred to the 
WCO general rule - the HS code. On the contrary, with regard to the issue of tariffs concessions, 
following to the Appellate Body report on the EC bo neless chicken case, one had to refer not only  to 
the general rule - the HS code but also to the ordinary meaning of the concerned tariff line, the subsequent practice of the Member countries, the pur pose of the Agreement, and also had to go back 
to the background document reflecting the negotiating hi story.  He insisted on making it clear that the 
issue that Japan had a concern was not a tariff cl assification issue but rather was a tariff concession 
issue.  Therefore, he felt that participants had to decide on this issue based on the WTO precedents 
rather than the WCO precedents. 
 
6.7 The representative of Philippines
 thanked the US for bringing to her attention this particular 
problem. She stated that as noted in the Symposiu m, the sector's contribution to the Philippines 
economy was quite enormous and this  could have an impact on it.  She said that her delegation had 
also listened carefully of what the EC had said. She hoped that the participants could find a way on 
how the Committee should address what could be a potential problem.   
6.8 The representative of Thailand
 claimed that the issue raised by the US was one of the 
systemic issue that needed to be further considered by  all ITA participants in order to clarify the facts, 
situations, and possible actions for Members that  might no longer receive duty-free treatment for 
some of their products which should have been considered as IT products and should have fallen 
under the Agreement. She also hoped that Member s would not try to use the HS transposition 
exercise, either from HS96 to HS2002 or to HS2007, in  such a way that would lead to intentionally or 
unintentionally avoiding duty-free treatment as coming under the ITA.  She was happy about the US 
observation and said that the duties on the products  description provided in Attachments A and B of 
the ITA should continue to be bound and eliminat ed in Members' schedul es. She said that her 
delegation would continue examin ing and engaging in this dialogue until the Committee could find a 
right solution. 
 
6.9 The representative of Hong Kong, China  felt that this was an important issue, which was 
worth continued discussion among interested member s, and reiterated that Hong Kong, China was 
interested in being involved in the discussion. 
 6.10 The representative of Chinese Taipei
 stated that he had taken careful note of discussions, 
especially to the first two Speakers' statements a nd claimed that the issue under discussion could also 
affect the exports of Chinese Taipei. He indicated hi s delegation's strong wish to participate in future 
discussion in the form to be agreed by all participan ts with a view to solving this issue and reaching a 
constructive outcome soon.  G/IT/M/48 
 Page 15 
 
 
  6.11 The representative of Korea  shared the US's concerns over this matter and agreed that 
duty-free treatment on this ITA product should be guaranteed continuously and that the spirit and the 
letter of the ITA  should be respected.  
6.12 The representative of Singapore
 agreed with the comments made by Korea; 
Hong Kong, China and other ASEAN Members. He believed this issue merited further discussion, 
and he welcomed written information from the EC in response to the request that was made by the 
US.  
6.13 The representative of Canada
 stated that the discussions at  yesterday's Symposium clearly 
demonstrated that this continued to be an impor tant issue of concern to their private sector. He 
supported continuous discussions of this issue in the Committee. 
 
6.14 The representative of the United States  responded to the EC's comments by saying that the 
US had already provided information on some specific products.  He said that it happened on 
19 January, when industry came and gave a demonstr ation of some specific products that they were 
concerned about, including a "flat panel display m onitor", which was only used with a computer and 
did not even turn on unless it was connected to a computer. He mentioned that it was clearly written 
all over, it must have a certain type of computer in  order for it to be functional.  He mentioned that 
when the industry was asked whet her they were getting duty free tr eatment for this product, they 
responded positively with the exception of the EC. He also mentioned that more products were also 
demonstrated in the January meeting. 
 6.15 The representative of Japan
 shared the position of Thailand and said that it was quite an 
important issue, not only for the specific products wh ich were identified by the US and Japan but also 
as a systematic issue. He believed that the IT A Committee should have taken a role in finding a 
systematic solution for this problem, not only for the specific product problem, but also for the 
systemic problem. He suggested that the ITA Committee should consider the idea of introducing a kind of surveillance system which would be a system  similar to that of the notification system under 
the TBT Committee. He used an example to illustra te his point whereby 'Member A' was concerned 
about tariff classification of 'Member B' on certa in products.  Then, 'Member A' would make a 
notification to the ITA Committee, providing it with  the information of the product and the Member 
concerned. Based on that notification 'Member B' should respond and verify whether the notification 
was true, and should make a justification in the case that notification was true. Then, he proposed that 
the ITA Committee would put this in its annual report. He said that this was just a preliminary idea in 
how the ITA Committee should deal with this systematic issue th at the Committee was facing. The 
participants had to think about how to resolve it and what kind of role the ITA Committee could play. 
 
6.16 The representative of the European Communities
 said that his delegation failed to understand 
why the Committee seemed to think that Paragraphs  3, 5 and 7 of the Annex to the Ministerial 
Declaration was an insufficient tool  for sorting out the i ssues raised in this regard. He stated that 
whenever the industry came up with ideas about wher e they wanted products to be classified one 
sometimes saw an interesting point of view.  He used the Multi-chip Agreement which entered into 
force last year among some of the participants as an example. He said that one administration came to 
the EC and asked whether a refrigerator with a mu lti-chip fell under the Multi-chip Agreement.  His 
answer was negative because the Mu lti-chip Agreement only covered the product defined.  He asked 
whether these were the kind of issues that the Unite d States wanted to raise whenever an industry felt 
that something should be in the ITA.  In response to the United States' concerns on monitors, he said 
that in the EC legislation, if one had a liquid crystal display (LCD) monitor that could only operate 
with an automatic data processing (ADP) or was prin cipally solely operated with an automatic data 
processing system of heading 8471, then the EC classi fied that kind of product as an ADP, as an ITA 
product. However, if  one had a LCD monitor which at the same time could be used with a PC,  but 
also with a TV, and a DVD, then it was a dual use product, which was out of the ITA. He clarified G/IT/M/48 
Page 16 
 
 
  that this was the EC position and said that he di d not think that the descr iption given by the United 
State was entirely clear. He understood that the United States was concer ned with those that 
principally or solely met the conditions of the nomenclature.  
6.17 The representative of China
 asked the EC whether what he heard from industry experts in the 
January session was true, whether a  LCD imported toge ther with a PC would be still classified as an 
ITA product. 
 6.18 The representative of European Communities
 responded that the answer was not simple. He 
said that if one imported the kind of product found in the office, for example, a box, a keyboard and a 
monitor, a LCD monitor, the EC classified it in 847 1. But he said that if that system performed a 
specific function other than data processing, for exampl e, medical apparatus, it was out. He said that if 
he was to tell the industry that that was an ADP machine, some people would be extremely unhappy 
because there were consequences for a classification in 8471 versus a classification of a scientific 
apparatus. 
 
6.19 The representative of Malaysia  was interested in the Japan ese idea and invited Japan to 
submit their proposal in writing so that she could transmit it to her capital.  
 
6.20 The Chairman  said that the discussions had somewhat  conferred the outcome or non-outcome 
of the consultations on 6 March 2007. He observed that  there was apparently some lack of consensus 
on these issues.  He stated that the Chair should c ontinue to hold discussions with a view to finding a 
simple, transparent, and expeditious solution.    
6.21 It was so agreed
. 
 7. New Participants  
7.1 The Chairman
 reminded participants that at the Committee meeting on 21 July 2006, it was 
agreed that the schedule of the United Arab Emirates would be deemed to be approved unless any 
participant notified its obje ction in writing to the Se cretariat. He said that on 8 February 2007, the 
schedule of the United Arab Emirates was distri buted to the participants and by 9 March 2007 no 
objection was received by the Secretariat. Therefore, he announced that the UAE became the 
70th participant to the ITA Committee. There were no other new participants, nor new schedules to be 
considered.   
7.2 The Committee took note
 of the Chairman's statement. 
 
8. Other Business 
8.1 The Chairman  stated that the issue of the review of "product coverage" continued to be a matter 
under consultation and encouraged delegations to continue their efforts.  
 
8.2 The Chairman  proposed the incoming Chairman to hold consultations on the date of the next 
meeting in conjunction with the advancement of di scussions on all open matters  in informal settings, 
and taking into account developm ents in the DDA negotiations. 
 8.3 It was so agreed
. 
 9. Election of Chairperson 
9.1 The Chairman
 stated that the Committee normally elected a new chairperson on an annual basis.  
Pursuant to consultations by the Chairman of the Council for Trade in Goods, a consensus had been  G/IT/M/48 
 Page 17 
 
 
  informally reached on the electio n of Mr. Amr ALJOWAILY (the Arab Republic of Egypt) as the new 
Chairman of this Committee. The Chairman proposed the election of Mr. Amr ALJOWAILY. 
 9.2 The Committee elected
 Mr. ALJOWAILY  as the new Chairman of the Committee of 
Participants on the Expansion of Trade in In formation Technology Products by acclamation. 
 
9.3 Mr. ALJOWAILY  assumed  his role as Chairman of the Committee. 
 9.4 The outgoing Chairman
 (Mr. Pospíšil) expressed his thanks to Members of the Committee, of 
the Secretariat, and the new Chairman. 
 9.5 The incoming Chairman
, Mr. ALJOWAILY, expressed his appreciation to the outgoing 
Chairman, Mr. Pospíšil. 
  
__________