RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/IT/M/49 
26 May 2008 
 (08-2438) 
Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in 
Information Technology Products  
 
 
 
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 6 NOVEMBER 2007 
 
Chairman: Mr. Mr. Khalid I. Emara (Egypt)  
Agenda of the Meeting           P a g e  
 
1. Election of Chairperson........................................................................................................ ....1 
2. Review of the Status of Implementation of the Ministerial Declaration on Trade 
in Information Technology Pr oducts (G/IT/1/Rev.40) ..........................................................2  
3. 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  
4. Non-tariff Measures Work Programme (G/IT/SPEC/Q4/19/Rev.2 and 
G/IT/SPEC/Q2/11/Rev.1) ......................................................................................................... 3 
5. 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).....................................................4  
6. Follow-up Discussions from the IT Symposium.....................................................................6  
7. Proposals from the United States Concerning Product Coverage of 
the Current ITA ................................................................................................................ ........8  
8. New Participants ............................................................................................................... ......13  
9. Draft Annual Report of the Committee to  the Council for Trade in Goods (2007) 
(G/IT/W/27) .................................................................................................................... .........13  
10. Other Bu siness................................................................................................................. ........13  
 
_______________ 
 
 
Introduction 
   The Committee adopted
 the proposed agenda for the meeting which was circulated in 
WTO/AIR/3106 on 26 October 200 7, with an addition to take up the "review of product coverage", and 
the "date of our next meeting" under "other business".  1. Election of Chairperson 
1.1 The Committee elected
 Mr. Khalid I. Emara (Egypt) as Chai rman. This was due to the departure 
of Mr. Aljowaily, who was elected as Ch airman of  the Committee in March 2007. 
 G/IT/M/49 
Page 2 
 
 
  2. Review of the Status of Implementation of the Ministerial Declaration on Trade in 
Information Technology Products (G/IT/1/Rev.40) 
2.1 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.40.  This 
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.   
 2.2 The representative of the United States
 noticed that, as indicated in paragraph 2 of 
G/IT/1/Rev.40, Morocco and Panama had not yet submitted their formal documentation.   
 2.3 The Chairman
 urged those participants that had not  followed the procedures for the formal 
ratification and modification of schedules, as required by the Decision of 26 March 1980 on 
Procedures for Modification and Rectification of Schedules of Tariff Concessions, to make their 
submissions as soon as possible.  
 
2.4 The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
 3. 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) 
3.1 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 suggests that a list of ITA partic ipants should be drawn up and categorized by the 
type of assessment procedure adopted. In this connection, the Chair ra ised two issues for the 
Committee to discuss: (1) information availability; and (2 ) structure/format of such a list. With respect 
to the first issue, it was agreed to encourage those participants 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, as requested, prepared a draft list (G/IT/W/17) as per Section III of the Guideline, indicating for each ITA participants which type of conformity assessment procedure it 
used based on the information available.  
 3.2 The Chairman
 reported that since then, four revisions to G/IT/W/17 were issued by the 
Secretariat to include the updated information provid ed by the participants with regard to their 
respective conformity assessment procedures for the EMC/EMI projects.   
3.3 The Chairman
 recalled that at the Committee mee ting on 31 October 2006, the Committee 
agreed that the Chair would write to those delega tions who had not submitted a survey response, to 
urge them to provide the information concer ning their conformity assessment procedures for 
EMC/EMI as soon as possible. Based on that, the Chair wrote to 20 delegations, including 6 most 
recently joined participants, on 9 February 2007 r espectively to ask them to provide information 
regarding the type of assessment procedures for EMC/ EMI being currently used by their authorities to 
the Secretariat as soon as possible so as to enab le the Committee to complete this work.  
 
3.4 The Chairman  reported that, in response to the communication of 9 February 2007,  
information was received by the Secretariat from Malaysia indicating that there was no mandatory 
conformity assessment procedures imposed by the Malaysian authorities; and from the Dominican 
Republic authorities, indicating that they were us ing Supplier's Declaration of Conformity (SDoC), 
type 4 or category (f). Such information was al so received from Honduras. As provided for in its 
submission (G/IT/SPEC/Q4/26) Honduras used Certification by 3rd party, type 2, or category (b). 
   G/IT/M/49 
 Page 3 
 
 
  3.5 The Chairman  encouraged those participants who had not provided such information to do so 
without any further delay so as to enable the Co mmittee to complete its work in that regard. 
 3.6 The Committee took note
 of the Chair's updates.  
 
4. Non-tariff Measures Work Program me (G/IT/SPEC/Q4/19/Rev.2 and 
G/IT/SPEC/Q2/11/Rev.1) 
4.1 The Chairman  recalled that the Committee, at its earlier meetings in 2005 and 2006, had 
already some discussions on what it should do next in addition to EMC/EMI. Some delegations had 
shared their views on how the Committee should adva nce its work on NTB notifications and forward 
them to NAMA, and on how to continuously e xpand the work of the Committee on NTBs.  Some 
delegations indicated that they woul d need some time for reflection.  
 
4.2 The Chairman  further recalled that at the meeti ng of 29 March 2007, one delegation 
emphasized the importance of the Committee's work on NTBs in the ITA sector and reported on the 
developments in the NAMA negotiations, where that delegation had made a proposal on NTBs in the 
electronic sector, concerning barriers such as: non-r ecognition of international standards;  lack of 
transparency and openness in domestic standard ization processes; and unnecessary burdensome and 
duplicative conformity assessment procedures. He s uggested the Committee revert to this matter at 
this meeting, particularly as the issue of NTBs was raised at the IT Symposium held on 28-29 March 2007. 
  
4.3 The representative of the European Communities
 stressed the importance of the work on 
NTBs as NTBs could continue to cause serious de lays in bringing products on the market and 
sometimes prevent trade from taking place at all.  In his view, this Committee had been extremely 
successful in eliminating tariffs in this particul ar sector, however, not much progress had been made 
on NTBs as it should have been. He said that it was him, at the last meeting, who asked for 
Participants' attention to the proposal that his delegation had made in the NAMA negotiations on 
NTBs regarding electronics. His delegation had no w gathered some considerable support for the 
proposal and the NAMA Chair had started a series of text based discussions on the proposal in smaller 
groups. He stated that should this proposal be accep ted, then it would lead to an important reduction 
of costs in bringing new products on the market.  As the proposal was on the table and his delegation 
worked very hard on it, his delegation hoped that all ITA participants could support them. He also 
remained of the opinion that this Committee would ha ve a very important task in this area as well. 
  
4.4 The representative of the United States  agreed with the EC that this issue of reducing 
regulatory barriers to trade was a very important issue,  especially to their industries.  As to the EC's 
proposal, his delegation was reviewing it with a lot of  interest.  He felt that there were some common 
ground in the EC's proposal which his delegation could actually move forward on. However, his 
delegation would like to suggest a pretty flexible  approach to this issue that could provide a 
framework for Participants to progressively de regulate and be consistent with their market 
development and regulatory capacity.  His delegation also agreed with the EC that the ITA Committee 
as well as other Committees should continue to address the work in this important area.  
 
4.5 The representative of the Philippines  congratulated the Chair on his election and stated that 
her delegation also attached great importance to th e elimination of NTBs as participants had already 
achieved their goal of zero duty in this sector and thus, the next big hurdle would be NTBs.  She 
thanked the EC for its report on the progress that had being made in the context of NAMA. She said that her delegation would remain supportive of the in itiatives that had been undertaken in this area. 
 
4.6 The Chairman
 thanked these delegations that had spoken on this very important subject, and    
looked forward to more contributions to the work  on NTBs, including those in other bodies of the G/IT/M/49 
Page 4 
 
 
  WTO. Given its importance, he suggested that the Comm ittee revert to this issue at its next meeting so 
that participants be provided with the opportunity to continue the discussion.  
 4.7 It was so agreed
. 
 
5. 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/26 and G/IT/26/Add. 1 + Add.2) 
 
5.1 For List V , the Chairman  stated that the Committee had before it the updated summary of 
discussions on all 20 items of List V -  G/IT/W/20.  It also had before it the room paper prepared by 
the Secretariat on categorization of the 20 items in the List V into two groups: the first category was 
for the easy issues for which convergence towards consensus was foreseeable and could be hopefully 
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 
detected within the participants.  Later on the ro om paper, as suggested by some delegations, was 
issued as a job document – JOB(07)/91.  
 
5.2 The Chairman  recalled that at the meeting of 29  March 2007, the representatives of the 
Philippines and Singapore informed the Committee that they would soon submit their views and 
comments with regard to the List V items.  He  informed the Committee that views and comments 
from these two delegations were then received a nd reflected in JOB(07)/91/Rev.1.  Therefore, 
answers had already been received from 9 delegations rather than 7.  While this was a good news he 
urged the remaining participants to do their best to respond to the Committee in th is regard in the near 
future.  
 
5.3 The Chairman  also recalled that at the last meeting, the Chair mentioned that at the informal 
meeting on 6 March 2007, one dele gation commented that it would not be useful to restart or 
re-activate the process of discussions among the pa rticipants on these List V issues again, and 
suggested that a decision document be prepared in th e form of a Chair's paper. In the view of that 
delegation the decision document, based on the di scussions and information available with the 
Secretariat, should be a simple one with a single format, 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 
basically yes or no answer, or a questionnaire kind of answer. In response to the Chair's request for 
reaction to the above-mentioned s uggestion, one delegation thought that it might be premature and 
suggested to give it one last try in the Committee and to see whether the participants could reach a 
mechanism for follow-up. Since Participants were not  in the position to ask the Chair to prepare such 
document, it was agreed that the Committee would wa it for inputs from participants and revert to the 
issue at its future meeting.  
  
5.4 The representative of Japan  thanked the Secretariat for preparing the documents. He said that 
his authorities felt these List V issu es should be finalised as soon as possible. He asked the Chair of 
how the Committee could proceed procedurally and what would be the schedule in the mind of the 
Chair.  
5.5 The representative of Thailand
 stated that her delegation was one of those that had asked for 
more time to respond to the questions in the documen t. However, due to some internal problems in the 
Capital, much more time would be needed for her delegation to prepare answers to these questions.   G/IT/M/49 
 Page 5 
 
 
  While she did not know how long it would take, she asked whether the Chair could indicate a 
deadline, so that she could put pressure on the Capital to answer these questions. 
 5.6 The Chairman
 indicated that he did not want to set a deadline as more time was needed to 
consult in capitals. He assured the Th ai delegation that the Committee would revert to this item at its 
next meeting.  He also suggested delegations come forward with further information, if any, to the 
Committee before the next meeting which would be sometime in the Spring of 2008.  He understood 
that communication between Geneva and Capitals to ok longer than intended because of the nature of 
some of these questions and thus, delegations after the meeting could indicate to their capitals that 
there would be an interest to receive as much information as soon as possible. As to the Japanese 
question on how the Committee should proceed with th e List V, he would like to hear from other 
delegations. As for the schedule, he suggested that  from now to the next meeting, delegations would 
need to further consult with their capitals for input s. In the meantime, he said that he would be open 
for further informal consultations with inter ested delegations on this matter if needed.  
 
5.7 The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
 5.8 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 36
th Session of the WCO HS 
Committee held in September 2005.  It was reproduced and circulated as G/IT/26.   
 
5.9 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.  
 
5.10 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."  
 5.11 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 January 2007."   
 G/IT/M/49 
Page 6 
 
 
  5.12 The Chairman  said that at the Committee meeting of 29 March 2007, as the two-month 
reservation period was over, he had asked whether par ticipants were ready to consider this item be 
moved from List III to List I, and one delegation had requested for more time to reflect.   
5.13 The Chairman
 noted that that delegation would need some more time for reflection, and thus, 
proposed to revert to this item at a future meeting.  
 
5.14 It is so agreed . 
 6. 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   
  
6.1 The Chairman
 recalled the two previous informal consultations held by the Chair at the 
beginning of 2007 on the issue of transposition of HS2002 to HS2007 as well as on what role the 
Committee should play in this exercise. He mentioned that at the last meeting, the Secretariat, as 
requested, had made a presentation in relation to  the on-going exercise of the HS2002 transposition 
and explained the changes due to the introduction of HS2007 nomenclature in relation to the ITA 
products. A technical note prepared by the Secretariat to that effect was also circulated. It noted the 
changes due to the introduction of HS2007 Nomenc lature in relation to ITA products.  It had a 
HS2007 checklist or a "model" list of ITA products, b ased on Attachment A to the Agreement and for 
Attachment B to the extent possible. Subsequently , as suggested, an electronic file was posted on the 
WTO Members' site.  It then, was reproduced as JOB document JOB(07)/96 at the request of several 
delegations.  
 
6.2 The Chairman  also recalled that at the last meeting, the Secretariat explained the document 
table by table, and hoped it could enable participants  to have a better understanding of what had been 
done and decide on how to make best use of the information provided therein. The Secretariat also 
indicated that it was a purely technical exercise a nd would not resolve any pending divergence issues 
that existed, in particular regarding Attachment B.   
6.3 The Chairman
 further recalled that at that meeting, while some participants explained their 
respective views on this not only very important, but also very complicated subject, the Chair observed that certain time was needed for discussions within their individual administrations. Thus, it was agreed 
to postpone the discussions. As for the idea of ho w to specify the role of the Committee in the 
transposition exercise, it was fe lt that this matter would require further consultations among the 
participants.  The Chair was asked to undertake this task and report back at this meeting.  
 
6.4 The Chairman
 informed the Committee that in his consultations carried out one day before this  
meeting with some delegations, it was recognized that though the note was not an end product it was a 
good starting point.  While some improvements would be necessary and there were some format problems to download some of the tables, the note was viewed as a useful technical guide for 
participants to carry out their HS2007 transposition exer cise.  He, therefore, invited participants for a 
broad discussion on this document so as to give their comments or suggestions for improvement.  
 
6.5 The representative of Japan
 thanked the Secretariat for their ve ry effective work, in particular 
for the information on the transposition to HS2007 . He said that his Government appreciated the 
technical note by the Secretariat though it was still in the stage of reviewing. He recognized the note  G/IT/M/49 
 Page 7 
 
 
  as a very good starting point and proposed the participants to provide their comments or 
recommendations, if any, concerning the note at th e next meeting of the Committee. Based on these 
comments and recommendations from the participan ts, the Committee should explore discussions on 
the technical note.  
 
6.6 The representative of the United States  supported Japan's view and  appreciated the efforts by 
the Secretariat in putting together this very extens ive and importance document.  He said that as the 
Secretariat's work for transposition for HS2002 w as near completion and the WTO Members were  
moving to the next step of transposing their schedules to HS2007, this issue took even a more 
immediacy as well as the fact that the newly acceded  participants had put their schedules in HS2007. 
He thought that the participants could have no doubt about  how important this process was.  He said 
that his delegation had started their initial review of the document.  However, as mentioned by the 
Chair, they did have some initial technical difficu lties of downloading and working with the file, that 
made a complete analysis difficult but they unders tood that those technical difficulties had all been 
resolved now. They had seen the revised versions of the document which seemed to suite their  
interest quite well. The file seemed very comple te and everything seemed to be in order. His 
delegation would continue their review of this document.  
 
6.7 The representative of the European Communities  said that for the EC, this document was a 
first stage in what they considered to be a transposition exercise.  Although it was a very good starting point he would still like to make one comment and then, perhaps came back with further technical 
comments. He felt that it was important to understand how one transposed a nomenclature.  He said 
that if one looked at HS2007, important changes were made to the scope of heading 8542.  
Heading 8542 would cover electronic integrated circ uits and got a special role in the harmonized 
system nomenclature by the fact that if a pr oduct was classified in h eading 8542, then it took 
precedent over clarification in any other heading in the nomenclature.  He said what happened in 2007 
on the nomenclature side was that in 2007,  some  products were moved into  8542 and some products 
were moved out of 8542.  As of which products were moved into 8542, he said that the so-called 
multi-chip integrated circuits were moved into 8542, and before that, in the EC, these multi-chips 
were classified in different places in the nomencl ature. Since it was an important product and the EC 
had joined the Multi-chip Agreemen t, when the EC transposed from the previous version of the 
harmonized system to the current one, they intr oduced a line for these particular multi-chips, 
wherever it was relevant in 8542 and had the duty- free treatment associated with it.  He emphasized 
that that was because of the Mu lti-chip Agreement. He also re minded the Committee that only six 
ITA participants had joined that Agreement.  As to  what the rest of participants were doing, he said 
that that was their responsibility.  However, he furt her stated that if one wanted to see the inspiration 
on how it could be done in a transposition, and ev en the Secretariat would like to follow that 
approach, was that one could create a particular line,  or particular lines, if one believed there were 
more than one.  He mentioned that the other issue, which was a bit more curious, was  that one type of 
product, namely micro-assemblies were moved out of 8542. He said that the argument, in Brussels 
before the nomenclature experts, was that these produc ts no longer existed so they didn't need to have 
this particular provision saying that the micro-assemblies would fall into 8542. He said, from a 
customs perspective, that it meant these products did exist, and when some body came along and could 
demonstrate their existence, these products had to be  classified somewhere else other than 8542. But, 
in his view, the consequences would be that th ese products, although were entitled to a duty-free 
treatment before the 1
st January 2007, now would have to find a line with a series of duty. He pointed 
out that that was the other peculiar thing with h eading 8542 as technically, it was an interesting one 
because it took precedent over the headings and for th at reason one had got very specific definitions 
of what a particular type of produc t was in the legal notes to that heading. So this was one of the cases 
where one had to pay attention when one was doing the transposition. One just didn't do it by number 
counting. One also had to go in and look at th e associated legal notes. For the case of 2007, one 
should also look at the expanded notes of the harm onized system which were drafted in order to G/IT/M/49 
Page 8 
 
 
  explain what was the intention of the one, who w as introducing the change to the HS nomenclature, 
and thus, it was very technical.  
 6.8 The Chairman
 thanked the EC for their contribution and invited others to follow to come up 
with their reflections and technical comments on  this very complex document in front of the 
participants. He said that it was somehow ironic to  note that the ITA Committee Participants were 
having technical problems to download the document , but he was sure that with some technical 
assistance, participants could do a better job. He  inv ited the Secretariat to take note of what Japan and 
the US had said about the nature of the review that  was being carried out in the capitals regarding this 
particular document. He also invited participants to have a detailed review and examination of the 
document. In relation to what Thailand said earlier, he preferred not to set a deadline but, encouraged 
participants to come up their reflections on the doc ument and if necessary, make their submissions to 
the Secretariat before the next meeting. He indicat ed that after the Secretariat had received further 
inputs by participants towards the end of February  2008, there could also be a possibility for him to 
hold an informal meeting sometime in March 2008 to  review and discuss this document together with 
submissions and views provided by participants.  He hoped the Secretariat would also take note of 
some of the technical suggestions made today. He  further suggested that the Committee take note of 
the statements made and agreed to hol d an informal meeting in March 2008.  
 
6.9 It was so agreed .  
   
6.10 The Chairman  then recalled the paper presented by Japan in 2006 on updating the list of 
products covered under the ITA (G/IT/W/25), and the subsequent discussions held at the informal 
meetings of 19 January a nd 6 March 2007.  He said that at the meeting on 29 March 2007, delegations 
had agreed to continue their discussions on the Japanese proposal along with the work done by the 
Secretariat as both were somewhat linked. Since no one would like to speak at this meeting, he 
therefore, suggested the Committee agree to con tinue the discussion at its future meeting.  
 6.11 It was so agreed
.  
 
7. Proposals from the United States Concerning Product Coverage of the Current ITA 
7.1 The Chairman  stated that this item was listed separately at the request of the US delegation to 
discuss its proposals on product coverage under the existing ITA (G/IT/W/21, G/IT/W/23 and 
G/IT/W/26). He recalled that the previous rounds of formal and informal discussions/consultations 
held during the fourth quarter of 2006 and the first quarter of 2007 on these proposals. He also 
recalled that at the Committee meeting  of 29 Ma rch 2007, it was observed that there was apparently 
some lack of consensus on this issue and he was asked to hold further discussions/consultations with a 
view to find a simple, transparent, and expeditious solution.  
 
7.2 The Chairman  informed the participants that at the request of one delegation, he had 
organized another round of consulta tion, one day before this meeting,  with the participation of two 
other concerned delegations, in which they had an open exchange of views and clarified their 
respective positions on products raised for discussion u nder this item.  He felt that it was a useful 
exercise.   
  7.3 The representative of the United States
 stated that this would have been the fourth round of 
discussions that the Committee had on this issue, of which his delegation had submitted three separate 
papers in order to get a global view of what ha d been happening. He said  that 15 months ago his 
delegation did suggest the idea of informal consulta tions on how participants could maintain duty-free 
treatment for ITA products in the light of technological developments. During these discussions, his 
delegation was encouraged by the support of ma ny participants, who recognised that if duty-free 
treatment for these products had not been maintain ed, additional duties could effect exports with  G/IT/M/49 
 Page 9 
 
 
  billions of dollars from both deve loped and developing countries. He said that during the first 3 
rounds of consultations, participants had had a de monstration of some of the specific products and 
statements by global IT industries in the US, th e EC, Japan, the Philippines,  Chinese Taipei, India, 
Australia and Korea that had supported the efforts to maintain duty-free treatment for ITA products. 
He said, however, that the EC had a different view arguing that these new features/technologies might 
have resulted in an "evolution" of products out of th e ITA and as a result, participants did not need to 
maintain their commitments on these products. Furt hermore, the EC had decided to implement a 
series of measures to reclassify such products to dutiab le tariff lines in its tariff schedule. He said that 
his delegation had asked on several occasions at this  Committee, if the EC could explain or provide in 
writing a detailed explanation of how these products had "evolved" such that they were no longer 
covered by their commitments. He said that all th ey had received were general statements indicating 
that the products in question would have now been "additional" products and therefore not covered by 
their current commitments or that the problem identified pertained to issues in Paragraph 5 of the 
Annex to the Ministerial Declaration and should be addressed by the WCO or a panel of customs 
experts. However, in his view, as  Paragraph 5 was used to resolve custom classification divergences 
for existing ITA products, it would not seem prudent to  use Paragraph 5 to resolve this issue if, as the 
EC was arguing, these were not existing products an d were no longer covered by their commitments. 
Thus, in his view, they could only conclude that  a difference of view existed on whether these 
products were still covered by ITA commitments. He said that it was about this issue that the US, 
Japan, Chinese Taipei, and other ITA Participants ha d raised concerns and which were described in 
his delegation's last paper (G/IT/W/26).  He felt th at this was not an issue which the Committee could 
address pursuant to Paragraph 5 of the Annex to th e Ministerial Declaration. The US viewed that 
these products remained covered by the ITA comm itments and duties on these products continued to 
be bound and eliminated in ITA Participants' tariff schedules. They also felt that the EC had put many 
ITA participants and global IT industries in a very  challenging position. Duties were currently being 
applied to these products throughout  the EC. A coalition of global industries in both developed and 
developing countries had submitted another paper explaining the imme diate adverse impact on them 
of the situation. He further argued that all IT manufacturers consistently incorporated additional 
features or technologies into their products. He said that if ITA product coverage was limited to the 
products as it existed at the time the ITA was conclude d, then every year fewer and fewer IT products 
would be eligible for duty-free treatment. As a con sequence, every year, the ITA would become less 
and less relevant to trade in IT products. That was ce rtainly not their intention when they participated 
in the ITA negotiations. They believed that many othe rs participants shared this view. This would not 
only overturn the unqualified success of the ITA in prom oting trade, jobs and investment in the IT 
sector, but would also undermine efforts to en courage additional WTO Members to become ITA 
participants as well as affect their ability to work on other issues such as expansion of the Agreement. 
He said that his delegation would welcome additiona l perspectives or thoughts on this issue from 
other ITA participants.  
 
7.4 The representative of the European Communities  said that it was always interesting to hear 
that apparently the consultations were to be based  on the submission of papers and not on what they 
called a more substantial discussion. He said that there were reasons why they had expressed that 
view.  He thought that he was pretty frank and clear at  the last meeting, where he actually said that he 
failed to understand why other particip ants did not avail themselves of the provisions of Paragraphs  3 
and 5 of the Annex to the Ministerial Declaration.  He said that for the EC, the situation had not 
changed and they were still puzzled, for instance, as the EC was not refusing to talk to anybody. 
Participants were always welcomed to come and me et his delegation and it required a dialogue where 
participants could talk in a co mmon language. Regarding the complaints by the global industry as 
mentioned by the US, he emphasized that: (1) the gl obal industry was not a party to the ITA nor did 
they negotiate the ITA; and (2) the global industry, of  course, had an interest in not having to pay duty 
as it would improve their profits. He indicated that the EC now had been in a constant dialogue with 
the European industry for years and it was true to say that they did not always agree with what the EC 
did, in particular in this regard, perhaps, because the federation representing them had an G/IT/M/49 
Page 10 
 
 
  overwhelming majority of members that were US  and Japanese companies. In the view of his 
delegation, the ITA was an Agreement between Go vernments, not an Agreement between industries 
and thus, it was important to make this point clear.  He also emphasized the need for dialogue. In response to one of the US's compla ints, i.e. the US was saying that the EC was not respecting its ITA 
commitments with regard to LCD monitors with DVIs, he argued that from a classification point of 
view if one talked about an LCD monitor with DVI, the first question one had to ask oneself was, 
whether this product had more than a DVI as a connect or or not.  In fact the question was that one had 
to ask oneself whether this was a product which was solely or principally of a kind used in an 
automatic data processing system or not, as that was the requirement one would classify.  There were 
so many different types of LCD monitors with DVIs, he said that he was prepared to make a bet with 
the US delegation that even in the US there had be en monitors with DVI classified not under an ITA 
heading, but elsewhere, thus, that was the reason w hy his delegation thought one would need to have 
a dialogue between the parties concerned. He fu rther argued that the ITA was not an Agreement 
between the US and the EC, or Japan, it was an Agreement which involved a number of participants. 
Thus, he believed that a certain degree of tr ansparency was required when one talked about 
classification when one got to the next argument,  that was when the US was referring to these 
products with additional fu nctionalities, as one  took a product and added something to it.  It might 
still stay within an ITA heading, but sooner or later one had to cross into another heading.  He then 
asked, as an example, how many participants woul d classify a monitor with a TV tuner in an ITA 
heading in the case where there was no au tomatic data processing functionality.  
 
7.5 The representative of Japan
 said that his delegation had repeated in the past, in both formal 
and informal consultations, that they shared the c oncerns of the US about the current classification 
practices by one of the participants and the reas on why Japan was seriously concerned over this issue 
was not on a specific product. He stated that their real  concern was that if Japan did not deal with the 
issue, this could also happen to  other ITA products due to the ve ry nature of these products.  He 
argued that it was quite natural to add a more sophi sticated function or more additional functions to 
products that were already covered by the current ITA list.  He further stated that as his delegation had 
repeatedly emphasized in past ITA Committee mee tings, what Japan was concerned about was not 
how to expand the product list of the ITA, rather on how to maintain the current ITA product list, such 
as those products raised by the US. Japan believed those products were covered by the current ITA 
list and invited other ITA participants to share thei r systemic concern over this issue with a view to 
finding a solution.  
 7.6 The representative of the European Communities
 said that he was pleased to hear from the 
Japanese delegation that this was not a question about expanding the product coverage and on 
previous occasions, he had stated that expanding th e product coverage was a matter for Paragraph 3 of 
the Annex to the Ministerial Declaration, and did not believe that expansi on of the product coverage 
should be achieved by litigation, but it should be achieved by negotiati on and negotiation by all 
participants to the ITA.  However, he did unde rstand that the Japanese concerns about the manner in 
which some participants, in particular the EC, had classified certain products, and for that, as he had 
said,  his delegation were always ready to have a di alogue.  He argued that it was best to do it within 
the framework of Paragraph 5 of the Annex to the Mi nisterial Declaration, but then it had to be an 
open, frank discussion, in the presence of customs e xperts because that was one thing he had noted 
and the Japanese delegation had probabl y also discovered that themselves. He further said that if he 
started talking about customs issues, perhaps half of the delegations would be wondering what he was 
talking about, so he emphasized the need of the i nvolvement of experts. He said that his delegation 
was always willing to meet other delegations, and sh ould one have particular products in mind should  
get the customs experts involved.  
 
7.7 The representative of Malaysia  congratulated the Chair on his election and associated 
themselves with the statements made by the US and Ja pan. He stated that this issue could potentially 
effect the trade interest of  Asia.  G/IT/M/49 
 Page 11 
 
 
  7.8 The representative of Thailand  said that like Malaysia, her delegation also shared the concern 
expressed by the US and Japan on this issue and simi larly, Thailand was interested in examining the 
issue or engaging in the dialogue until the Committe e could reach a satisfactory outcome and solve 
this problem with a right solution. 
 
7.9 The representative of the Philippines  stated that it would not be a surprise that some of the 
ASEAN Members were expressing their support for th e concerns of the US and Japan because they 
were big exporters of electronics. She said that they would also take up the offer of the EC for a dialogue, but were not sure whether they would be successful in bringing their customs experts to 
Geneva.  
 7.10 The representative of Hong Kong, China
 stated that, as his delegation mentioned a number of 
times at the previous meetings, they did have a systemic concern on the issues, on the original 
understandings on these referred products.  Like previ ous speakers, they would like to be involved in 
the dialogue and more specifically, they supported th e idea mentioned by the EC of having a meeting 
with the involvement of customs experts.  Of c ourse, it might not be possible for every delegation. 
However, for those who could do it, the Committee might look into more detail to see whether there 
could be some sort of better understanding. 
 
7.11 The representative of Singapore  expressed his support for the statements made by the US, 
Japan, his fellow ASEAN colleagues and Hong Kong,  China.  He welcomed the invitation for 
informal discussions made by the EC and indicated th at his delegation would like to be invited to the 
consultations.  
7.12 The representative of Chinese Taipei
 congratulated the Chair on his election and assured his 
delegation's full cooperation under his chairmansh ip. He hoped the Committee would continue to 
serve as an important forum for trade in IT prod ucts. He said that his delegation attached great 
importance to the issue of product coverage. He  reca lled that the remarks made  by the speakers at the 
IT Symposium held in March 2007 that technology convergence had become a vital trend in the IT 
industry and additional functions or integrated f unctions for IT products would only increase as time 
went by. The boundaries for competition seemed to be ge tting blurred.  He said that, for instance, at 
the moment many companies were competing for the hand-set markets. A hand-set could be a cell 
phone, a camera, a walkman, a GPS, a personal organizer and a web browser. Companies that 
provided hardware might face competition from dot com companies.  Therefore, how the ITA Committee would cope with these cha llenges was an issue that concerned many stakeholders, not only 
the producers, but also the consumers.  He hoped th at this issue could be resolved efficiently and 
constructively.  He took note of the suggestions, such as the one mentioned by Hong Kong, China, 
regarding the meeting of customs experts, and indi cated that Chinese Taipei was open for both formal 
and informal consultations and had a strong inte rest to participate in the consultations.  
 7.13 The representative of India
 congratulated the Chair on his election and looked forward to his 
stewardship in pushing the Committee forward in some meaningful way on this particular issue which 
is of great importance. He said that like Chinese Taipei and Hong Kong, China, IT had been the 
fastest changing sector in international trade.  He said that in this sense, they did have some sympathy 
for some of the problem that had been cited by  the US, with the support of Japan and others. 
However, he also saw the importance for particip ants to have their negot iated agreements being 
retained and maintained in the sense that they ha d been entered into.  His delegation was concerned 
about changes, particularly about expansion of the Ag reement, and did share the EC's concerns in this 
regard. He stated that they did see somewhere down the line that there was actual convergence on 
both sides which the participants had to discuss for these issues to have a meaningful conclusion.  His 
delegation did not see a way out other than having th e informal discussions, being suggested by some 
other delegations. In his view, the informal discussi ons would have to be organised with appropriate 
and adequate preparatory work which would includ e capital-based experts, not just customs, also G/IT/M/49 
Page 12 
 
 
  those from the industry department or other depart ments that they might have. India would support a 
move like that. 
 7.14 The representative of the Republic of Korea
 also joined others in congratulating the Chair on 
his election. He supported the statements made by  the US and Japan and hoped to see the continuous 
discussions on this issue in the Committee. 
 
7.15 The representative of the United States  also congratulated the Chair on his election. In 
response to the EC's comment  that the global indust ry was not a signatory to the ITA and he stated 
that the global industry lived with the commitments that governments made on these products.  
Governments didn't make these commitments in a va cuum, they made these commitments to actually 
apply to real life products and real life trade, an d when industry came and said that they had been 
getting duty free treatment under the ITA for these products for many years, and then suddenly duties 
went up to 14 per cent. He felt that one should at least understand or be sympathetic to the industry's 
position and recognize that there was an issue there.  One might have a different point of view, but 
there was definitely an issue. Thus, he said that he was not sure how quickly one could just waive 
away the concerns that the industry  had raised. On the suggestion of having a meeting of international 
customs experts,  he said that while they would al ways favour continued discussions on this issue they 
did not believe it was a customs classification issu e.  Thus, holding a meeting of customs experts 
would not provide any guidelines to what exact pr oducts were covered by  the ITA commitments, 
especially those under Attachment B where it is stat ed that "positive list of specific products to be 
covered by this agreement wherever they are class ified in the HS." On the question of continued 
discussions, he thought he was a little perplexed by some of the comments that these discussions 
hadn't been robust enough. He said that participan ts had several different rounds of consultations; 
questions were posed;  demonstrati ons were organized;  statements  were made and documents were 
issued. He said that he was not sure exactly why the EC thought they hadn't been robust enough, 
perhaps it was because participants hadn't provide d a lot of comments or answers to any of the 
questions, however, he was of  the view that particip ants had been dealing with this issue at least for 
over a year.  
7.16 The representative of th e European Communities
 stated that he was here already in 1996 and 
actually was very pleased to see the reactions of qui te a number of ITA participants, and he would 
say, bonne volonté  to sit down and discuss these various issues.   He said that the EC certainly would 
work constructively in a discussion which would be open to all ITA participants.  He thought it was 
important because it effected all participants, and al so, as the US colleagues had just pointed out that 
Participants were dealing with a global industry.  He said that he understood why the industry was 
unhappy about paying duty, but that was the way it had to be sometimes. Sometimes a product fell 
into a category other than one would have thought. He recalled what he had mentioned the last time 
that somebody from industry asked him that if they put an MPC on a refrigerator, was then the 
refrigerator duty free. He said that this was basically not true. In fairness, the EC did in fact listen to 
industry in the EC, but the industry didn't tell the EC how to classify at the end of the day, that would 
be the EC's responsibility.  The EC  believed that there should be an informal meeting, which they 
would appreciate. Resources would not be a problem  for them, whereas, it might be a problem for 
others. The EC felt that it would be helpful to have the participation of both customs experts and trade 
experts if resources would not be a problem. It c ould also include industry experts as suggested by 
India because some of these issues might even be related to a misunderstanding, sometimes of the 
facts.  He again referred to monitors with DVI whic h, in his view, there were different types of DVI 
and some of them would be in no dispute that they were not in the ITA.  On others there might be an agreement but would need to get the product on the table and discuss it,  and then, come to 
conclusions.  If, as a result of that process, partic ipants might have to go back to a Paragraph 3 
situation to make perhaps an ITA bis.  He believed that that would be the way to proceed. His 
delegation thought that this had been a very constr uctive meeting, which was the result of the Chair's 
positive thinking.   G/IT/M/49 
 Page 13 
 
 
  7.17 The Chairman  thanked the EC and said that he did no t want to take the credit away from the 
Participants as their active partic ipation was the most important. His role was only to facilitate this 
process as much as possible and by recapping a little bit the discussion on this issue. He noted that the 
participants were in agreement on having continued consultations as the issues would need technical 
consideration and the discussions woul d be obviously open to all ITA par ticipants.  With regard to the 
form of informal consulta tions, he said that it would of course be a prerogative of Participants to bring 
whatever they want to these meetings.  He was also  of the view that the suggestions to bring experts 
from different parts of the Administrations to th is meeting would help, however, that would be 
without any prejudice to Participants' understanding of the different commitments undertaken within 
the ITA.  He would organise the informal consultatio ns, which would be open a ll participants with the 
involvement of capital based experts.   
7.18 The Chairman
 suggested the Committee take note of the statements made.  
 7.19 It was so agreed
.  
 
8. New Participants  
8.1 The Chairman  informed the Committee that Ukraine had recently submitted its draft ITA 
schedule of commitments to the Secretariat and the Secretariat was now in the process of conducting the 
electronic verification. As soon as the Secretaria t completed the verification, the draft Ukraine ITA 
schedule would be circulated to all participants for comments.  He, therefore, suggested the Committee 
agree that the schedule of Ukraine would be deemed to be approved unless any participant notified its 
objection in writing to the Secretariat, within tw o weeks from the date of circulation of the draft 
Ukrainian ITA schedule.  Similarly, the Secretariat, later on, would also issue a fax to confirm the 
participation of Ukraine to the ITA.   
 
8.2 The Chairman  also noted that as part of its WTO accession commitments, the concessions 
contained in the ITA schedule woul d come into effect upon the date of  Ukraine’s accession to the WTO.   
 
8.3 The representative of Ukraine  stated that as a result of the negotiations within the context of  
the Working Party on the Accession of Ukraine to the WTO, his government was committed to join 
the ITA. His delegation would submit to the Commi ttee of Ukraine's ITA schedule for consideration 
and approval as soon as the Secretariat complete d the electronic verification. He assured the 
participants that from the date of accession, Ukra ine would bind its entire ITA schedule at zero.   
 
8.4 It was so agreed.   The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
 
9. Draft Annual Report of the Committee to the Council for Trade in Goods (2007) 
(G/IT/W/27)   
9.1 The Chairman  reminded participants that the Committee reports annually to the Council for 
Trade in Goods. The draft report for this year had been circulated in G/IT/W/27. The report was a factual 
summary of the work undertaken in the Committee during the year, and it would likely need to be 
updated in light of the discussions in the Committee today.  
 
9.2 The draft annual report was approved  with the updates in light of the discussions in the 
Committee meeting today.    
 
10. Other Business 
10.1 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.   G/IT/M/49 
Page 14 
 
 
  10.2 The Chairman  proposed the Committee to hold its next meeting in the Spring of 2008 with the 
exact date to be settled in c onsultation with delegations.   
 10.3 It was so agreed
. 
 
10.4 The meeting was adjourned.  
__________