WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/TBT/W/195
12 March 2003
(03-1403)
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade Original:  English
IMPLEMENTATION OF SUPPLIER’S DECLARATION OF CONFORMITY
Submission by the Separate Customs Territ ory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu
1. The Committee at the Second Triennial Review of the Operation and Implementation of the
TBT Agreement invited Members, on a voluntary basis, to exchange further information on their
experiences with the use of the supplier’s declaration of conformity (SDoC) approach.  Recognizing
the value of SDoC as the least-onerous approach to providing assurance of conformity, the Separate
Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu has been adapting its own mandatoryinspection system in a way that will facilitate trade.  SDoC was introduced into the regulatory system
for certain electronic products in January 2002 and a review of its implementation was conducted in
August 2002.  The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu would like to
share with Members its experiences from the first year of application of SDoC, as well as the results
of the review, in the hope that some of the inform ation provided here might be useful in further
discussions on this topic in the Committee.
I. INTRODUCTION
2. The Bureau of Standards, Metrology and Inspection (BSMI) under the Ministry of Economic
Affairs is in charge of the regulatory inspection of industrial products in the Separate CustomsTerritory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu.  Before the year 1997, the BSMI relied on batch
inspection as the only conformity assessment procedure to ensure compliance of products with
regulatory requirements.  With a view to facilitating trade and bringing its activities into line with
international practices, the BSMI gradually introduced the concept of risk management into its
conformity assessment procedure.
3. Along with the development of a technical infras tructure, which led to advances in its testing
capabilities, the BSMI revised the Commodity Inspection Act in both 1997 and 2001, to build up a
framework for the application of both type-testi ng and SDoC in the regulatory sector.  Both
approaches were designed to eventually replace traditional batch inspection.  Type-testing was
implemented from January 1999, and SDoC from January 2002.  The introduction of type-testing
ahead of SDoC was an important element, in that manufacturers and consumers were able to getaccustomed to the shift of responsibility for pr oduct safety from the regulatory authority to
manufacturers, as well as to the change of management tool used by the regulatory authority from pre-
market inspection to post-market surveillance.  The three-year period between the two introductions
was also deemed helpful for the regulatory authority to map out plans for an effective SDoC system
that would not jeopardize public safety.
II. PLANNING STAGE
4. A number of factors were considered during the planning stage, including the legislative
framework, the readiness of manufacturers, consumer education, the education of the regulator’s
inspection personnel, the different characterist ics of products and the type of SDoC to be
implemented.  The fact that the regulatory authority would no longer intervene before products using
the SDoC procedure were placed on the market, meant that an effective market surveillanceG/TBT/W/195
Page 2
mechanism would be all the more important, to ensure that manufacturers do not exploit the new
procedure and attempt to market products that are non-compliant.  Existing market surveillance
mechanisms may need to be strengthened to  deal with this change.  Regulations and
documents relating to this include the Commod ity Inspection Act (Articles 43-48 regarding SDoC,
Articles 49-52 regarding market surveillance, and Articles 59-64 regarding penalties imposed onviolations), Measures Governing Market Surveillance (revised on 1 February 2002), and Manuals for
Supplier’s Declaration of Conformity (published in October 2001).
5. It was important for manufacturers to be made  aware that they would need to discipline
themselves to making products that meet regulatory requirements and also for consumers to be made
aware of the change in conformity assessment procedures.  Manufacturers already exporting their
products to other countries may be familiar with SDoC, but we found that quite a number of ourmanufacturers, and certainly all of our consumers, were new to the SDoC system of products entering
the marketplace without having been approved by the regulatory authority.  Most of our
manufacturers are small and medium-sized enterprise s (SMEs) and the SDoC system may not provide
enough incentive for them to fulfil their obligations under it because they still have to rely on third-
party testing.  Solutions to this potential problem could lie in ensuring that testing services areavailable and affordable, as well as in building  awareness among consumers.  Consumers could be
educated to help to monitor goods on the market a nd to apply pressure on manufacturers to meet their
regulatory requirements.
6. The case studies conducted by Industry Canada in August 2001 indicated that there are
several types of SDoC implemented by Members, wi th those requiring the use of third-party certified
test results and those without any specific requirements on tests being at opposite ends of the
spectrum.  Special consideration was given to th e type of SDoC to be implemented and which
products would be the most appropriate to be cove red in the SDoC system.  At the initial stage of
implementing a new system, it was considered necessary to require that the declaration be made basedon third-party test results to ensure that adequate protection of consumers could still be maintained.
Information technology products, with their short life span, mature production process and low
product risk, were chosen to be the first group of products to be covered by the system.
III. IMPLEMENTATION OF SDOC
A. P
ROCEDURE :
7. A manufacturer has first to register with the BSMI and obtain an identification number before
applying the SDoC procedure.  The manufacturer must sign a declaration based on results of tests
carried out by designated testing laboratories recognized by the BSMI and declare that the products
comply with the relevant inspection standards.  In addition, the manufacturer needs to prepare a
technical file containing information about the product and the test reports.  The product must be
labelled with the inspection mark, the letter “D” and the identification number given by the BSMI.The declaration and technical file should be retained by the manufacturer for at least five years after
the product is no longer produced or imported.
B. P
RODUCTS COVERED BY THE SDOC:
8. A total of 19 items are now covered by the SD oC system, mainly parts or accessories of
IT products such as electronic calculators, hard disc devices, floppy disc devices, optical disc devices,
storage units, and power supply.  A list of these products is provided in Appendix I.
C. MARKET SURVEILLANCE :
9. The current market surveillance mechanism has already been operated in a pre-market-control
environment.  Market surveillance is conducted by implementing annual plans to check theG/TBT/W/195
Page 3
compliance of products placed on the market against the relevant regulatory requirements.  Places
covered in these surveillance plans include distribution points, manufacturing premises, storage
places, work places, and places of business.  Empha sis is placed on checking the marking of products
and the enforcement of any orders regarding the recall of products.  Products will also be purchased
from the market and tested to see whether they comply with the requirements.  However, it may benecessary to review the way market surveillance is conducted in order to respond to unforeseen
changes that may result from the introduction of SDoC.
IV. EVALUATION
10. The benefits that SDoC will bring to manufacturers and the regulatory authority have already
been illustrated in a number of papers and will not be repeated here.  What concerns the regulatory
authority most is whether the same level of consumer protection will be maintained when the safety ofproducts depends solely on the self-discipline of manufacturers.  In order to closely monitor the
implementation of SDoC in our market, a surv ey was carried out in August 2002, covering
105 products displayed at more than 30 distribution points, primarily to check the marking of
SdoC products.  It was found that about 30% of th e products did not bear the required inspection
mark, most of them being computer motherboards and different add-on cards.  The rate ofincompliance is therefore high and one possible reason is that manufacturers may still not be familiar
with related requirements.  Based on this finding, measures are being taken to enhance manufacturers’
awareness of the SDoC requirements and to remi nd them of the penalties that could be incurred
through violations.
11. The difficulties encountered in implementing the SDoC system have been mainly those
concerning the effectiveness of the market surveillance mechanism and the change to the regulatory
authority’s role.  Effective market surveillance is an  important factor in ensuring fair competition and
market access.  Most of our manufacturers are SMEs and the removal of pre-market controls may
trigger the thought of challenging the market surveillance mechanism, by affixing the inspection markdishonestly or placing untested products on the market to save costs.  This may not pose problems to
most developed countries, where society has long been cultivated in respecting laws and where the
liability system is well established.  In a society such as ours, the market surveillance mechanism
needs to be further strengthened and enforced to take account of existing cultural and societal
characteristics.
12. Along with the change in the regulatory authorit y’s role to that of post-market auditing, some
adjustment is required in the attitude of the regu lator’s inspection staff.  For example, confidence in
manufacturers complying with the requirements needs to be established.  Although market
surveillance already existed before the introduction of SDoC, it did not receive much attention when it
was perceived as being only supplementary to pre-ma rket control measures.  A great deal of effort
was devoted to technical issues in the pre-market product approval processes, while studies on marketsurveillance were relatively few and insufficient.  More managerial knowledge and skills are required
to implement an effective market surveillance m echanism.  Further education activities need to be
designed for the proper training of staff.
V. RECOMMENDATION
13. Although this paper covers only one year of experience that the Separate Customs Territory
of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu has had with  the implementation of SDoC, it reveals issues
that require further discussion and exchange of experience.  The case study report by Industry Canada
identified a number of important issues involved in the application of SDoC that could affect its
success, such as the various regulatory scenario s that different SDoC models could apply to, how
public perception of risk affects SDoC acceptance, how  to evaluate the impact of product risk factors,
labelling, product liability laws and non-compliance penalties to maintain public safety, as well as
how to deal with certain “environmental” factors.  Our experience, based on an industrial structureG/TBT/W/195
Page 4
that is composed mainly of SMEs, not only supports the findings of the case study but serves to
further illustrate the needs for technical assistance in introducing SDoC into the regulatory sector.
These include assistance in establishing an effective market surveillance mechanism, as well as in
training the regulator’s employees and in te chniques to review SDoC  after implementation.
14. The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu would like to
propose that an informal workshop be arranged fo r Members to discuss fully the use of SDoC and
techniques for evaluating factors that will affect th e future success of SDoC application.  Through this
discussion and the exchange of experiences, it is hoped that Members will be encouraged to
implement SDoC in their conformity assessment procedures.G/TBT/W/195
Page 5
APPENDIX I
LIST OF PRODUCTS APPLICABLE TO SDOC
A. PRODUCTS COVERED AND RELATED CODES
C.C.C. Code*Product description
8470.10.10.00-1 Pocket-size data recording, reproducing and displaying machines with
calculating functions (inspection scope: only for power consumption morethan 10nW)
8470.10.20.00-9 Electric calculators capable of operation without an external source of electric
power (inspection scope: only for power consumption more than 10nW)
8470.21.00.00-0 Electronic calculating machines, incorporating a printing device
8470.29.00.00-2 Other electronic calculating machines8470.30.00.00-9 Other calculating machines8471.70.10.10-5.A Hard disc devices (external type)8471.70.10.10-5.B Hard disc devices (internal type)
8471.70.10.20-3.A Soft disc devices (external type)
8471.70.10.20-3.B Soft disc devices (internal type)8471.70.10.30-1.A Optical disc devices (external type)8471.70.10.30-1.B Optical disc devices (internal type)8471.70.10.90-8.A Other magnetic disc devices (external type)8471.70.10.90-8.B Other magnetic disc devices (internal type)8471.70.90.00-0.A Other storage units (external type)8471.70.90.00-0.B Other storage units (internal type)8471.80.00.00-7 Other units of automatic data processing machines8473.30.10.90-5 Other parts and accessories of the machines of sub-heading No. 8471.10,
8471.30, 8471.41, 8471.49, 8471.50, 8471.60 and 8471.70 (limited to Class
B main board of computers and add-on cards with I/O port; except for
Fax Card, Modem card, Fax/ Modem Card and other add-on card with
communication function)
                                                     
* The C.C.C. Code is based on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System.G/TBT/W/195
Page 6
8504.40.20.00-3 Static converters for automatic data processing machines and units thereof,
and telecommunication apparatus
8504.40.91.00-7 Other power supply, exchangeable type
B. INSPECTION STANDARD
CNS13438: Limits and methods of measurement of radio interference characteristics of
information technology equipment (equivalent to CISPR 22)
C. RETENTION PERIOD OF THE DECLARATION OF CONFORMITY AND TECHNICAL FILE
Five years after the manufacture or import of the product.
__________