Document: WT/DS375/R WT/DS376/R WT/DS377/R Page C-1 ANNEX C SUBMISSIONS OF CHINESE TAIPEI CONTENTS PAGE C-1 Executive Summary of the first wr itten submission by Chinese Taipei C-2 C-2 Executive Summary of the oral stat ement by Chinese Taipei at the first substantive meeting
Document codes: WT/DS375/R; WT/DS376/R; WT/DS377/R
Complainant: Taiwan
Respondent: EU
Third parties: Australia, Brazil, China, Costa Rica, Hong Kong, India, Japan, South Korea, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Turkey, U.S., Vietnam
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. II:1, X:1, X:2, XXIII  GATT 1994

ANNEX C

SUBMISSIONS OF CHINESE TAIPEI

CONTENTS PAGE
C-1 Executive Summary of the first wr itten submission by Chinese Taipei C-2
C-2 Executive Summary of the oral stat ement by Chinese Taipei at the first
substantive meeting
C-12
C-3 Closing oral statement by Chinese Taipei at the first substantive
meeting
C-15
C-4 Executive Summary of the second written submission by Chinese
Taipei
C-17
C-5 Executive Summary of the oral st atement by Chinese Taipei at the
second substantive meeting
C-30

ANNEX C-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE FIRST WRITTEN SUBMISSION
BY CHINESE TAIPEI

I. INTRODUCTION
1. The Ministerial Declaration on Trade in Information Technology Products ("ITA",
Information Technology Agreement) was signed dur ing the WTO Ministerial Conference held in
Singapore on 13 December 1996. Participants to th e ITA agreed to bind and eliminate customs duties
and other duties and charges of any kind within the meaning of Article II:1(b) of the GATT 1994 with
respect to the products listed in the Attachments to the ITA.
2. As a participant in the ITA, the European Co mmunities ("EC") modified its Schedule in order
to undertake its commitments under the ITA. Spec ifically, the EC bound and eliminated all customs
duties and other duties and charges on products listed in Attachment A and Attachment B to the ITA,
including, inter alia , flat panel displays ("FPDs"), set-top boxes ("STBs") with a communication
function, and certain "input or output units" of "a utomatic data processing machines" and "facsimile
machines" ("MFMs").
3. However, as a result of certain EC measures challenged in this dispute, the EC and its
member States apply customs duties on the aforem entioned products, specifically, a 14% duty on
FPDs, 13.9% and 14% duties on STBs and a 6% duty on MFMs. The EC and its member States
therefore accord to the commerce of those products from inter alia the Separate Customs Territory of
Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu ("TPKM") treatment less favourable than that provided for in the
EC Schedule. These customs duties are in excess of those set forth and provided in the EC Schedule
and subject to terms, conditions and qualifications not set forth in the EC Schedule. The EC therefore
violates Articles II:1(a) and II:1(b) of the GATT 1994.
4. In addition, by failing to publish certain cl assification measures with respect to STBs
promptly and by applying duties prior to their publication, the EC and its member States acted
inconsistently with their obligations under Articles X:1 and X:2 of the GATT 1994.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. T
HE PRODUCTS AT ISSUE
5. FPDs are display devices capable of receiving signals from automatic data-processing
("ADP") machines only or from both ADP machines and other sources. They normally have a variety
of connectors from the traditional VGA connector to Digital Video Interface ("DVI"), among other
connectors. The common element to all FPDs conc erned is that they can only be used with ADP
machines, or with ADP machines and other apparatus.
6. STBs with a communication function are devices that enable a television set to receive and
decode digital television ("DTV") signals. They in clude the capability to connect to the Internet
through a modem. Sometimes they also include a hard disk drive (HDD) to record television
programmes and to perform other ancillary applications enabled by the DTV provider.
7. MFMs are machines capable of performing two or more of the following functions: printing,
scanning, copying and faxing. They can be further di vided into two main categories of products. The
first category includes MFMs that are connectable to an ADP machine or to a computer network. The

second category includes MFMs that cannot connect to an ADP machine but that operate in
connection with a phone line. None of the MFMs at issue include a function using traditional
photocopying technology.
B. T
HE MEASURES AT ISSUE
1. FPDs
8. The EC published Commission Regulation (EC) No. 634/2005 on 26 April 2005 and
Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2171/2005 on 29 D ecember 2005. Pursuant to these Regulations, a
monitor of the liquid crystal display (LCD) type with a DVI among other connectors was classified
under 8528.21.90 and subject to 14% duty. Classifi cation as an output unit of an ADP machine in
heading 8471 is excluded because such monitor is not of the kind solely or principally used in an ADP
machine system in view of its capabilities to display signals from sources other than an ADP machine,
such as a closed circuit television system, a DVD player or a camcorder.
9. On 30 May 2008, the EC published a consolidated version of the Explanatory Notes to the
Combined Nomenclature (CNEN), 2008/C 133/01, wh ich confirms that any FPD which is not
exclusively used with ADP machines or systems will be excluded from the classification subject to
zero tariff treatment.
10. On 31 October 2008, the EC published Co mmission Regulation (EC) No. 1031/2008
amending Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2658/87 an d establishing the 2009 CN through which FPDs
for use solely or principally with ADP machines are classified under heading 8528. However, the
applicable zero tariff was still reserved for FPDs solely or principally used with ADP systems
pursuant to the above classification measures.
11. TPKM notes that, through Council Regulation (EC) No. 493/2005 on 16 March 2005, and
Council Regulation (EC) No. 301/2007 on 22 Marc h 2007, the EC suspends duties on certain LCD
FPDs. The latter expired on 31 December 2008 although the EC Commission has introduced a
proposal to expand and prolong the duty suspension.
2. STBs
12. In 2006, the EC Commission proposed a draft CNEN to clarify the type of STBs covered by
CN subheading 8528.12.91 as STBs with a commun ication function, and the classification of STBs
with HDD. The text of the CNEN was partly adopted by the Customs Code Committee during its
meeting of October 2006. However, the vote on th e draft CNEN concerning STBs with a HDD was
not adopted until the meeting of April 2007.
13. Although the CNEN were adopted in October 2006 and April 2007, they were only published
in the Official Journal of the European Union on 7 May 2008. However, they were already applied by
EC member States before its publication.
14. As a result of the CNEN, STBs with a HD D are classified as video recorders under
CN 8521.90.00 and are subject to a 13.9% customs duty rate. In addition, STBs that include devices
that allow access to the Internet, such as ISDN- WLAN- or Ethernet devices, are excluded from
duty-free tariff treatment and classified under CN subheading 8528.71.19 subject to a 14% customs
duty on the ground that such devices are not considered to be "modems".

3. MFMs

15. On 9 March 1999, the EC published Commis sion Regulation (EC) No. 517/1999 which
classifies certain MFMs with the functions of scanning, printing, faxing and photocopying under
CN 9009.12.00 subject to a 6% customs duty. The reason is that none of the above functions are
considered to give the product its essential character.
16. On 9 March 2006, the EC published Commis sion Regulation (EC) No. 400/2006 which
classifies certain MFMs with the functions of scanning, printing and co pying under CN 9009.12.00
subject to 6% customs duty. The reason is that none of the above functions are considered to give the
product its essential character.
17. The Customs Code Committee held its 360th meeting in 2005. The Report of this meeting
states that "The Committee agreed that if a multifunctional device (fax, printer, scanner, copier) has
the capability of photocopying in black and white 12 or more pages per minute (A4 format) this
indicates that the product is classifiable in heading 9009 as a photocopying apparatus."
18. On 31 October 2008, the EC published Commi ssion Regulation (EC) No. 1031/2008 which
provides that MFMs performing a fax function a nd capable of coping 12 or less monochrome pages
per minute are subject to 0% customs duty. However, MFMs which do not incorporate a fax function
or which incorporate a fax function but are capable of copying more than 12 monochrome pages per
minute are subject to 6% customs duty.
III. ARGUMENTS
A. B
Y IMPOSING CUSTOMS DUTIES ON CERTAIN FPDS, THE EC IS VIOLATING ARTICLES II:1(A)
AND ARTICLES II:1(B) OF THE GATT 1994
1. The EC Schedule incorporates Attachment B to the ITA which obliges the EC to grant
duty-free treatment to FPDs for products falling within the ITA
19. According to the EC Schedule, a product c overed by the description "flat panel display
devices (including LCD, Electro Luminescence, Plasma, Vacuum-Fluorescence and other
technologies) for products falling with in this agreement, and parts th ereof" must be granted duty-free
treatment, wherever this product is classified. Therefor e, the question in this dispute is to determine
the scope of the concession granted with respect to "flat panel display devices". In particular, the
Panel must decide whether the EC is entitled to ex clude from the scope of the relevant concession any
FPDs which can receive signals from an ADP mach ine and from other sources due to the presence of
a DVI, or any other connector. Those questions will be examined below in the light of Articles 31
and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties ("Vienna Convention").
(a) Ordinary meaning
20. The ordinary meaning of "flat panel display de vices" indicates that they are thin screen
devices to visualize data or signals. They have a variety of applications including reproduction of
signals from ADP machines. However, they can also visualize data from other sources. It follows
from the ordinary meaning that a flat panel display device is not limited to receiving signals from an
ADP machine only.

(b) Context
21. The concession contained in the EC Schedule refe rs to "flat panel display devices (including
LCD, Electro Luminescence, Plasma, Vacuum-Fluorescence and other technologies) for products
falling within this agreement, and parts thereof" (emphasis added). It is clear that the concession only
requires that flat panel display devices be "for" pr oducts falling within the ITA. It is therefore
sufficient if the flat panel display device is inte r alia used with products falling within the ITA and
therefore at least with ADP machines. As a resu lt, FPDs are covered by that concession even though
they may be able to be connected to apparatus other than ADP machines.
22. Second, the EC Schedule grants duty-free treatment to a number of products even though they
may be able to be connected to apparatus other than ADP machines. For instance, a concession is
granted to "projection type flat panel display un its used with automatic data processing machines
which can display digital informati on generated by the central processing unit". It is sufficient that
the flat panel display can display information from an ADP machine. There is no reason to apply a
more restrictive interpretation to the FPDs at issue which also concern flat panel display technologies.
23. Finally, in connection with the concession of "f lat panel display devices", the EC listed in its
modified Schedule 14 CN subheadings under wh ich those devices could be classified. Having
analysed the 14 tariff subheadings, TPKM considers that they do not support the proposition that
FPDs are excluded from those concessions if they are able to be connected to apparatus other than
ADP machines.
(c) Object and purpose
24. TPKM submits that any interpretation that ex cludes from the broad EC concession any FPDs
which are capable of receiving signals not only from ADP machines but also from other sources is
contrary to the object and purpose of the GATT 1994 and the ITA.
(d) Other Considerations
25. In practice, the EC classified FPDs capable of receiving signals both from an ADP machine
and other sources under heading 8471 or other headings subject to 0% customs duty. Such consistent
classification under zero tariff headings was maintained until 2004 when the EC started to reclassify
under dutiable headings first plasma FPDs and then LCD FPDs.
2. The EC Schedule incorporates Attachment A to the ITA which obliges the EC to grant
duty-free treatment to "output units" including certain FPDs
26. TPKM submits, independently from the concession made with respect to "flat panel display
devices" in the EC Schedule, that the concession ma de with respect to subh eading 8471.60 ("input or
output units, whether or not containing storage units in the same housing") also covers certain FPDs
capable of receiving signals both from an ADP machine and other sources.
(a) Ordinary meaning
27. The ordinary meaning of the term "output units" demonstrates that this term is very broad and
covers any element or item capabl e of delivering information from the computer. It follows from the
ordinary meaning that a FPD which can receive signals both from an ADP machine and from other
sources shall fall within the scope of "output units". The ordinary meaning of "output unit" does not

support the proposition that a FPD covered by subh eading 8471.60 must be capable of receiving
signals only from a computer system.
(b) Context
28. The EC in its Schedule defines subheading 8471.60 as "input or output units, whether or not
containing storage units in the same housing". Reading subheading 8471.60 in conjunction with
heading 8471, the term "whether or not containing storage units in the same housing" does not suggest
that a FPD capable of receiving signals both fr om an ADP machine and other sources would be
excluded from the definition of this subheading.
29. The structure of heading 8471 contained in the EC Schedule also confirms the broad scope of
this heading. It clearly covers all types of data processing technologies. In addition, nothing in the
description of the subheadings under heading 8471 suggests that only products capable of working
exclusively with an ADP machin e may be classified under heading 8471. Therefore, TPKM submits
that FPDs capable of receiving signals both from an ADP machine and other sources are covered by
subheading 8471.60.
(c) The Harmonized System
30. Note 5 (B) to Chapter 84 lays down the requireme nts to qualify as a unit of an ADP machine.
Among others, Note 5 (B) requires that such unit must be of a kind solely or principally used in an
automatic data-processing system. It is therefore sufficient that a FPD is principally used with an
ADP machine to be classified under heading 8471, regardless of whether it is also capable of
receiving signals from other sources.
31. Further, Note 5(C) to Chapter 84 confirms a classification under heading 8471even when the
units of the ADP machine are presented separately. This Chapter Note does not require exclusive use
with an ADP machine.
(d) Other Considerations
32. Under the HS 2007, FPDs previously classified under HS subheading 8471.60 are classified
under new HS subheading 8528.51 (CN subheading 8528.51.00) which has the following wording:
"of a kind solely or principally used in an automatic data-p rocessing system of heading 8471"
(emphasis added). The HS 2007 has clearly reject ed any requirement for exclusive use by inserting
the "sole or principal" criteria in the wording of the subheading 8528.51 itself.
3. As such, the measures at issue violate Articles II:1(a) and II:1(b) of the GATT 1994
33. Through the challenged measures as described above, the EC and its member States are
imposing customs duties on certain FPDs, which is inconsistent with their obligations under
Articles II:1(a) and II:1(b) of the GATT 1994.
34. TPKM notes that the EC suspends duties on certain FPDs through the aforementioned
Council Regulations. TPKM is of the view that th e EC would still violate Articles II:1(a) and (b) of
the GATT 1994 regardless of the duty suspension. The violation would exist because the benefit of
the zero tariff is made depende nt on a number of conditions and terms not set forth in the EC
Schedule.

35. First, duty suspensions may be terminated un ilaterally as soon as the EC considers that the
conditions for their continuation are no longer fu lfilled. Second, given the fact that the
aforementioned Council Regulations only grant a dut y suspension on some types of FPDs, there are
various types of FPDs that fall outside the scope of the duty suspension at issue and remain subject to
the 14 % customs duty.
B. B
Y IMPOSING CUSTOMS DUTIES ON CERTAIN STBS WITH A COMMUNICATION FUNCTION , THE
EC IS VIOLATING ARTICLES II:1(A) AND II:1(B) OF THE GATT 1994
1. The EC Schedule incorporates Attachment B to the ITA which obliges the EC to grant
duty-free treatment to STBs with a communication function
36. According to the EC Schedule, a product cove red by the description "STBs which have a
communication function" must be granted duty-free treatment, wherever this product is classified.
Therefore, the question in this dispute is to determine the scope of the concession granted with respect
to STBs. In particular, the Panel must decide wh ether the EC is entitled to exclude from the scope of
the relevant concession any STBs with a HDD or ST Bs that include devices, such as ISDN- WLAN-
or Ethernet modems, allowing access to the Internet on the ground that such devices are not
"modems". Those questions will be examined below in the light of Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna
Convention.
(a) Ordinary meaning
37. As set forth in the EC Schedule, the product covered by the concession at stake is defined as
"Set top boxes which have a communication functio n: a microprocessor-based device incorporating a
modem for gaining access to the Internet, and having a function of interactive information exchange".
TPKM will review first the text of the concession as defined before the colon, and then that as defined
after the colon.
(i) "Set-top boxes which have a communication function"
38. The ordinary meaning of the text of the concessi on is clear. It covers STBs with any type of
communication function. The concession does no t require that the STBs should have only a
communication function. Therefore, it is suffi cient if the STB has a communication function,
although it may have additional functions, such as a video recording function.
(ii) "a microprocessor-based device incorporating a modem for gaining access to the Internet,
and having a function of interactive information exchange"
39. Examining the terms after the colon, TPKM has not found any ground that may justify
excluding from the scope of the concession at stake STBs which in addition to the communication
function, are able to perform a recording or reproduc ing function. Moreover, the analysis of the term
"modem" has shown that this term has a very broad scope.
(b) Context
40. It is recalled that the EC in its Schedule cited the following 3 subheadings next to STBs in the
second list: 8517.50.90, 8517.80.90 and 8525.20.99. In addition, 8528.12.91 was also mentioned as
of 2000. Having analysed the terms of these CN subheadings, TPKM notes that these terms do not
support that STBs that perform functions in additi on to the communication function cannot be treated

as falling under the coverage of the concession at stak e. Similarly, they do not require that the STBs
include specific types of modems in order to fall under one of these CN subheadings.
(c) Object and purpose
41. TPKM submits that any interpretation whic h would exclude from the EC concession any
STBs with other functions in addition to the comm unication function or STBs that do not incorporate
the type of modems that are listed in the CNEN at issue is contrary to the object and purpose of the
GATT 1994 and the ITA.
(d) Other Considerations
42. In practice, the treatment to be given to cer tain STBs which have a communication function
was first discussed in 2005 and that a first deci sion regarding these matters was not taken until
October 2006. Between year 2000 and 2006, exporters were benefiting from duty-free treatment, as
forseen under the EC Schedule.
2. As such, the measures at issue violate Articles II:1(a) and II:1(b) of the GATT 1994
43. Through the challenged measures which are desc ribed above, the EC and its member States
are imposing customs duties on certain STBs with a communication function, which is inconsistent
with their obligations under Articles II:1(a) and II:1(b) of the GATT 1994.
C. B
Y NOT PUBLISHING THE AMENDED EXPLANATORY NOTES RELATED TO THE TARIFFICATION
OF CERTAIN STBS FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR , THE EC IS VIOLATING ARTICLE X:1 OF THE
GATT 1994
44. Article X:1 of the GATT 1994 provides that "L aws, regulations, judicial decisions and
administrative rulings of general application, …, shall be published promptly in such a manner as to
enable governments and traders to become acquainted with them".
45. In the present case, the fact that the CNEN at issue was adopted in October 2006 and
April 2007 but not published until May 2008 is clearly inconsistent with the requirement of "prompt"
publication included in Article X:1 of the GATT 1994.
D. BY APPLYING DUT IES ON CERTAIN STBS PRIOR TO THE OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE
MEASURES IMPOSING THE DUTIES, THE EC IS VIOLATING ARTICLE X:2 OF THE GATT 1994
46. Article X:2 of the GATT 1994 provides that "N o measure of general application…, shall be
enforced before such measure has been officially published."
47. Some EC member States applied the CNEN on STB s before it was officially published. As a
result, customs duties were applied before public ation of the CNEN. Therefore, the EC and its
member States acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article X:2 of the GATT 1994.

E. B
Y IMPOSING CUSTOMS DUTIES ON CERTAIN MFMS, THE EC IS VIOLATING ARTICLES II:1(A)
AND II:1(B) OF THE GATT 1994
1. The EC Schedule incorporates Attachment A to the ITA which obliges the EC to grant
duty-free treatment to "input or output units" and to "facsimile machines"
48. The EC committed itself by accepting the ITA to eliminate all customs duties applicable to
"input or output units" of ADP machines of HS s ubheading 8471.60 and facsimile machines of HS
subheading 8517.21. The Panel must decide whethe r the EC is entitled to exclude from the scope of
the relevant concession all MFMs connectable to an ADP machine or network and without a facsimile
function; and those MFMs connectable to an ADP machine or network and including a facsimile
function, when they are capable of copying more than 12 monochrome pages per minute. The Panel
must also determine if certain MFMs which ca nnot connect to an ADP machine but operate in
connection with a telephone network can be exclud ed from the concession. Those questions will be
examined below in the light of Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention.
(a) Ordinary Meaning
(i) "Input or output units" and "Printers"
49. The terms "input units" and "output units" within the meaning of HS subheading 8471.60 are
very broadly defined. Indeed, " output units" refer to any apparatus or thing which receives data or
information from ADP machines and "input units" c over any apparatus or thing which provides data
or information to ADP machines. Thus, the MFMs capable of connecting an ADP machine constitute
"input units" and "output units" within the meaning of HS subheading 8471.60.
50. Among the concessions made with respect to "input or output units" of ADP machines, one
relates to "printers" (CN subheading 8471.60.40). Th e term "printer" refers to an output device which
produces a printed record of data, text, etc. TPKM notes that the term "printer" in no way requires the
information or data that are printed to come exclusiv ely from an ADP machine. It also never refers to
a maximum or minimum number of pages that coul d be produced in order to be regarded or
considered as a "printer". TPKM therefore submits that the MFMs connectable to an ADP machine
fall under that concession, i.e. that they are not only "input or output units" of ADP machines, but
more specifically "printers".
(ii) Facsimile machines
51. The term "facsimile machines" refers to apparatus which reproduce graphic matter by
scanning an original and which then transmit the scanned data by means of signals sent over a
telephone network. TPKM submits th at MFMs at issue that cannot be connected to computers but
operate in connection with a telephone network to transmit data are clearly covered by the category of
"facsimile machines".
(iii) Photocopier/photocopying process
52. The EC through the measures at issue cons istently considers the MFM at issue as
photocopying apparatus. However, the photocopying process refers to a process whereby a copy is
being produced by the action of light on a photo-sens itive surface. There is a direct link between the
action of light and the copy being produced. The term "photocopy" thus does not cover the
reproduction of originals by printing or transmitting a previously scanned data file as it is done by
MFMs.

(b) Context
53. As stated above, the structure of HS headi ng 8471 clearly confirms the broad scope of
heading 8471 as covering all types of data proces sing technologies. Similarly, the structure of
heading 8517 also supports its broad scope. In particular, this heading includes a residual subheading,
i.e., "other apparatus" (subheading 8517.80) that c onfirms the intent of that heading to cover all
"electrical apparatus for line telephony or line te legraphy". On the contrary, the wording of
heading 9009, unlike headings 8471 and 8517, includes a very limited category of apparatus. It only
covers photo-copying apparatus and thermo-copying apparatus as well as their parts and accessories.
Unlike headings 8471 and 8517, heading 9009 does not include a residual subheading.
54. Next, it is clear from the wording of Chapters 84 and 85 that they intend to cover a broad
range of apparatus. Chapter 84 covers machinery and mechanical appliances and parts thereof while
Chapter 85 covers electrical machinery and equipmen t and parts thereof. In contrast, Chapter 90
covers very specific instruments or apparatus which are exhaustively listed, namely optical,
photographic, cinematographic, measuring, checking, precision, medical or surgical instruments or
apparatus. Chapter 90 should therefore be restrictively interpreted, unlike Chapters 84 and 85.
55. Finally, TPKM refers to headings 8525 a nd 9006 of the EC Schedule which both include
cameras in order to illustrate the distinction which is being made in the EC Schedule between digital
and non-digital products. In the EC Schedule, digital cameras are classified in HS
subheading 8525.40, and more precisely, under CN subheading 8525.40.11 as "still image video
cameras – digital" while photographic cameras are classi fied in HS heading 9006. This distinction is
important and supports the inte rpretation that "photocopying a pparatus" which are included in
Chapter 90 do not cover digital copying.
(c) The Harmonized System
56. As indicated above, pursuant to Note 5 (B) to Chapter 84, a "unit" of an ADP machine must
be of a kind solely or principally used in ADP syst ems. Most of the functions of the MFMs at issue,
i.e., printing and scanning, are designed to be u sed in connection with an ADP machine and are
therefore functions of an apparatus principally used with an ADP machine.
57. TPKM notes that such principal use is actually not even required for the MFMs at issue.
Note 5(D) to Chapter 84 clarifies that a printer re mains covered by HS heading 8471 even if it is not
used exclusively or even principally with an ADP system. Therefore, to the extent that the MFMs at
issue are printers, they do not need to be used solely or principally with an ADP system in order to fall
within HS heading 8471.
58. Finally, the HSEN to heading 9009 confirms that the term "photocopying" does not include
the conversion of an image into digital data by a scanner and the printing of that data by the printer.
(d) Object and Purpose
59. TPKM submits that any interpretation which excludes from the EC concession MFMs which
do not incorporate a fax function or which incorporate a fax function but are capable of copying more
than 12 monochrome pages per minute is contrary to the object and purpose of the GATT 1994 and
the ITA. The exclusion of certain MFMs with a facsimile function and which cannot connect to an
ADP machine or computer network is also contra ry to the object and purpose of the GATT 1994 and
the ITA.

(e) Other Considerations
(i) Certain BTIs with respect to MFMs
60. In practice, the classification of MFMs cap able of connecting to ADP machines under
headings 8517 or 8471 is confirmed by various BTIs. The multifunctional nature of the device did not
in any case justify the classification as copier unles s the device could not be connected to an ADP
machine or network and it did not have a fax connection.
(ii) Certain HS documents
61. Under the HS 2007, the scope of HS heading 8 443 has been broadened in order to cover
MFMs previously covered by HS headings 8471 a nd 8517. Heading 8443 now includes all printers,
facsimile machines, photocopiers and digital copier s as well as MFMs. Both the structure of HS
heading 8443 and the HSEN to this heading c onfirm the differences between digital copying and
photocopying.
62. Furthermore, new Chapter Note 5(D) to Ch apter 84 under HS 2007 states that heading 8471
does not cover "printers, copying machines, facsi mile machines, whether or not combined" when
presented separately. By finding it necessary to e xpressly exclude MFMs from the scope of heading
8471, this Note acknowledges that such MFMs were properly classified in heading 8471 under the
HS 96.
2. As, such, the measures at issue violate Articles II:1(a) and II:1(b) of the GATT 1994
63. Through the challenged measures as described above, the EC and its member States are
imposing customs duties on certain MFMs, which is inconsistent with their obligations under
Articles II:1(a) and II:1(b) of the GATT 1994.
IV. CONCLUSIONS
64. For all the above reasons, TPKM requests that the Panel find that:
(a) the EC's measures concerning flat panel di splays are inconsistent with the EC's
obligations under Articles II:1(a) and II:1(b) of the GATT 1994;
(b) the EC's measures concerning set-top boxes with a communication function are
inconsistent with the EC's obligations under Articles II:1(a) and II:1(b) of the
GATT 1994;
(c) the EC's measures concerning set-top boxes with a communication function are
inconsistent with Articles X:1 and X:2 of the GATT 1994;
(d) the EC's measures concerning "input or output units" and facsimile machines are
inconsistent with Articles II:1(a) and II:1(b) of the GATT 1994.

ANNEX C-2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE ORAL STATEMENT BY
CHINESE TAIPEI AT THE FIRST SUBSTANTIVE MEETING

1. For the first time in the history of its WTO membership, the Separate Customs Territory of
Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu ("TPKM") has seen itself obliged to lodge a WTO complaint. It
has taken this unprecedented step because of the im portance of the trade flows concerned as well as
the manifest nature of the violations committed by the EC.
2. As coordinated among complainants, TPKM in this opening statement will concentrate on
one of these products, namely, FPD devices. As fo r MFMs and STBs, TPKM supports what has been
said by the United States and Japan in their opening statements.
I. PRELIMINARY REMARKS
3. On its face, this case is quite simple. The qu estion before this Panel is whether the EC is
entitled to exclude FPD devices from the scope of th e concession merely because they are capable of
receiving and reproducing signals from both ADP machines and other sources (some of these FPD
devices can even only reproduce signals from an ADP machine). Indeed, under the contested
measures, the mere capability of an FPD device bei ng connected to an apparatus other than an ADP
machine will lead to the automatic exclusion of that FPD device from the scope of the concession
covering FPD devices for use with ITA products.
4. The ECJ, the highest Court in the EC, in Kamino has held that the words "solely or
principally" which determine whether a product can be considered to fall under HS subheading
8471.60 cannot be read as requiring the exclusiv e use with an ADP m achine. The ECJ in Kamino
therefore confirms that the EC has no legal basis to exclude FPD devices from classification under HS
subheading 8471.60 simply because such apparatus may al so be able to connect to a device other than
an ADP machine, for instance, simply because the FPD device has a DVI connector.
5. The EC in its submission made some prelimin ary comments contending that TPKM failed to
make a prima facie case with respect to FPD devices. None of these comments are correct.
6. First, the EC seems to argue that it is unaware of which product TPKM is precisely
complaining about the treatment. As stated in its submission, TPKM's complaint relates to the
treatment given by the EC to all FPD devices whic h are capable of receiving and reproducing signals
from ADP machines only, and from both ADP machin es and other apparatus. The FPD devices at
issue may use various technologies, such as LCD, plasma, OLED, etc, other than CRT technology.
7. Secondly, TPKM has never alleged that the EC ob ligations flow directly from the ITA. It is
clear from its submission that TPKM considers that the EC has violated its WTO obligations by
according treatment to the products at issue which is less favourable than that provided for in its
Schedule.
8. Thirdly, the fact that the EC has temporarily suspended its customs duties on part of the
products concerned by this dispute does not remove its Article II GATT 1994 violation. Indeed, such
suspension is temporary, and conditional upon a numbe r of terms and conditions not included in the
EC Schedule. The EC has failed even to respond to this argument.

9. Finally, the EC argues that FPD devices whic h are capable of receiving signals from ADP
machines and other sources are not automatically excluded from the zero tariff treatment. The EC
therefore proposes that TPKM's claim cannot extend to challenging the measures of the EC as such.
However, in order to substantiate an "as such" claim, it is not necessary for the complainants to
demonstrate that the measure at issue "always" lead s to a violation of the WTO covered agreements.
It is sufficient to demonstrate that at least in so me respects the measure at issue will necessarily lead
to such violation.
II. ARGUMENTS
10. The concession in the EC Schedul e covering FPD devices is twofold. The first part of the
concession is based on Attachment A to the ITA and provides for a zero tariff for a number of HS
subheadings under which FPD devices could be classified , in particular, input or output units of ADP
machines of subheading 8471.60.
11. The EC also incorporated the products listed in Attachment B to the ITA into its Schedule,
including, among others, FPD devices. For FPD devi ces covered by Attachment B and incorporated
in the EC Schedule, TPKM submits that the Panel's interpretation in this dispute should begin with the
terms of the headnote contained in the EC Schedule. This is because, in the headnote, the EC made
the commitment that with respect to any product described in Attachment B, to the extent not
specifically provided for in the Schedule, the customs duties on such product shall be bound and
eliminated, wherever the product is classified.
12. The meaning of the words "wherever the prod uct is classified" is both crucial and self-
explanatory. Regardless of the specific heading or subheading under which a particular product falls
in the EC Schedule, any product meeting the d escription of FPD devices contained in the EC
Schedule must be granted duty-free treatment, "wherever the product is classified".
13. There is therefore no doubt that the 14 CN subheadings next to the description of FPD
devices in the headnote in the EC Schedule are only illustrative, rather than exhaustive. The EC's
argument that its obligations with respect to FPD devices under Attachment B are only limited to
those HS codes is incorrect. Furthermore, in doing so, the EC fails to give proper meaning to the
words "wherever the product is classified".
A. A
TTACHMENT B
14. It follows from the ordinary meaning that an FPD device is not limited to receiving signals
from an ADP machine only. The rest of the language in the concession as well as the context
supports this conclusion.
15. The product at issue is described as " for products falling within this agreement", it is clear
that the concession requires that FPD devices be "for" products falling within the ITA. The ordinary
meaning of "for", as found in dictionaries, is ex tremely wide and covers many different possible
situations. In light of this, TPKM concludes th at FPD devices "for products falling within this
agreement" should be interpreted as covering FPD devices which are capable of operating with or
being incorporated in ITA products even though other uses may be possible.
16. This conclusion is further supported by other c oncessions contained in the EC Schedule. For
instance, both the concession with respect to "proj ection type flat panel display units" and the 14
subheadings next to the description of FPD devices confirm that FPD devices are not excluded from

those concessions on the mere ground that they are ab le to be connected to apparatus other than ADP
machines.
17. As required by the Panel and A ppellate Body in previous dis putes, the concessions at issue
must be interpreted in the light of the object and purpose of the WTO Agreement and GATT 1994,
which is, among other things, to further the expans ion of trade in goods and the substantial reduction
of tariffs.
18. In this regard, TPKM submits that any interp retation that excludes from the EC concession
FPD devices which are capable of receiving signal s from both ADP machines and other sources, for
instance because the FPD devices ha ve a DVI connector, is contrary to the objective of expanding
world trade in IT products as shed light upon not only by the ITA, but also by the WTO Agreement
and the GATT 1994.
19. Finally, the EC tries to construct an argumen t by relying on the negotiating history of the
ITA. However, in the present case, references made by the EC to the alleged negotiating history are
partial and unconvincing. TPKM does not see how tho se references can be used to clarify the scope
of the concessions at issue.
B. A
TTACHMENT A
20. TPKM notes that the EC has not addressed its ar gument on Attachment A in its first written
submission.
21. TPKM submits, independently from the concession made with respect to "flat panel display
devices" in the EC Schedule, that the concession made with respect to subheading 8471.60 also
covers FPD devices capable of receiving signals both from an ADP machine and other sources.
22. The ordinary meaning of the term "output units" in subheading 8471.60 demonstrates that this
term is very broad and does not support the proposition that an FPD device covered by subheading
8471.60 must be capable of receiving signals only from a computer system.
23. This conclusion is supported by the HS 1996. No te 5 (B) to Chapter 84 of this HS lays down
the requirements to qualify as a unit of an ADP m achine. Among others, Note 5 (B) requires that
such unit must be of a kind solely or principally used in an ADP system. It is therefore sufficient that
an FPD device is principally used with an ADP machine to be classified under heading 8471,
regardless of whether it is also capable of receiving signals from other sources. Under the EC
measures, however, any device capable of receiving signals from other sources (as well as some that
cannot) is subject to duties.
III. CONCLUSION
24. In conclusion, TPKM considers that there can be no legal justification for the EC not to grant
duty-free treatment to FPD devices which are capable of receiving signals from an ADP machine only
or from both ADP machines and other apparatus. TPKM therefore maintains that, as such, the
measures at issue violate Articles II:1(a) and II:1(b) of the GATT 1994.

ANNEX C-3

CLOSING ORAL STATEMENT BY
CHINESE TAIPEI AT THE FIRST SUBSTANTIVE MEETING

 Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of the Panel.

1. During the past three days, it has been obvious that the EC has failed to address the claims
and arguments put forward by the co-complainants in this dispute.
2. The EC has continuously attempted to reframe the dispute as a dispute over the customs
classification of products. It is not. The matter before this panel is to which extent the EC's contested
measures necessarily result in violation of Article II of the GATT 1994. The difference is
fundamental. If the issue was one of classification, the exercise would be to properly apply the
relevant rules of classification. However, as this dispute concerns the question whether the tariff
treatment resulting from the EC measures is consis tent with the EC Schedule, it is necessary to
examine the EC's concessions in accordance with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
1969. It is striking that while the complainants have analysed each of the concessions concerned
starting from the ordinary meaning of the terms used, the EC simply fails to do so.
3. We would like to submit – once again – that th e HS is clearly not relevant at all for the
interpretation of those concessions that have been made by the EC pursuant to Attachment B to the
ITA. Actually, these concessions have been defi ned not by the HS but by product descriptions
phrased in commercial terms. And the EC Schedule provides that such products shall benefit from
duty-free treatment "wherever [they] are classified".
4. We note that the EC has kept alleging that it does not know what it is accused of; claiming a
lack of clarity as regards both the identification of the products and measures at issue. Yet, as
underlined by the Appellate Body in EC – Chicken Cuts , "the identification of the products at issue
must flow from the specific measures identified in the panel request.…In other words, it is the
measure at issue that generally will define the product at issue."
1
5. The co-complainants have clearly identified the contested measures in our panel request.
6. We would like to use one of the measures at issue, the CNEN, to demonstrate how products at
issue are defined by the measures with respect to FPD devices. According to the EC Schedule, all
FPD devices for ADP machines shall enjoy duty-fr ee treatment. However, the CNEN excludes from
duty-free treatment all FPD devices which are capable of receiving signals from apparatus other than
an ADP machine or which can be connected to a video source other than an ADP machine or even
simply because they have a DVI interface.
I. FPDS
7. We would like to add a few more words on the issue of FPD devices, more precisely, on the
EC Schedule concerning "flat panel display devices."
8. The EC argued that the CN codes listed next to the Attachment B product description are
exhaustive and define the full scope of the Attachme nt B concessions. This interpretation is simply

1 Appellate Body Report, EC-Chicken Cuts, para. 167.

not acceptable as it reduces to inutility the headnot e that provides expressly duty-free treatment for
this concession wherever the product is classified.
II. MFMS
9. We agree with the closing statements made by the co-complainants on MFMs. I would,
however, like to add the following comments.
10. Contrary to the EC submission and as already me ntioned above, the question to be resolved is
not one of classification. However, TPKM notes that insofar as classification rules are relevant as
context, the EC errs in its presentation of the appli cable classification rules, in some cases, even in
flagrant contradiction with the rulings of the ECJ.
11. In the case of MFMs with ADP connectivity and with a facsimile function, the EC classifies
them under Heading 9009.12 whenever the copying speed exceeds 12 ppm. Manifestly, the EC has
provided no justification why an MFM with a copying speed which exceeds 12 ppm is automatically a
photocopier.
12. Unfortunately, the EC has completely failed to address the above issues in either its First
Written Submission or at the first substantive meeting.
III. STBS
13. TPKM also agrees and fully supports the closing remarks made by its co-complainants with
regard to STBs. TPKM would only like to add the following comment.
14. The EC argued that STBs must be reviewed on a "case-by-case basis". However, the EC does
not carry out such case-by-case analysis. For instance, any STB with a hard disk is excluded from the
duty-free treatment and this is regardless of the cap acity of the hard disk. The submission from the
EC that some STBs with a hard disk are subject to duty free treatment is clearly not in conformity
with the measures at issue adopted by the EC itself.
 Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of the Panel, TPKM thanks you for your attention.

ANNEX C-4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE SECOND WRITTEN SUBMISSION
BY CHINESE TAIPEI

I. HORIZONTAL ISSUES
A. T
HE ITA
1. The ITA is part of the "context" within the meaning of Article 31.2 (b) of the Vienna
Convention for the purposes of interpreting the EC Sche dule. Indeed, the ITA is an "instrument
which was made by one or more parties in connecti on with the conclusion of the treaty" and has been
"accepted" by all WTO Members as an instrument related to the Schedule of Concessions. Moreover,
the ITA is also relevant to determine the object and purpose of the treaty for the purposes of this
dispute.
2. The EC agrees with the above but claims that complainants have arbitrarily selected some
parts of the ITA, taken them in isolation and "i mported" them into the interpretative exercise
concerning the EC Schedule.
3. The EC's claim is erroneous. The analysis of the ITA as a whole clearly supports the
overarching importance for the interpretation that the ITA's purpose is to achieve maximum freedom
for world trade in IT products. It is the EC's overemphasis on point 3 of the Annex to the ITA
concerning future negotiations that constitutes in fact a selective reading of the ITA.
4. Furthermore, the documents submitted by the EC as constituting the negotiations of the ITA
do not qualify either as "preparatory work" or as any other forms of "supplementary means of
interpretation" within the meaning of Article 32 of the Vienna Convention.
5. Indeed, these documents are informal documents exchanged among some of the participants
to the ITA that have not been published or made av ailable to all the parties. TPKM did not and does
not have access to all the documents submitted by th e EC as being part of the "negotiating history"
and therefore requests the Panel to refrain from using them to determine the interpretation of the EC's
concessions.
6. In any case, recourse to supplementary means of interpretation is only possible when
"interpretation in the light of Article 31 leaves the meaning of a treaty provision ambiguous or
obscure, or, in order to confirm the meaning r esulting from the application of the interpretation
methods listed in Article 31." This is not the case here. The meaning of the concession as established
pursuant to Article 31 of the Vienna Convention is very clear, as it was detailed in TPKM's first
written submission and second written submission.
B. THE PRESENT DISPUTE IS ABOUT TARIFF TREATMENT AND NOT ABOUT CUSTOMS
CLASSIFICATION
7. That the present dispute deals with tariff treatment and not with customs classification has
important practical effects.
8. First, it means that rules of classification, in pa rticular the HS, are not central to this dispute
and can at the most be relevant as part of the contex t only. Being part of the context, the HS is merely
one element among others and is neither decisive nor dispositive of the interpretative exercise.

Moreover, it implies that the Panel should refra in from applying these rules automatically, for
instance, GIR3(c).
9. Second, it means that rules of customs classi fication do not have equal relevance when
interpreting the concessions. Their relevance vari es depending on the concession concerned. In that
respect, the HS is not relevant for the interpretati on of the concessions made by the EC pursuant to
Attachment B to the ITA, given that such con cessions are based on product descriptions and not on
HS headings.
C. R
EQUIREMENTS TO SUCCEED WITH AN "AS SUCH" CLAIM
10. First, when making an "as such" claim, the complaining party does not have to bring evidence
concerning the application of the measures being challenged, as underlined by the Appellate Body in
US – Carbon Steel . The evidence will in the first place take th e form of the relevant legislation. It
may, but need not, be supported by evidence of the application of such legislation.
11. Second, in order to succeed with an "as such" claim, it is not necessary to demonstrate that the
measures at issue will lead in all cases or always to a WTO inconsistent result. As underlined by the
Panel in China – Auto Parts , it is sufficient that a specific aspect or an element of the criteria set out
in the measures at issue necessarily leads to a violation of the WTO Agreements.
D. ALL MEASURES BEING CHALLENGED ARE IN FORCE AND RELEVANT
12. First, with respect to certain measures challenged, the EC is claiming that they have lost their
relevance since the CN codes indicated in these meas ures have changed with the entry into force of
the CN 2007.
13. This is not correct. Each of these measures is valid and has legal effect, and will only
disappear from the EC legal order when they are expressly revoked by the EC Commission or
expressly annulled by the ECJ. This is supported by the way in which the EC has dealt with
modifications resulted from past changes to th e HS or the CN, for instance, the Commission
Regulation (EC) No. 705/2205 that has expressly am ended and repealed certain regulations on the
classification of goods in the CN. Furthermore, this is consistent with the principle of legal certainty
as acknowledged by the EC itself.
14. Second, the EC seems to have argued that measures which are incompatible with the
interpretation by the ECJ in the Kamino and Kip cases have become invalid. However, in these cases,
the ECJ has not annulled any measure and such measures are thus, as a matter of law, still in force and
applicable. The measures will only disappear from the EC legal system when they are expressly
revoked by the EC Commission or expressly annulled by the ECJ. There is no such thing as implied
annulment or annulment by analogy under EC Community law.
15. Third, TPKM would like to clarify that, contrary to what the EC claims, CNEN are legally
binding. The statement of the ECJ that "CNEN do not have legally binding force" refers to the fact
that they cannot alter the scope of the CN but certainly not that custom s authorities are free to
disregard them. This is supported by the following fact s: first, BTIs cease to be valid where they are
no longer compatible with the inte rpretation of the CN by reason of an amendment to the CNEN
(Article 12(5) of the CCC); second, the Chairman of the Nomenclature Committee stated that "as
soon as an opinion has been voted, member States ca n issue BTIs for the products concerned, even
before the measure has been adopted by the Commi ssion and published in the Official Journal"; third,
if member States do not follow CNEN and collect less customs duties as a result, the EC Commission

is entitled to claim the difference in the member States' budget and retains the option of instituting
proceedings against that member State for infringement of Article 10 of the EC Treaty. As underlined
by the EC in EC – Selected Customs Matters , CNEN are part of the "tools for ensuring a uniform
classification practice within the EC". Finally, it must be emphasized that the fact that CNEN cannot
contradict the wording of the CN does not mean that, as the EC app ears to claim, customs authorities
would be free to disregard a CNEN at its own initi ative when they consider that it contradicts the
wording of the heading. A national authority will not disregard a CNEN, though contrary to the
wording of a heading, until it has been amended by the EC Commission.
16. Furthermore, TPKM would like to underline that, in light of the clarifications made by the
Appellate Body in US – Corrosion-Resistant Steel , CNEN necessarily constitute "measures" that can
be challenged "as such".
E. I
NTERPRETATIVE ISSUES CONCERNING THE CONCESSIONS INCLUDED IN THE EC SCHEDULE
17. First, through the headnote included in its Schedule, the EC committed to grant duty-free
treatment to all products described in or for Attach ment B, wherever they are classified. The various
CN codes identified by the EC at the time of implementing the ITA merely indicate where the EC
thought the products concerned were falling in the CN. However, they do not "exhaust" the
definitions included in the EC Schedule. The EC's in terpretation is contradicted by the text of the
headnote, reducing it to inutility and further contradicted by the text of the ITA.
18. Second, technological development does not have an impact on tariff treatment. It is TPKM's
view that, while concessions are made at one point in time, they are not restricted, as the EC appears
to submit it, to the products existing at that time. What is relevant is to determine whether a product,
on the basis of its objective characteristics, falls with in the scope of the concessions interpreted on the
basis of its ordinary meaning, context and object and purpose. As long as the product at issue meets
the description of the product covered by the conc ession, it does not matter whether this product is
technologically more advanced than the products ex isting at the time the concession was made. That
product must receive the treatment offered by the concession. This is consistent with the position
expressed by the panel in the GATT dispute concerning "Greek Increase in Bound Duty."
II. BY IMPOSING CUSTOMS DUTIES ON CERTAIN FLAT PANEL DISPLAY
DEVICES, THE EC VIOLATES ARTICLES II:1(A) AND II:1(B) OF THE GATT 1994
A. G
ENERAL ISSUES
1. The product at issue has been defined in a sufficiently precise manner
19. The EC complains about the alleged lack of preci se definition of the products at issue. In
addition to the fact that TPKM has provided a preci se definition of the product at issue, TPKM would
like to underline that the Appellate Body clarified in EC – Chicken Cuts that it is the measure at issue
that will generally define the product at issue. In th is dispute, the complainants have clearly identified
the contested measures that accordingly have defined the products at issue.
20. The EC's confusion seems to flow from a wrong understanding of the claims being made in
this dispute. The products at issue are not limit ed to those mentioned as examples such as LCD
monitors with DVI. The products at issue are those defined by the measures at issue and the claims
are being made with respect to certain aspects of the measures that necessarily lead to a WTO
inconsistent outcome.

2. The obligations in the EC Schedule have been precisely identified
21. The EC's claim about TPKM's failure to id entify the concession concerned and where it is
provided for is incorrect. TPKM's first written submission has clearly identified the precise content of
the concession. Moreover, contrary to the EC's clai m, TPKM has also made clear that the CN codes
indicated by the EC are illustrative only. They may be used as "context" but in no way determine the
scope of the concession that is based on the prod uct description. Finally, TPKM disagrees with the
EC's arguments that when the EC concession is in its Schedule and identified with a given HS/CN
code, some differences in its interpretation may be allowed. This position amounts to stating that
WTO Members have agreed that there could be difference between WTO Members in the scope of
concessions which are identically worded, de pending on the codes listed alongside the product
description. This is contrary to the wording of the ITA and the EC's concession.
3. The EC has misrepresented the complainants' claim
22. The EC has misrepresented th e complainants' claim. TPKM has not submitted that the
presence of a DVI connector determines whether an LCD monitor must benefit from duty-free
treatment. On the contrary, TPKM has argued th at the presence of a DVI cannot automatically
exclude any FPD device from duty-free treatment. This is actually the effect of the measures at issue.
23. The EC argues that it is incorrect to claim th at the EC will impose duties based on the mere
fact that the FPD device "might" be used with something other than an ADP machine or the fact that it
is merely capable of being connected to a non-ADP machine. The EC refers to item 1 in Regulation
(EC) No. 2171/2005 to support its argument. However, item 1 in the said Regulation is not subject to
this dispute. Furthermore, the product described in item 1 can only be used together with an ADP
machine. It is not able to reproduce correctly signa ls received from any external source other than an
ADP machine.
4. The FPD devices at issue are neither multifunctional LCD monitors nor new products
24. TPKM's complaint is not limited to "multifunc tional monitors" but covers all FPD devices
which can receive and reproduce signals from an ADP machine and this is so regardless of whether
the FPD device can also receive and reproduce signals from other sources.
25. The fact that a product with additional or enhanced features that did not exist at the time the
concession was made does not make that product a "new " product, and is not a reason to exclude that
product from the scope of the concession.
5. The measures at issue
26. There are five measures at issue. It shoul d be noted that (i) Council Regulation (EC)
No. 179/2009 referred to by the EC as replaci ng Council Regulation (EC) No. 493/2005 merely
establishes a new duty suspension which remains at th e discretion of the EC and is limited in time;
(ii) Commission Regulations (EC) No. 634/2005 and No. 2171/2005 have not lost their relevance as
claimed by the EC since they have not been repeal ed or amended by any other regulation or annulled
by the ECJ; (iii) the EC's statement that Council Regulation (EC) No. 2658/87 as last amended
applies a zero duty to monitors of the "kind solely or principally used in an automatic data processing
system of heading 8471" fails to take into account that FPD devices are subject to a zero percent duty
regardless of the sole or principal use with an ADP machine pursuant to the EC concession based on
Attachment B of the ITA; and (iv) CNEN are in fact legally binding.

B. I
NTERPRETATION OF THE CONCESSIONS
1. Ordinary meaning
(a) EC concession for "input or output units" of ADP machines
27. TPKM has made a prima facie case that the products at issue meet the ordinary meaning of
the concession concerning heading 8471.60 with respect to input or output units of ADP machines. It
is thus up to the EC to demonstrate that the prod ucts at issue do not fall within that concession as it
claims. However, the EC has simply failed to demonstrate this.
28. The EC is also wrong when saying that the products at issue could also fall within subheading
8528.21/22 or subheading 8528.12/13. An FPD for use solely or principally with an ADP machine
undoubtedly falls under CN code 8471.60.90 as an output unit of an ADP machine. This is confirmed
by Chapter Note 5(B).
(b) Concession made with respect to "flat panel display devices"
29. Contrary to the EC that failed to review any definition of the words of the concession, TPKM
has carefully reviewed the ordinary meaning of th e concession, and in particular of the term "flat
panel display devices… for products falling within th is agreement." There is nothing in the ordinary
meaning of these terms that would imply a limitation such as receiving signals from ADP machines
only.
30. Contrary to the EC's suggestion, the use of technical dictionaries from this decade does not
necessarily invalidate its relevance. Indeed, the descr iptions of "display" and "panel display" in both
editions of 1993 and 2003 of the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms are
exactly identical.
2. Context
(a) Tariff headings indicated in the EC Schedule regarding its concession on "flat panel display
devices"
31. The CN codes identified by the EC next to the product description of "flat panel display
devices for products falling within this agreement" ma y be analyzed as part of the "context." Contrary
to the EC's approach that focuses on a single CN code among the 14 identified in the list, a proper
analysis should examine all 14 CN codes. By fo cusing on one CN code, the EC has conveniently
avoided examining the reference to subheading 8531.20 where certain FPD devices can also be
classified.
32. The EC submits that the definition of "monitors " in another product description is "by far the
most important contextual relevance" and seeks to st rengthen its position by referring to the fact that
the definition of "monitors" expressly states that "the agreement does not, therefore, cover
televisions." However, this statem ent is tied to the CRT monitor only and cannot be read into other
concessions concerning, in particular, "flat panel display devices."
33. Regarding the "exclusion of video monitors a nd televisions," whether a device on which one
can watch television or video is covered by a particul ar concession depends on the terms of that
concession. If a device is a "flat panel display de vice for products falling within the ITA," it is
covered irrespective of whether or not it incorporates a TV tuner. There is simply no basis to read

additional limitations into the concession for flat pa nel display devices that do not exist in the text of
that concession, and doing so would be utterly co ntrary to the principles of treaty interpretation
reflected in the Vienna Convention.
(b) Schedules of other ITA participants
34. As part of the "context," the EC also refers to the Schedules of other participants. However, it
is not the tariff classification of the FPD devices un der the subheadings identified in the list that is
relevant but the duty treatment. Moreover, the EC ignores that heading 8531 is also identified by a
large number of participants and that subheading covers FPD devices, whether or not they can be
connected to a source other than an ADP machine.
3. The Harmonized System
35. The EC elaborated on the HS at length and concluded that the HSEN to headings 8471 and
8528 require both the exclusive use with an AD P machine and the sole presence of connectors
characteristic of data-processing systems to classify FPD devices under heading 8471. The EC alleges
that these were precisely the requirements that th e EC used to classify FPD devices under heading
8471. TPKM would like to make the following comments regarding the EC's analysis of the HS in
this regard.
36. First, the HS may be used as "context" only for the analysis of the EC concessions made by
the EC pursuant to Attachment A to the ITA. Inde ed, for the concession made with respect to "flat
panel display devices for products falling within this agreement" pursuant to Attachment B to the
ITA, the duty-free treatment must apply regardless of whether the flat panel display devices are solely
or principally for use with an ADP machine and regardless of their "principal function."
37. Second, even if the HS1996 were to have any relevance as context for the analysis of the EC
concession for FPD devices, the HSEN are not part of the HS1996. They must be ignored and cannot
be given any interpretative value where they are in direct conflict with binding HS section or chapter
notes or with the wording of the HS headings.
38. Third, even if the tariff classification of FPD devices had any relevance for the current
dispute, the EC is incorrectly applying GIR 3(c). Indeed, the application of this GIR does not lead
classification of FPD devices under heading 8528 as th e EC claims but under heading 8531. The EC
has conveniently ignored that Heading 8531 is also applicable and if classification had to take place
under the last heading in numerical order, heading 8531 would apply.
4. The Kamino case
39. The Kamino judgment indirectly clarifies that the EC has violated its concession covering
input or output units of subheading 8471.60. Indeed , it confirms that the EC incorrectly excludes FPD
devices from the scope of subheading 8471.60 on the sole ground that they can be connected to a
source other than an ADP machine, or due to the pr esence of a particular type of connector. It is
therefore surprising that the EC still tries to suppor t its positions with this ruling. The conclusions
drawn by the EC from the Kamino case are incorrect.
40. It is not necessary for the EC to explain how it will proceed to classify FPD devices following
Kamino. Since FPD devices must be subject to duty-free treatment wherever they are classified, such
classification exercise is not relevant. Moreover, if the EC intends to implement the
Kamino judgment
on the basis of the criteria in the HSEN, it is likel y to continue infringing the obligations undertaken

in its Schedule with respect to FPD devices. Fina lly, for "multifunctional monitors," the EC's position
that, it is impossible to determine the principal use or function and GIR3(c) is to be applied in all
cases, will similarly lead to a violation of the EC obligations under its Schedule. In any case, the EC's
position ignores that it should lead to a classification under heading 8531 or 9013 which are duty-free.
5. Object and purpose
41. TPKM's arguments focus on the object and purpose of the GATT 1994. First, concessions
should be interpreted "so as to fu rther the general objective of the e xpansion of trade in goods and the
substantial reduction of tariffs" even if "such an interpretation is limited by the condition that
arrangements entered into by Members be recipr ocal and mutually advantageous." That the
concessions are to be interpreted so as to further the general objective of th e expansion of trade is
supported by the object and purpose of the ITA itself. Second, concessions should be interpreted so as
to promote the objective of security and predictabilit y. In that respect, the EC's interpretation that
results in excluding products from the scope of the concession because they would be "new" runs
against the objectives of security and predictab ility. Likewise, the argument that the EC's duty
suspension, which is temporary and uncertain, c ould "save" the measures at issue from violating
Article II of the GATT also contradicts the objects of security and predictability.
6. Supplementary means of interpretation
(a) The classification practice of ITA participants is irrelevant
42. The "classification" practice of the other ITA participants regarding "flat panel display
devices for products falling within this agreement" is irrelevant since the concession has been made
"wherever the product is classified."
(b) The negotiating history is irrelevant
43. The documents submitted by the EC as be ing the "negotiations" do not constitute
"supplementary means" of interpretation and can th erefore not be used in the framework of this
dispute. In addition, recourse to Article 32 of the Vienna Convention is not necessary in this dispute
since the scope of the concession is clear pursuant to the sole use of the interpretative tools of
Article 31 of the Vienna Convention.
C. T
HE EC'S MEASURES VIOLATE ARTICLE II:1(A) AND II:1(B) OF THE GATT 1994
44. Through the measures at issue, the EC is impos ing customs duties on certain FPDs instead of
providing duty-free treatment as required by the concessions made by the EC with respect to "flat
panel display devices for products falling within th e ITA" and with respect to HS heading 8471.60
"input or output units" of ADP machines. Thereby, the EC violates Article II:1(a) and II:1(b) of the
GATT 1994.
45. Although the EC has been providing duty suspension for certain FPD devices, it does not
"save" the measures at issue from being inconsiste nt with Article II:1(a) and II:1(b) of the GATT
1994, as the EC submits it.
46. First, duty suspension is temporary. Whether a duty suspension will be renewed depends on a
number of factors including economic factors. The EC thus necessarily violates Article II:1(b) of the
GATT 1994 since it makes the benefit of a zero cu stoms duty dependent on a number of terms and
conditions not set forth in its Schedule.

47. Second, not all FPD devices that should have received duty-free treatment benefit from the
duty suspension. Under Regulation (EC) No. 179/2009, the duty suspension is not applicable to colour
monitors having a screen size of more than 22 inches or an aspect ratio different from 1:1, 4:3, 5:4 or
16:10.
48. Finally, Regulation (EC) No. 179/2009 that provides for a duty suspension on certain FPD
devices until 31 December 2010 was published on 7 Marc h 2009 and entered into force on that date.
Since the previous duty suspension expired on 31 December 2008, it means that between
1 January 2009 and 6 March 2009, there was no duty suspension in force until the new Regulation
was published and provided for its retroactive application as of 1 January 2009. This system therefore
creates considerable uncertainty for traders.
III. BY IMPOSING CUSTOMS DUTIES ON CERTAIN SET-TOP BOXES WHICH
HAVE A COMMUNICATION FUNCTION, THE EC VIOLATES ARTICLE II:1(A)
AND II:1(B) OF THE GATT 1994
A. G
ENERAL ISSUES
1. The obligations in the EC Schedule have been well identified
49. Contrary to the EC's claim, TPKM has clearly identified the EC concession at stake and noted
that such concession is included in the EC Schedul e itself and not in the ITA. Furthermore, the
headnote is central since it expressly provides that dut y-free treatment is to be granted to all products
described in Attachment B wherever the product is classified. The codes that the EC notified to the
WTO in accordance with paragraph 2 of the Annex to the ITA only indicate where in the CN the EC
considered the product was classified at that time . These codes thus in no way limit the scope of the
concession made with respect to a specific product description.
2. Identification of the product at issue and "as such" claims
50. The EC argues that the complainants failed to describe the products at issue. However, let
along that TPKM has clearly identified the products at issue, the EC has mis sed the point. The claim
is not about tariff treatment of a specific model of STBs but about several criteria used by the EC to
determine the tariff treatment of a category of products, namely STBs which have a communication
function. TPKM has underlined that several aspects of the measures at issue are inconsistent with the
EC's obligations under the WTO. In other words, the EC excludes the following STBs which have a
communication function from duty-free treatment thr ough the measures at issue: (i) STBs which
incorporate a device performing a recording or re producing function (for example, a hard disk or
DVD drive); (ii) STBs incorporating a device "performing a similar function to that of a modem but
which do not modulate or demodulate signals" such as "ISDN-, WLAN- or Ethernet devices";
(iii) STBs that do not have a "built-in modem" but an external modem; and (iv) STBs which do not
incorporate a video tuner.
51. Furthermore, TPKM would like to emphasize that it is irrelevant whether in some cases the
application of the measures may lead to a WTO cons istent outcome. Indeed, in order to succeed with
an "as such" claim, it is sufficient to demonstrate th at any aspect of the criteria set out in the measures
challenged will necessarily lead to a violation of the EC's obligations under its Schedule, and
consequently Article II of the GATT 1994.

B. I
NTERPRETATION OF THE CONCESSION
1. Ordinary meaning
(a) STBs incorporating a hard disk or DVD recorder
52. The analysis of the ordinary meaning of th e terms of the concession demonstrates that it
covers STBs which have a communication function even if they have additional functions. Actually,
the EC also acknowledged this when stating that the product covered by the concession "cannot
endlessly assume other features or technical elements." The EC thereby recognizes that the coverage
of the concession permits products with additional features or func tionalities. As long as the product
meets the description of a "set top box which h as a communication function," it must receive duty-
free treatment, regardless of any additional feature or functionalities it may have.
53. The EC seems to be aware of the weakness of its position and tries to strengthen it by
developing a rather farfetched theory about the mean ing of the words "which have" instead of "with."
However, if the drafters of the ITA intended to limit the functions of the product covered by the
concession to communication functions only, they would have added the word "solely" or the
equivalent in the text of that c oncession rather than using the word "w hich" instead of "with." It is a
well-established principle of treaty interpretation that the interpreters cannot read into the text words
that are not there.
(b) Set top boxes and modems
54. In accordance with the definition of "modem" as included in the relevant dictionaries, the
Ethernet, ISDN and WLAN modems all modulate and demodulate. They connect a set top box to a
communication line and convert signals produced by one type of device to a form compatible with
another. Devices that operate through an Ethernet or network connection, a WLAN connection or an
ISDN modem are modems. STBs equipped with such m odems therefore fall within the scope of the
concession concerning "set top boxes which have a communication function."
2. Surrounding circumstances
55. In an attempt to strengthen its position, the EC has imported the analysis of "the set top boxes
available on the market in 1996" and "the descrip tions used during the negotiations" as "surrounding
circumstances" into its analysis of the ordinary meaning of its concession concerning "set top boxes
which have a communication function." However, these elements could at most be examined as
"supplementary means" of interpre tation within the meaning of Arti cle 32 of the Vienna Convention.
It is actually very doubtful whether these elements qualify as "supplementary means of
interpretation."
3. Context
(a) Tariff lines
56. The CN codes notified by the EC to the WTO do not determine the scope of the concessions.
They are merely indications of where in th e CN the EC viewed the STBs which have a
communication function were included at that time.

(b) Schedules of other ITA participants
57. The table showing the codes notified by the IT A participants as to where they classify STBs
which have a communication function is irrelevant in determining the scope of the EC concession. It
merely supports the view that when the ITA negotia tions concluded, there were no universally agreed
classification headings for STBs which have a communi cation function. That is precisely the reason
why the commitment has been made with respect to a product descr iption wherever classified and
regardless of its classification by individual participants.
C. T
HE EC'S MEASURES AT ISSUE VIOLATE ARTICLE II:1(A) AND II:1(B) OF THE GATT 1994
58. The EC repeatedly claims that "it does not exclude any STBs from duty-free treatment due to
the presence of a hard disk or other apparatus. " Yet, the EC has not provided any evidence of
instances where an STB with a hard disk has been accorded duty-free treatment by the EC. In other
words, as expressly stated in the CNEN, the mere presence of a hard disk or DVD drive in an STB
which has a communication function leads to the ex clusion of that STB from duty-free treatment. By
doing so, the EC violates its obligations under Article II:1(a) and II:1(b) of the GATT 1994.
IV. BY NOT PUBLISHING THE AMENDED EN RELATED TO THE TARIFFS OF
CERTAIN STBS FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR AND BY APPLYING CUSTOMS
DUTIES ON CERTAIN STBS PRIOR TO THE OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE
MEASURES, THE EC VIOLATES ARTICLE X:1 AND X:2 OF THE GATT 1994
A. A
RTICLE X:1 OF THE GATT 1994
59. Contrary to the EC's claim, the CNEN constitute "laws, regulations, judicial decision or
administrative rulings of general application" and th erefore fall within the scope of Article X:1 of the
GATT 1994. Indeed, CNEN are legally binding. In any case, Article X:1 of the GATT 1994 has a
broad scope that would cover CNEN even if the CNEN were not found to be legally binding.
60. Article X:1 of the GATT does not refer to acts that have been "adopted" but acts that are
"made effective". From the moment the measure, i.e., the CNEN, was voted upon by the Customs
Code Committee in April 2007, it began to be app lied by the customs authorities of the member
States. It was then that CNEN were "made effective." It was also then that the EC should have
promptly published the CNEN accordingly. The fact that the CNEN was made effective since the vote
of the Customs Code Committee in April 2007 but not published until May 2008 is clearly
inconsistent with the requirement of prompt publication as provided in Article X:1 of the GATT 1994.
B. ARTICLE X:2 OF THE GATT 1994
61. The EC first tried to confuse the panel by reframing the dispute as one concerning not the
CNEN but "the votes and discussions in the CCCE." However, TPKM's claim is about the CNEN
that have been "enforced" but not yet published. Th us, the measure within the meaning of Article X:2
of the GATT is the CNEN as voted upon by the Cust oms Code Committee. The fact that the CNEN
concerned have not been "adopted" is not relevant for the purposes of this provision as long as they
have been "enforced."
62. Contrary to the EC's claim, CNEN constitute "measures" within the meaning of Article X:2 as
they constitute "acts setting forth rules or norms th at are intended to have general and prospective
application." CNEN constitute "measures" even if they have not been "formally" adopted.

63. The EC simply ignores the evidence brought by TPKM and the United States which shows
that customs authorities started applying the CNEN that had been voted upon by the Customs Code
Committee but not yet officially published. The sole defence of the EC is that the reference to the not-
yet published CNEN in the BTIs is "for information" only since the "member States base their
classification decisions on CN and the interpretativ e rules thereto." However, the EC's argument
amounts to deprive CNEN of any existence. The EC appears to argue that CNEN do not constitute
"measures." Nonetheless, as TPKM noted above, the issue is not to determine what the exact status of
the CNEN is within the EC legal system. The fact that customs authorities of the member States have
relied on CNEN either to issue BTIs or to take other customs decisions shows that the CNEN had
been enforced and affected traders.
V. BY IMPOSING CUSTOMS DUTIES ON CERTAIN MULTIFUNCTIONAL
MACHINES, THE EC VIOLATES ARTICLE II:1(A) AND II:1(B) OF THE
GATT 1994
A. G
ENERAL ISSUES
1. The products at issue
64. The EC has had no difficulties in identifying the products at issue as comprising the so-called
"ADP MFMs" and "NON-ADP MFMs," even though th e EC has made a number of statements about
the product at issue that are factually incorrect.
2. The measures at issue
65. Contrary to what the EC claims, with the ex ception of the CCCE statement, the measures at
issue are all still valid and continue to form part of the EC legal system.
3. The issue
66. The EC erroneously presents the issue as being one about customs classification while it is a
tariff treatment dispute. It is sufficient for the co mplainants to demonstrate that the EC measures
necessarily result in certain MFMs being subject to customs duties when they are actually entitled to a
zero tariff under the applicable concessions. The Pane l will thus first have to determine whether the
MFMs at issue are properly covered by the c oncessions contained in HS subheading 8471.60 or
8517.21. TPKM notes that the EC failed to examine anywhere the ordinary meaning of the wording of
the concessions covering subheadings 8471.60 or 8517.21. Instead, the EC embarked immediately on
a classification exercise, applying the rules of the HS in order to demonstrate that the MFMs are
correctly classified under heading 9009 instead of under heading 8471 or 8517. TPKM submits that
in doing so the EC skipped the most important step in the interpretative exerci se, i.e., to analyze, in
the light of the principles set out in the Vienna Convention, the ordinary meaning of the wording of
the concessions covering subheading 8471.60 and subheading 8517.21 and whether such wording
covers the MFMs at issue.
B. ADP MFMS
67. The EC has not examined the wording or even the scope of the concessions under Subheading
8471.60 for "printers" (CN code 8471 60 40) and "others" (CN code 8471 60 90) or for "facsimile
machines" (CN code 8517 21 00) but immediately argues that digital copying is a form of
photocopying. According to the EC, " unless it can be shown that the copying function was
'secondary,'" ADP MFMs would fall outside the concession for subheading 8471.60. " If the copying

function was equivalent," they would fall under subheading 9009 12 pursuant to GIR 3. The EC refers
to the judgment of the ECJ in Kip. However, it is puzzling how the EC can base its entire defence on a
ruling from its own highest court, which actually c oncluded that the automatic exclusion of MFMs
with a copying function from the scope of s ubheading 8471 and their classification under heading
9009 violates EC customs law.
68. First, an ADP MFM will fall under subheading 8471.60 provided it is "of a kind solely or
principally used in an ADP system." Given that ADP MFMs are by definition connectable to an ADP
system and consist of a scanner module and a printing module, it is clear that as a general rule such
apparatus will be of a kind solely or principally u sed in an ADP system and would therefore generally
fall under heading 8471.
69. Second, in the rare cases where the copying function is equivalent to the printing and the
scanning functions, classification cannot take place on th e basis of Note 5(B) to Chapter 84. It is
necessary to examine whether the ADP MFM cannot be classified on the basis of GIR 3(b) which
classifies products on the basis of the component whic h confers the essential character to the product.
Since printer, scanner and computer modules are clearly classifiable under heading 8471, it is
manifest that the exercise w ill necessarily result in a classifica tion under heading 8471 unless the
value and role of the various components would be so similar that no component can be identified
conferring the essential character to the apparatus. Needless to say, given the preponderance of the
printer module consisting of the print engine a nd the print controller in the overall value and
functioning of an ADP MFM, it will only be in very rare cases that the printer module will not confer
the essential character to the MFM.
1. Digital copying is not a form of photocopying
70. The EC has avoided analyzing the wording of the concession covering subheading 8471 and
has focused instead on the concession covering headi ng 9009. This approach presupposes that digital
copying is actually a form of photocopying.
71. TPKM submits that such reasoning is not supp orted by the facts: (i) analogue photocopying
and digital copying are different even if light is used in both processes; (ii) although both systems use
an "indirect process," in the case of digital copying, it is the printing process that is "indirect," not a
"photocopying process." To qualify as an indirect photocopying process, it is necessary that the
original image is projected on the light sensitive surfa ce of the drum and that afterwards the projected
original image is transferred from the drum to the paper. That is not the case with digital copying; (iii)
the indiscriminate use in commercial literature of the terms "copier" and "photocopier" is not an
acceptable interpretative tool under Article 31 or 32 of the Vienna Convention; (iv) the EC ignores
that analogue photocopier and digital copier ar e fundamentally different technologies; (v) the
reference to Regulation (EC) No. 1165/95 and the Rank Xerox ruling is not convincing as the
apparatus concerned by these measures cannot connect to an ADP machine or to a network; and
(vi) in Council Regulation (EC) No. 2380/95 of 2 October 1995 that imposed a definitive anti-
dumping duty on imports of plain paper photocopiers originating in Japan, the EC distinguished
"digital copying" from "photocopying" as being two completely different processes.
72. As for the alleged US practice of classifying stand alone digital copiers under heading 9009,
TPKM fails to see how this can support the EC pos ition. TPKM considers that the HS2007 and its
negotiating history are equally of minimal relevance in this dispute.

2. ADP MFMs fall within the scope of the concession for subheading 8471.60
73. The main argument submitted by the EC to justify the exclusion of ADP MFMs from the
concession covering subheading 8471.60 relies on Note 5 to Chapter 84. The EC claims that the
requirement of sole or principal use in Note 5(B) is not met and that Note 5(D) is not applicable since
the MFM are not "printers". However, the follo wing should be noted. First, ADP MFMs fulfill the
requirements in Note 5(B)(a) since they are of a kind principally used in an ADP system. The fact that
the MFMs may operate independently from an ADP system as a stand alone digital copier does not
invalidate its principal use with ADP machines. Se cond, Note 5(D) confirms that ADP MFMs fall
under the scope of the concession for "output units" and "printers" under subh eading 8471.60. Such
would be the case regardless of whether the sole or pr incipal use test is met. The meaning of "printer"
is not limited to single function machines only. Third, the broad scope of the concession for 8471.60
actually confirms that the MFMs at issue are included within the scope of the concession.
C. NON-ADP
 MFMS
74. The EC claims that these MFMs correctly fall under the scope of the concession in
subheading 9009.12 since their copying functionality is similar to that of stand alone digital copiers,
and their copying function also qualifies as photocopying.
75. However, the EC's claim is without merit for the following reasons: (i) "photocopying" is
different from "digital copying"; (ii) correct application of GIR 3(b) would actually result in a
classification under another heading different from 9009; (iii) it is incorrect that the criterion of pages-
per-minute copying speed was already used in Commission Regulations (EC) No. 2184/97 and No.
517/99; and (iv) the duty-free treatment granted to some non-ADP MFMs with a copying speed not
exceeding 12 pages per minute (8443 31 10) is simply a fulfillment of the EC's obligation. It is the EC
that has arbitrarily excluded from the duty-free treatment those MFMs with a facsimile function and a
copying speed exceeding 12 pages per minute.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
76. For all the reasons set forth in its First Writte n Submission and for all the reasons set forth
above in this Submission, TPKM respectfully requests the Panel to find that:
(a) the EC's measures concerning flat panel display devices are inconsistent with the EC's
obligations under Articles II:1(a) and II:1(b) of the GATT 1994;
(b) the EC's measures concerning set-top boxes which have a communication function
are inconsistent with the EC's obligations under Articles II:1(a) and II:1(b) of the
GATT 1994;
(c) the EC's measures concerning set-top boxes which have a communication function
are inconsistent with Articles X:1 and X:2 of the GATT 1994;
(d) the EC's measures concerning multifunctiona l machines are inconsistent with the
EC's obligations under Article II:1(a) and II:1(b) of the GATT 1994
77. Accordingly, TPKM respectfully requests that the Panel recommend, pursuant to Article 19.1
of the DSU, that the EC and its member States br ing the measures into conformity with the covered
agreements.

ANNEX C-5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE ORAL STATEMENT BY CHINESE TAIPEI
AT THE SECOND SUBSTANTIVE MEETING

1. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the Panel, the Separate Customs Territory of
Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu ("TPKM") would lik e to thank you and the Secretariat for your
hard works that have already been done and for your ongoing efforts in connection with this dispute.
2. TPKM is pleased to have this opportunity t oday to address some new arguments developed
by the EC in its second written submission. In this oral statement, TPKM will first address the issues
with respect to the tariff treatment accorded by the EC to Flat Panel Display devices (FPD devices).
TPKM will then address the main concerns raised by the EC's arguments with respect to Set-top
Boxes (STBs) and Multifunctional Machines (MFMs).
3. At the outset, we would like to respectfully remind the Panel that the crux of this dispute is
about tariff treatment rather than customs classifica tion or something else. The core question awaiting
the Panel is whether the EC's measur es at issue in regard to three ITA products have resulted in tariff
treatment that is inconsistent with its Schedule of Concessions and Articles II:1(a) and II:1(b) of the
GATT 1994. By applying the principles of treaty interpretation as reflected in the Vienna
Convention, TPKM has demonstrated how the three products at issue fall within the ordinary meaning
of the terms of the EC's concessions when read in context and in the light of the object and purpose of
the GATT 1994. TPKM has shown, and will show the Pa nel again that, because of the EC's measures
at issue, those products have been denied duty-free treatment that they are entitled to.
I. FLAT PANEL DISPLAY DEVICES
4. On the FPD issues, it is striking how the EC has tried to distract the Panel's attention from the
core issues involved throughout this dispute. Instead of addressing the core issues, the EC has chosen
to mount its defense almost exclusively based on pr ocedural arguments. In particular, the EC has
continuously claimed that the complainants have fa iled to make a prima facie case because they have
failed to identify with sufficient precision the produ cts at issue, the concessions at issue and now, in
its second written submission, also the claims at issue and the scope of those claims.
5. In this oral statement, TPKM would like to systematically address the arguments put forward
by the EC and demonstrate why they are without merit.
A. T
HE CLAIMS AT ISSUE HAVE BEEN PRECISELY IDENTIFIED BY THE COMPLAINANTS
6. It has always been clear since the very beginning of this dispute that all the complainants have
made two different claims with respect to FPD devices. Both claims relate to a breach of
Article II:1(a) and II:1(b) of the GATT 1994 but conc ern the EC's two different concessions that were
made in its Schedule in order to implement the ITA. The first one is the concession made by the EC
pursuant to Attachment B to the ITA with respect to "flat panel display devices for products falling
within the ITA." The second one is the concession ma de by the EC pursuant to Attachment A to the
ITA with respect to "input or output units" of ADP machines under the heading 8471.60.
7. The EC appears to be surprised by the fact th at the two concessions ha ve different scopes.
However, this is how the EC Schedule is structur ed, and this structure reflects the two different
commitments undertaken by the EC pursuant to Att achment A and Attachment B to the ITA. We

have already highlighted that each concession has a different scope in separate sections of our First
Written Submission and, in particular, in the analysis of the scope of each of the concessions.
1
8. The concession concerning heading 8471.60 that covers "input or output units" of ADP
machines must be read in its context and in par ticular in accordance with Note 5(B) to Chapter 84
which prescribes that "input or output units" must be "o f a kind solely or principally used in an [ADP]
system." However, there is no such limitation as "sole or principal use" in the concession concerning
"flat panel display devices for prod ucts falling within the ITA." In fact, this latter concession, as
properly interpreted on the basis of its ordinary meani ng, in its context, and in light of the object and
purpose of the GATT 1994, does not contain any limitation that the FPD devices, in order to be
covered, must be for use "principally" or "solely" with ADP machines.
9. The fact that both concessions have different scopes is another reason why both claims must
be examined in turn by the panel in this dis pute and make its rulings accordingly. Indeed, for
example, an FPD device that falls under one of the measures at issue may not be covered by the
concession concerning "input or output unit" of ADP machines but nonetheless be covered by the
concession concerning "flat panel display devices for products falling within this Agreement."
10. In the following paragraphs, we will analyze in more detail the scope of each concession
made by the EC with respect to FPD devices.
11. The first concession has been made by the EC pur suant to Attachment B with respect to "flat
panel display devices for products falling within the ITA." This concession has been granted
"wherever the product is classified." Thus, it is tota lly irrelevant how the EC or other participants
classify FPD devices for products falling within the ITA. To the extent that they are "for products
falling within this Agreement," they are entitled to duty-free treatment. For an FPD device to qualify
as one that is "for products falling within the ITA," it must be capable of operating with an ADP
machine. "Capable of operating" does not mean , however, "simply connected". The FPD devices
must be capable of receiving and properly repr oducing signals received from an ADP machine in
order to fall within that concession.
12. The EC claims that the conclusion of the compla inants that it impermissibly subjects to duties
any flat panel display device that is capable of ope rating with a device other than an ADP machine is
contradicted by the express exclusion of "televisions" from the concession concerning CRT
"monitors."
2 According to the EC, televisions are excluded from the scope of the whole agreement.
13. However, the exclusion of "televisions" is found only in the concession concerning CRT
"monitors" and that exclusion cannot be imported into the concession of "flat panel display devices."
The fact that there is no express exclusion in the concession concerning "flat panel display devices"
must actually mean something. As the Appellate Body underlined in Japan – Alcoholic Beverages ,
"omission must have some meaning."
3 In EC – Bed Linen ,4 the Appellate Body considered that the
presence of exclusion in the chapeau to Article 2.2. 2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement led it to believe
that where there is no such express exclusion elsewhe re in the same Article, no such exclusion should
be implied. Similarly, the absence of an express exclusion in the concession concerning "flat panel
display devices" while an express exclusion is provided in the concession concerning CRT "monitors"
means that in the first concession, no such exclusi on should be implied. If the authors wanted to

1 See TPKM first written submission, paras. 216 – 306 and paras. 307 – 348.
3 Appellate Body Report, Japan – Alcoholic Beverages, p. 19.
4 Appellate Body Report, EC – Bed Linen, para. 83.

apply such exclusion to FPD devices, they wo uld have expressly included it in that product
description.
14. Furthermore, it should be emphasized that the description in the list of products under the
concession for "computers" expressly mentions that those products cover ADP machines irrespective
of "whether or not they are able to receive and process with the assistance of central processing unit
telephony signals, television signals, or other analogu e or digitally processed audio or video signals."
Thus, the fact that an apparatus can receive and pr ocess television signals is not in itself a criterion
that would exclude it from the scope of the concessions made pursuant to the ITA.
15. The EC has repeatedly questioned whether, in the complainants' view, flat panel televisions
are covered by the concessions. First, TPKM believes that in order to answer this question, the EC
will need to first clarify what it considers to be a "television". Indeed, what really matters is the
criterion that the FPD devices are "for" products falling within the ITA and thus including FPD
devices for ADP machines. To the extent that the FPD devices can receive and reproduce signals
from an ADP machine properly, they are covered by the EC's concessions.
16. The second concession has been made by the EC with respect to HS heading 8471.60 as
"input or output units" of ADP machines. The ordinary meaning of "input or output units" of ADP
machines does not support the proposition that an FPD covered by subheading 8471.60 must be
capable of receiving signals "only from" a computer system in order to be covered. In accordance
with the existing jurisprudence of the Appellate B ody, it appears that the Harmonized System may be
relevant as part of the context to interpret the c oncession. Note 5(B) to Chapter 84, which is an
integral part of the HS, refers to input or output un its that are "of a kind solely or principally used in
an ADP system." In light of the foregoing, it is clear that FPD devices cannot be excluded from the
scope of the concession concerning "input or output units" of ADP machines on the sole ground that
the FPD devices can also reproduce signals from a sour ce other than an ADP machine. Note 5(B) to
Chapter 84 does not require "exclusive" use. A prin cipal use in an ADP system is sufficient for an
FPD device to be classified under Heading 8471. However, by requiring that the FPD devices must
be for "sole" use with ADP machines to receive duty-free treatment, the measures at issue violate the
EC's concessions with respect to "input or output units" of ADP machines.
17. The EC has attempted to rely on the Explanator y Notes ("EN") to the HS to Chapter 84, in
particular Point I(D), to justify the criteria u sed in the measures challenged in this dispute.
5 T h e
HSEN provides that "separately presented units" falling under heading 8471 differ from video
monitors and television receivers under heading 8528 in different wa ys. Such differences include the
notion that "they are capable of accepting a signal only from the central processing unit of an ADP
machine," the notion that they "are not able to reproduce a colour image from a composite video
signal," and so on. According to the EC, it has si mply been applying the criteria contained in the
HSEN to distinguish between display units of ADP machines and video monitors.
18. However, the EN of the HS do not form part of the HS and therefore cannot be part of the
"context" for the purpose of determining the scope of the concession concerning subheading 8471.60.
Moreover, to the extent that the EN contradict the wording of the HS itself, including its section and
chapter notes, they must be disregarded. In the present dispute, by referring to ADP monitors as
"accepting a signal only from an ADP machine," the EN mani festly contradicts the wording of
Note 5(B) to Chapter 84 that refers to input or output units "of a kind principally or solely for use in
an ADP system" and therefore must be ignored.

5 EC first written submission, paras. 156 – 159.

19. Finally, TPKM would like to address the remark of the EC that the wide scope of the
concession concerning flat panel display devices for products falling within the ITA " l e a d s t o a
situation where it is entirely unclear how the cha llenged measures come within the scope of each of
the two claims."
6
20. TPKM does not understand the EC's assertion of the alleged lack of clarity. There are five
measures at issue which have been precisely identif ied in the Panel Request and in the first written
submission.7 All these measures are in breach of the EC's concessions made pursuant to Attachment
A and Attachment B to the ITA with respect to FPD devices.
B. THE PRODUCTS AT ISSUE AS DEFINED BY TH E MEASURES AT ISSUE HAVE BEEN CLEARLY
IDENTIFIED
21. Now we would like to turn to the issue of th e "products". The EC has continuously claimed
that there is a lack of precision in the definition of the products at issue. However, the products at
issue are those subject to duties under the measures at issue. They have been clearly identified by
TPKM as "any flat panel display device capabl e of receiving and reproducing signals from ADP
machines only or from ADP machines and other apparatus." 8 The products at issue are therefore not
limited to, as the EC claims, the "LCD monitors with DVI." 9 This point had also been precisely made
in TPKM's First Written Submission when it was clarif ying that "the FPDs most affected by the EC
measures are LCD displays with a DVI connector" "although not limited to such types of FPDs."10
22. Claims are made not with respect to products but with respect to specific measures. We have
repeatedly and clearly identified the measures at issue with precision. The Panel's task is to determine
whether or not the measures at issue are inconsistent with Article II:1(a) and II:1(b) of the
GATT 1994. The Panel has to assess whether by excluding from duty-free treatment flat panel
display devices on the basis of a number of criteria the EC has breached the concessions it has made
pursuant to the ITA. The focus for the Panel is the criteria as listed in the measures at issue that are
used by the EC to determine the classification and, as a result, the duty treatment, for FPD devices.
23. The EN to CN code 8528.59.90 specifies, by re ference to the EN to CN code 8528.41.00, a
list of characteristics that, if present, would ex clude the FPD device from the scope of the duty-free
CN code. The presence of a DVI is just one of the criteria listed there. There are other criteria such
as the "connection to a video source," the presence of an "HDMI connector," and so forth. To the
extent that these criteria lead to the exclusion from duty-free treatment of FPD devices that are for
products falling within the ITA, they are inconsistent with the concessions made by the EC.
24. The EC has tried to create confusion by stating that the products at issue must somehow be
different depending on the claim concerned. Indeed, the EC is asking what products come within the
scope of each claim.
11 In fact, the products at issue are th e products falling within the measures at
issue. However, since both concessions have a di fferent scope whereby the scope of the concession
concerning "flat panel disp lay devices for products falling within the ITA" is wider than the more
limited scope of the concession covering subheadi ng 8471.60, the finding of inconsistency may be
different with respect to each concession. In othe r words, the mere fact that an FPD does not fall

7 TPKM first written submission, paras .66 – 89.
8 TPKM oral statement at the first substantive meeting of the Panel, para. 13.
11 EC second written submission, para. 33 et seq.

within the scope of the concession covering input or output units of ADP machines of subheading
8471.60, does not mean that it is also excluded fro m the concession relating to "flat panel display
devices for products falling within the ITA."
C. T
HE MEASURES AT ISSUE HAVE BEEN CLEARLY IDENTIFIED
25. Among the five measures at issue, there is in the first place the Combined Nomenclature. It is
correct that, at the first glance, the CN2009 seems to respect the concession made by the EC with
regard to Attachment A's "input or output unit" of ADP machines given that there is a specific
heading, namely CN code 8528.51.00 that covers "oth er monitors – of a kind solely or principally
used in automatic data processing system of heading 8471."
26. However, if read in combination with the CN EN, it leads to an interpretation of the CN2009
that would exclude FPD devices of a kind principa lly used in ADP systems under heading 8471 from
duty-free treatment. Such exclusion would be so simply because the CNEN re quires exclusive use in
an ADP system and the absence of a DVI connector. This is inconsistent with the concessions made
by the EC pursuant to Attachment A to the ITA.
27. Furthermore, FPD devices which are of a kind principally used in ADP systems are clearly
also "flat panel display devices for products falling within the ITA." Since the duty-free treatment
shall be granted to such FPD devices "wherever th ey are classified," it is irrelevant where such
products are classified in the CN.
28. As far as the CNEN are concerned, the EN to codes 8528.51.00, 8528.59.10 and 8528.59.90
require the Panel's attention as well as the EN to codes 8528.41.00 and from 8528.49.35 to
8528.49.99. The EN to code 8528.51.00 that covers monitors provides that "the explanatory notes to
subheading 8528.41.00 apply mutatis mutandis ." The EC is now claiming that the word "mutatis
mutandis" "do not incorporate all of the CNEN to heading 8528.41.00 into the CNEN to heading
8528.51.00."
12 However, except the paragraph that expressl y refers to the specific characteristics of
monitors of the CRT type, the rest of the CNEN ar e directly applicable to the flat monitors, in
particular, the list of the criteria that exclude mon itors from the scope of the headings with duty-free
treatment.
29. Again, the EC is trying to create confusion by alleging that it is not clear whether the CNEN
fall within the scope of the claim made pursuant to Attachment B. There is no ambiguity on this
issue: the criteria listed in the CNEN must be reviewed by the Panel with respect to both concessions.
30. Finally, there are two Classification Regulations of the EC that are being challenged. Again,
the WTO consistency of these regulations has been challenged with respect to both concessions.
D. T
HE KAMINO JUDGMENT DOES NOT REMOVE WTO INCONSISTENCY OF THE EC'S MEASURES
31. TPKM has referred to and continues to refer to Kamino only to show how the highest court in
the EC, the ECJ, has interpreted the CN with regard to flat monitors and how the ECJ came to the
conclusion that monitors cannot be excluded from the scope of CN code 8471.60.90 solely because
they are capable of displaying signals coming both from an ADP machine and from other sources or
solely because they are equipped with certain types of connectors such as a DVI connector.

32. The findings in Kamino may be informative since the judgment underlines that some aspects
of the measures being challenged in the present disput e are contradictory to the CN. In other words,
the judgment in Kamino confirms that, even if only from an EC classification perspective, the EC
incorrectly excludes FPD devices from the scope of subheading 8471.60 solely because they can be
connected to a source other than an ADP machine or due to the presence of a particular type of
connector.
1. The Kamino judgment has not modified the measures at issue and has not removed the
WTO inconsistency of the EC measures
33. The Kamino judgment has neither modified nor annulled the measures at issue. Those
measures at issue were all published after the facts concerned in the Kamino dispute, and thus were
not reviewed by the court in that case. Therefore, the Kamino judgment has not removed the WTO
inconsistency of the EC measures. At most, the Kamino judgment has made it clear that the EC
measures requiring exclusive use in an ADP system before an FPD can be classified under subheading
8471.60 are legally wrong under EC customs law. By logical reasoning, the EC's measures requiring
exclusive use of the FPD devices in ADP systems ha ve resulted in an illegal exclusion of these FPD
devices from the scope of the con cession under subheading 8471.60. Kamino has not resulted in any
automatic substitution of the illegal EC measures with new WTO-consistent measures.
34. The ECJ has only dealt with the interpretation of the CN that existed in 2004. It has not ruled
on the validity of any of the Classification Regulati ons. For such regulations to disappear from the
EC legal order, they must either be amended or repealed by the EC Commission or expressly annulled
by the ECJ. Under the current circumstances, these Classification Regulations are still valid and
legally applicable despite the judgment of the ECJ in Kamino.
35. The same holds true for the CNEN which was not examined by the ECJ in Kamino and
therefore remains in existence. As acknowledged by the EC itself, the CNEN must be amended or
repealed following Kamino.
13
36. Unlike what the EC seems to want others to believe, Kamino has not solved the issues before
this Panel. It is also clear from the EC memb er States' repeated requests for guidance addressed
directly to the EC Commission. Recent meetings of the EC's Customs Code Committee confirmed
that member States are still waiting for common guida nce on correct interpretation and application of
the principles contained in Kamino. 14 The EC itself also acknowledged this when stating that "in
order to ensure legal certainty, the EC has already initiated a revi ew process for identifying whether
some adjustments to the notes may be needed." 15 While what the EC will do remains uncertain, one
thing is for sure, i.e., the Kamino has not saved the EC from breaching its concessions and relevant
WTO obligations.

14 See Exhibit TPKM-88. In the Customs Code Committee’s meeting of 22 to 29 April 2009, the
following was reported with respect to the ruling in Kamino: "some Member States asked for guidance on the
correct interpretation and application of the principles established by the ruling. They further asked whether
issuance of BTI and replies to requests for reimbursement should be suspended awaiting the above clarification.
The Chair explained that the Commission services are cu rrently reflecting on the way to implement the Court
judgment and that a debate is expected to take place at the next Committee meeting." Interestingly, no debate
took place on which amendment to the CNEN would be n ecessary at the subsequent meeting of the Customs
Code Committee, contrary to what was announced in the minutes quoted above.

2. The criteria to be used in the alleged ca se-by-case analysis of the EC would not
necessarily remove the WTO inconsistency
37. The EC claims that, following Kamino, "to decide whether a given monitor is or is not used
'principally' in an ADP system requi res inherently a case-by-case analysis."
16 Even if this were the
case, the so-called "case-by-case analysis" is curr ently being made on the basis of the criteria
contained in the HSEN, the CNEN and in the Cl assification Regulations. This practice has not
changed even after the Kamino judgment. The EC has also faile d to bring evidence of BTIs or
customs decisions issued after Kamino that can demonstrate the application of duty-free treatment to,
e.g., FPD devices equipped with a DVI.
38. Even if the EC modifies the CNEN and the classification regulations in order to implement
Kamino, it remains uncertain how it will a pply its "case-by–case" analysis." Kamino provides certain
criteria to be used in such a case-by-case analysis in its paragraphs 59 and 60. In case the EC would
use these criteria17 and would require these criteria to be met cumulatively, a case-by-case analysis is
unlikely to remove the WTO violation. Indeed, such an approach would again lead to the exclusion
from duty-free treatment of FPD devices that are covered by the concessions of the EC as examined
above.
II. SET-TOP BOXES WHICH HAVE A COMMUNICATION FUNCTION
39. Now we would like to turn to i ssues with respect to Set-top boxes. According to the EC, in
order to succeed with an "as such" claim, it is necessary to demonstrate that the measures in question
result in the imposition of duties with respect to a given product model or a certain category of
products.
18 Under the EC's theory, 19 complainants must identify the product category by identifying
the "totality of the objective characteristics" of those products 20 somehow similarly to a product
description included in a classification regulation.
40. The EC simply missed the point. The measure at issue, i.e., the CNEN, contains certain
criteria that, if present in a STB, would automatically exclude an STB covered by the EC's concession
from the scope of duty-free treatment. To the extent that complainants have demonstrated that the
application of these criteria necessarily leads to a WTO-inconsistent outcome, they have succeeded
with their "as such" claims. As the complainants have successfully demonstrated that STBs which
have a communication function would be automatically excluded from the scope of duty-free heading
because they include, inter alia, a hard disk or DVD drive is incons istent with the EC Schedule, they
have made their case.
41. Once again, in its second written submission, the EC claims that in any case CNEN are not
binding and that the criteria used in the CN EN do not have the mandatory power that the
complainants ascribed to them.
21 This is not correct. Has the EC given any example in which

17 See EC first written submission, para 166. The EC may use these criteria in order to consider as
decisive "the objective technical characteristics as laid down in the Explanatory Notes relating to heading 8471
of the HS, in particular in points 1 to 5 of Part On e Chapter I(D)." The criteria contained in the HSEN to
heading 8471 stipulate for instan ce that an ADP monitor may not incorporate an audio circuit. See Exhibit
TPKM-89.
19 See EC second written submission, para. 68, for an example, according to the EC’s theory, it is not
sufficient to describe a category of products such as STBs with a hard disk or DVD drive.

customs authorities have given duty-free treatment to an STB which has a hard disk? No! Indeed,
customs authorities have consistently classified STBs in accordance with the mandatory criteria
contained in the CNEN since the vote of the Customs Code Committee on this issue.
42. As to the interpretation of the concession, th e only textual argument the EC continues to
assert relates to the use of the words "which have" in the concession. According to the EC, the phrase
"which have" differs from the te rm "with" and means "which only have." However, "which have"
and "with" do not have the different meanings th e EC ascribes to them. TPKM does not understand
why the words "which have" should somehow be interpreted as "which only have."
43. Furthermore, the EC also used the same word "with" when modifying its own Schedule in
2000. The EC added in the list of codes indicat ed next to the product description concerning STBs
which have a communication function, a CN code that covers "[a]pparatus with a microprocessor-
based device incorporating a modem for gainin g access to the Internet, and having a function of
interactive information exchange, capable of receiving television signals ('set-top boxes with
communication function')."
22 If there were a difference between the terms "which have" and "with",
why would the EC have used the word "with" in its CN code 8528.12.91? This simply shows that
there is no difference of meaning as alleged by the EC between the two terms.
44. The EC defends itself by arguing that the wording "set top boxes with a communication
function" does not form part of its Schedule. Alle gedly, only the code itself would be part of the
Schedule. This argument is unacceptable. As a general rule, when a concession is defined in a
Schedule by reference to a specific CN code, the descr iption attached to this code also forms part of
the concession. In the present dispute, however, wh ere concessions have been granted pursuant to
Attachment B, TPKM considers the concession as being defined by the product description alone.
45. The EC's arguments are self-contradictory. Ind eed, by stating that "the notification neither
introduced a separate narrative d escription into its Schedule nor modified the existing narrative
description,"23 the EC simply admits that the concession is determined by the product description and
not by the codes listed next to it.
46. Furthermore, the EC notes that the CN codes indicated next to the product description
constitute "context" for the interp retation of the narrative description. As previously noted, TPKM
agrees with this view to a certain degree, but does not agree that this context can be used to "exhaust"
the narrative description.
47. On the basis of the principles of treaty interpretation as reflected in the Vienna Convention, it
is necessary to interpret the concession on the basis of its ordinary meaning in the light of its context
and of the object and purpose of the treaty. The or dinary meaning of the concession, namely "set top
boxes which have a communication function," is cl ear and does not exclude from its scope set top
boxes because they have an additional function su ch as a recording or a reproducing function or
because they are equipped with certain types of modems. The analysis of the context, in particular of
the CN codes indicated by the EC next to the product description, confirms this conclusion.24
48. In its analysis of the CN codes as "context," the EC merely notes that three CN codes have
been initially notified by the EC: 8517.50.90, 851 7.80.90 and 8525.20.99 and that no codes under
heading 8521 or 8528 were notified. The EC app ears to argue that STBs which have a recording or

22 CN code 8528.12.91.
24 EC first written submission, paras. 239 – 241.

reproducing function must necessarily be classified under heading 8521 or 8528. Therefore, the EC
further argues that since these headings were not indicated among the codes listed next to the product
description, the EC did not intend such products to be covered by the concession.
49. With respect to the EC's arguments, TPKM would like to provide the Panel with the
following observations. First, the EC's argument s uggests that the concession is limited to the codes,
when in fact it covers products "wherever classified ." Even as a matter of classification, it fails to
take into account that heading 8525, which is one of the codes listed, cove rs transmission apparatus
"whether or not incorporating reception apparatus or sound recording or reproducing apparatus."
Second, the EC intentionally ignored in its analysis the fourth CN code notified by the EC to the
WTO in 2000, namely CN code 8528.12.91, and which is one of the codes listed next to the product
description. Third, these codes do not contain an y wording which would support the EC's position
that STBs including certain types of modems woul d be excluded from the scope of the concession.
Thus, a careful analysis of the CN codes, as re quested by the EC itself, actually supports the
complainants' view in this case.
III. CLAIMS RELATING TO ARTICLE X OF THE GATT 1994
50. Finally, TPKM would like to add a few words on the EC's defense regarding its Article X
claims.
51. The entire EC's defense consists of argument s that the CNEN do not constitute "measures"
either under EC law or under WTO law because they have not officially been adopted by the EC
Commission. However, even if the CNEN has not been formally adopted within the EC legal
system, this is not relevant for WTO disput e purposes. As the Appellate Body noted in US – OCTG
regarding the status of the Special Policy Bulletin (SPB), the fact "that the SPB is not a legal
instrument under US law" "is not relevant to the question before us."
25 "The issue is not whether the
SPB is a legal instrument within the domestic legal system of the US, but rather, whether the SPB is a
measure that may be challenged within the WTO." 26 As the Appellate Body emphasized in that case,
if it provides administrative guidance and creates expectations among the public and among private
actors, it constitutes a "measure". This is also th e case of CNEN which have been voted upon by the
Customs Code Committee even if they have not ye t been formally adopted by the EC Commission.
To the extent that they already have been enfo rced before being published officially, this is
inconsistent with Article X:2 of the GATT.
IV. THE EC CONTINUES TO IGNORE TH E WORDING OF THE CONCESSION
COVERING MULTIFUNCTIONAL MACHINES
52. In its second written submission, the EC once ag ain erroneously approached the question of
whether the tariff treatment applied to MFMs is consistent with the concession covering HS
subheading 8471.60 as a classification dispute. The EC started by saying that ADP MFMs are " prima
facie classifiable under both HS96 9009 12 and HS96 8471 60" (emphasis added). Therefore, the EC
further argued that it is necessary "to determine, on a case-by-case basis and having regard to the
applicable HS rules addressing specifically this type of situation (i.e., GIR 3) whether each kind of
ADP MFMs is covered by the concession for HS 9009 12 or by the concession for HS96 8471 60."
27

25 Appellate Body Report, US – OCTG, para. 187
26 Id.

The EC asserted that "in accordance with GIR 1, th e classification analysis must begin by looking at
the terms of the HS96 heading 9009"
28 and blames the complainants for having failed to do so.
53. The EC – once again – disregards the nature of the current dispute. This is not a classification
exercise. The issue is not to determine whethe r ADP MFMs are properly classified in Heading 8471
or 9009. The issue is whether the tariff treatment cu rrently applied is consistent with the concession
made by the EC, in particular with respect to the concession covering HS s ubheading 8471 60. The
EC continues to avoid the meaning of the wordin g of the concession covering subheading 8471 60.
Instead, the EC began its analysis with the word ing of subheading 9009 12, which it considers as an
equally relevant classification option.
54. In order to justify that Heading 9009 is an op tion, the EC needs to demonstrate that digital
copiers are in fact "photocopying apparatus". TPKM has already developed several arguments
proving the contrary and will not repeat them here . TPKM will limit its comments to the following
issues raised by the EC.
55. The EC argues that the technical differences between digital copiers and traditional
photocopiers are not relevant and that the issue "i s not whether both types of photocopier operate in
identical fashion."29 TPKM strongly disagrees with this view . TPKM believes that, in view of the
clear wording of the subheading, the technical diffe rences are relevant and important to determine the
scope of the concession concerning photocopiers unde r subheading 9009.12. The analysis of the
ordinary meaning of the words of that concession clearly excludes from its scope digital copiers. This
is further supported by the HSEN which the EC tries to put aside by claiming that there are "non-
binding" and "obsolete." 30 It is strange that the EC claims th e HSEN are "obsolete" while part of it
has been included in the revised EN to the HS2007 that clearly distinguishes between "photocopiers"
and "digital copiers." Should WCO Members have considered digital copiers as being equal to
photocopiers, why didn't they use the word "digital photocopiers"?
56. Finally, TPKM would like to address the EC's remarks on how the complainants classify
MFMs. TPKM would like to respectfully remind the Pa nel that it is irrelevant to this dispute how
TPKM or other Members classify certain products that deserve duty-free treatment. In any event,
TPKM has granted duty-free treatment to ADP MFMs wherever they are classified.
57. Last but not the least, TPKM would like to respond to what the EC asserted this morning that
we made an alleged "new claim" with respect to MFMs. That was simply not true. Contrary to the
EC's assertion, TPKM did not rais e a new claim in relation to the products allegedly covered by CN
code 8443.32.91, and TPKM did not ask the Panel to rule with respect to this specific CN code or
make specific findings with respect to products classified thereunder. The EC's assertion was
unfortunately a misleading statement.
58. TPKM's and the other complainants' claim regard ing MFMs was set out in the panel request.
This request covers the treatment given to MF Ms under the EC measures as defined in the panel
request. The CCT (Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2658/87, as amended) is one of the measures listed
in the panel request. MFMs are defined in footnote 15 of the request which provides:
"machines which perform two or more of th e functions of printing, copying, or
facsimile transmission, capable of connecting to an automatic data processing

28 EC second written submission, para. 104 (emphasis added).

machine or to a network (including devices commercially known as MFPs
(multifunctional printers), other 'input or out put units' of 'automatic data processing
machines' and 'facsimile machines')."
31
59. The products described by CN code 8443.32.91 are described in identical terms as those
described in CN code 8443.31.91, namely, "[m]achines performing a copying function by scanning
the original and printing the copies by means of an electrostatic print engine " and they are equally
"capable of connecting to an automatic data-processing machine or to a network."
60. Products of CN code 8443 31.91 and 8443.32.91, on the basis of their product description,
would therefore appear to have identical physi cal characteristics: a scanner, a printing module and
computer connectivity.
61. The description in CN code 8443.32.91 covers, in TPKM's view, input units for an automatic
data processing machine, such as scanners, which al so have a copying function. Since other "input
units of automatic data processing machines" are specifically mentioned in the panel request, TPKM
considers that products of CN code 8443.32.91 are cl early included in the scope of the claim. They
are multifunctional input units for an ADP machine and are different from the so-called stand-alone
digital copiers of CN code 8443.39.10 which have no computer connectivity. They also do not have a
facsimile function.
62. We take note that the EC considers that no pr oducts meeting this description actually exist
and would therefore invite the EC to clarify why this tariff line was included in the CCT and which
products it intends to cover. Mani festly, there would be no need for ADP connectivity if this heading
would only relate to single function digital copiers.
V. CONCLUSIONS
63. In conclusion, throughout this dispute, the EC a ppears to have tried to evading from engaging
the main issues raised by the co mplainants, i.e., a proper analysis of the scope of each concession
concerned on the basis of the principles of treaty in terpretation as reflected in the Vienna Convention.
As far as FPDs and STBs are concerned, the EC has focused instead on developing procedural
arguments alleging confusions about the claims, th e concessions, and so on. With respect to MFMs,
the EC has attempted to deviate from the core is sues by addressing the complainants' claim as a pure
classification exercise. TPKM is confident that the Panel will ignore these procedural tactics and
confirm that the EC's measures at issue are inco nsistent with its Schedule of Concessions and
Articles II:1(a), II:1(b) as well as Article X of the GATT 1994, and recommend that the EC and its
member States bring their measures into conformity.
64. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the Panel, TPKM would like to thank you and the
Secretariat again and would be pleased to answer your questions.

Information Technology Products, WT/DS375/8, WT/DS376/8 and WT/DS377/6.