MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 26 JUNE 2014
CHAIRMAN: MR AARON FOWLER (CANADA)
The Committee adopted the
proposed agenda for the meeting that was circulated in document WTO/AIR/4323
and dated 13 June 2014. An annotated agenda for the meeting was circulated
in document JOB/IT/13, dated 17 June 2014. The Chairman stated
that he would take up the issue of the "date of the next meeting"
under Other Business.
INTRODUCTION.. 1
1
REVIEW OF THE STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MINISTERIAL DECLARATION ON TRADE
IN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS (G/IT/1/REV.50). 1
2
REVIEW OF PRODUCT COVERAGE. 3
3
NON‑TARIFF MEASURES WORK PROGRAMME (G/IT/19, G/IT/SPEC/Q4/19/REV.2 AND
G/IT/SPEC/Q2/11/REV.1). 7
4
EMC/EMI PILOT PROJECT – DRAFT LIST OF THE TYPES OF CONFORMITY ASSESSMENT
PROCEDURES FOR EMC/EMI USED BY ITA PARTICIPANTS (G/IT/W/17/REV.12). 8
5
DIVERGENCES IN CLASSIFYING INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS
(G/IT/14/REV.1/ADD.1, G/IT/W/6/REV.3, G/IT/W/33, G/IT/W/34, G/IT/27 AND
JOB/IT/12). 9
6
NEW PARTICIPANTS. 12
7
ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON.. 12
8
OTHER BUSINESS. 13
Date of next meeting. 13
1.1. The Chairman told Participants that an overview of the Status
of Implementation of the Ministerial Declaration on Trade in Information
Technology Products could be found in document G/IT/1/Rev.50. As at
previous meetings, he flagged two issues. First, for El Salvador,
the completion of its domestic legal procedural requirements was still pending.
He invited the delegation of El Salvador to provide an update on the status of
this work. Second, for Morocco, he indicated that Morocco became a
participant to the ITA on 14 November 2003. However, it had not yet
submitted its final ITA schedule of commitments. Despite his predecessor's
letter to the delegation of Morocco, on 14 November 2011, and his
subsequent contacts with them earlier in the year concerning the status of
Morocco's ITA schedule, there had still been no formal response received.
Consequently, as had been signalled at the last Committee meeting, he sent a
follow‑up letter to the Moroccan delegation once again to urge action on this
outstanding issue. Since neither delegation was present, the Chairman proposed
that these issues be taken up again at the next meeting.
1.2. He also informed the Committee that Qatar had recently submitted its
ITA schedule of commitments to the Secretariat for rectification and
modification pursuant to Paragraph 2 of the Annex to the Ministerial
Declaration. Qatar's submission, as contained in document G/MA/TAR/RS/358,
was circulated on 28 April 2014.
1.3. In addition, he informed the Committee that the Russian Federation
was the only participant whose ITA schedule of commitments was still
awaiting rectification and modification. He invited Participants to provide any
updates or comments concerning implementation matters.
1.4. The representative of the Russian Federation stated that her
authorities would very shortly submit their ITA schedule for
modification/rectification after the fulfilment of internal procedures.
1.5. The representative of the United States thanked Qatar for
submitting its rectification to the Secretariat earlier in the year, and called
on the Russian Federation to submit the rectification of its ITA schedule
of commitments that were approved by this Committee last September as per the
Decision of 26 March 1980 on Procedures for Modification and Rectification
of Schedules of Tariffs Concessions, which is an important final step to
complete ITA participation.
1.6. The representative of Japan raised another issue concerning
the implementation of the current ITA. He expressed his authorities' deep
concern over the sudden imposition by India in January of 10% import duties on
digital still image video cameras, which had been treated as duty‑free under
the current ITA for a long time. He felt that the new Indian measure, in
accordance with its own domestic regulation, was not only an individual
product, but also a serious threat to the implementation of the current ITA as
a whole. In his view, the sudden change by Indian Customs would have a negative
influence on the business climate in India as well. He therefore requested
India to withdraw such measures.
1.7. The representative of India thanked the delegation of Japan
for raising the issue relating to India's obligations under the ITA. He
reaffirmed that India fully respects its international obligations relating to the
ITA and that, in fact, India joined the ITA on 25 March 1997 and
eliminated tariffs on all listed ITA products in a phased manner by the
end of year 2005. In this process, India had fully exempted "digital still
image video cameras", which was one of the listed ITA products, from
the whole of the customs duty. In this regard, Members might like to refer to
serial No. 13 of Notification No. 25/2005‑Customs, which was issued
on 1 March 2005 and is available on the official website, http://www.cbec.gov.in/.
1.8. He further stated that, subsequent to the issuance of this
notification, there was some lack of clarity among different customs formations
regarding the meaning of the term "digital still video camera", which
was resulting in divergent practices of customs classification and duty
exemption. Therefore, the Government of India issued a clarification vide
Circular No. 32/2007‑Customs, wherein it had been explained that the
benefit of duty exemption would be extended to those digital cameras which have
still image recording as their principal function. This would also include
those digital cameras which have the capability of recording moving images for
a limited period of time. This matter had been further elaborated in
Notification No. 15/2012‑Customs, wherein certain criteria had been laid
down to distinguish such digital still cameras from "video cameras".
Thus, it appeared that the specific case referred to by the delegation of Japan
pertained to cameras that did not satisfy these specific criteria. The matter
was under investigation by the revenue intelligence agency of India. He
reiterated that India was extending full customs duty exemption to digital
cameras listed in the ITA, and was complying with its international obligations
in this regard.
1.9. The representative of Chinese Taipei thanked the Japanese
delegation for bringing up the issue at the meeting, and shared the same
concerns expressed. He said that "Digital still image video cameras"
were clearly included in Attachment A to the ITA, and should be duty free.
He therefore encouraged India to hold constructive dialogue with the
Participants to resolve the issue in the near future. His delegation would
continue to closely monitor the issue, and to encourage India to ensure that
its practice was in conformity with the ITA.
1.10. The representative of Japan also thanked the delegation of
India for responding to his remarks concerning Notification No. 15/2012‑Customs,
the latest notification by Indian Customs on the digital still camera. He
recognized that digital still cameras had been duty free under this exact
notification for some years, and that these cameras still fell into this
category. Nevertheless, all of a sudden, from January, Indian Customs had begun
to impose duties on the digital still camera, that fall under this exact
notification No. 15/2012 by the Indian Customs. He requested the Indian
Government to implement the notification No. 15/2012 in an appropriate manner, and to make the digital
still camera duty free, as India had committed to do under the current ITA, and
requested the Indian delegation to convey this message to capital.
1.11. The representative of India responded that the point raised
earlier was noted and had been conveyed to the Government of India. However, he
believed that in his earlier intervention he had already explained that certain
criteria had been specified in the clarification notification No. 15/2002
which clearly delineated digital still cameras from video cameras. He further
reiterated that the specific case referred to by the delegation of Japan
pertained to cameras that did not satisfy these criteria, and that the matter
was under investigation by the Revenue Intelligence Agency of India. However,
the concerns raised had been noted and would be conveyed.
1.12. The Chairman thanked all those delegations that had
intervened and urged those Participants that had not yet completed the
procedures for the formal rectification and modification of schedules, as
required by the Decision of 26 March 1980, to do so as soon as
possible. He suggested that the Committee take note of all statements made
under this agenda item.
1.13. It was so agreed.
2.1. The Chairman recalled that, since the Committee meeting of 15 May 2012,
as requested by some delegations, "review of product coverage" had
been included as a regular agenda item for the Committee. It provided an
opportunity for the Committee to receive reports and updates from those
participants who were engaged in consultations relating to the review of
product coverage pursuant to Paragraph 3 of the Annex to the ITA. He
invited delegations who wished to do so, to report or make any statements on
this matter.
2.2. The representative of the United States stated that
concluding the ITA expansion negotiations remained a top priority for her
Government. While a breakthrough had not yet been achieved, they remained
optimistic that ITA expansion could be concluded soon. She reiterated that
a final agreement must be balanced and mutually beneficial, reflecting the
interests of all participants at the negotiating table. That principle had been
the driving force behind their approach to the ITA negotiations. They had
been working to narrow their differences with other key parties, and while they
had made some progress, they were not there yet. As they had said before, if
all participants were ready and willing to make appropriate contributions, they
could wrap up the plurilateral negotiations in Geneva in a matter of days. But
the conditions must be right – they could not afford a replay of last July and
November. Her delegation looked forward to their continued discussions with
China and other ITA participants in the coming weeks. They were hopeful
that these engagements would set the stage for a resumption and conclusion of
the plurilateral negotiations as soon as possible.
2.3. The representative of the European Union stated that the EU
also continued to support the expansion of the ITA with new products. This was
important for the development of the sector, with its rapid technological
changes and development of new products. The multilateral system could also not
afford failure. If somehow they would not be able to agree on the expansion of
an existing agreement, how could they confront other issues, with even more
Members involved? Also, much progress had already been made. They had all
worked very hard on this and it would be a waste to leave it now, to lose the
momentum and to allow it to wither away, as had happened during the first
attempt to expand the list. The list, with items overlapping, and without
reservations, was already quite impressive. With a bit of good will, this could
be expanded to a very significant and commercially meaningful list. In order to
conclude, a few remaining difficulties needed to be overcome. Many reservations
remained on the list. These would have to be reduced and problems would have to
be increasingly addressed by staging. On the other hand, they had to resist the
temptation of excessive ambition.
2.4. He called on the group to be serious about maintaining the progress
made so far. The list of November 2013 should form the basis of the work.
Delegations had a chance to raise issues at that time, they did not want to re‑open
old discussions and address items already removed by consensus in the process
of constructing the list. He also called for bilateral progress to be made as
quickly as possible, so that the process could resume where it belonged, which
was in the group of participants, so that all could have their say on the content
of the list. The group needed to make their last move towards expansion and
show that ITA Participants could still work together. He further called on
all participants to be open to compromise. The EU were counting on all Members
of the Committee to participate in this exercise, as the review was an integral
part of the ITA and had to be done every three years. No delegation could
therefore say that this expansion was too early. If anything, it was already
late. However, the EU had very high hopes that it was not yet too late.
He urged participants to catch this opportunity and, without further delay, to
conclude the expansion and to demonstrate that the multilateral system had a
future.
2.5. The representative of Japan expressed his delegation's strong
support of the ongoing ITA expansion negotiations. He expressed deep
concern about the suspension of the negotiations on IT expansion, which
had continued for more than half a year, since last November. The group's
initial goal to conclude the negotiations was by last summer, and then, by
Bali. The group was far behind schedule and the global trading system was
losing credibility. With rapid technological development, that the IT sector
was spending so much time in negotiation was unacceptable. Fortunately, last month,
in the APEC trade ministers' meeting in Qingdao, where many of the ITA expansion
participants were present, APEC members were able to agree that they
welcome that key participants had committed to find creative ways to move
forward so that these negotiations could move towards a commercially
significant and balanced conclusion in the shortest time‑frame possible. Japan
would certainly like to welcome this positive new development from the APEC meeting,
and the new momentum created. The group should not miss this opportunity, this
momentum, and should conclude this negotiation in the shortest time‑frame
possible, as stated and agreed in the APEC trade ministers' meeting. He
called on all ITA expansion participants to take action.
2.6. The representative of Korea recalled the tremendous efforts
that the group had made over the past two and a half years. He underlined that,
during this period, the group would not have worked so hard if they were not
confident that such efforts would contribute to restoring the credibility of
the multilateral trading system. Even though their negotiations had been
suspended since last November, he agreed with what was said by the EU colleague,
that the group produced a draft consolidated list at the last November round.
The list was the outcome of all of the negotiations undertaken up to that
moment, and at that time the EU urged all delegations to take it as the basis
for future work, whenever the process would restart. He agreed that the future
work should restart based upon the November list, and if there should be any
compromised positions as the basis for future work in the coming weeks, every
participant should be given a fair opportunity to review them in advance and
have consultations with a view to reflecting its interests. He reiterated once
again that the final product list to be agreed upon should be commercially
meaningful, credible, and balanced, and the key IT products that were
supported by a prevailing number of participants should be reflected in the
final list. Otherwise, his delegation would not be able to take home the
outcome for acceptance. Korea looked forward to working closely with
participants to produce a credible and balanced list in the forthcoming
process.
2.7. The representative of Canada stated that Canada was strongly
supportive of the negotiation to expand the ITA and remained committed to an
ambitious outcome. She continued to emphasize that a successful ITA expansion
deal would provide significant trade and investment opportunities, while
lowering input costs for manufacturers and enhancing the affordability and
accessibility of technological products to consumers. Canada was seeking re‑engagement
in these negotiations with a view to swiftly concluding them. She welcomed the
positive discussion that took place among China and other ITA participants
on the margins of the recent APEC meetings of Ministers responsible for
trade, and hoped that all Members could build on this positive momentum to re‑engage
in the negotiations as soon as possible. Canada would like to continue working
with all participants to ensure that the interests of all were being considered
in the process.
2.8. The representative of Switzerland agreed with previous
speakers and was also very supportive of the ITA expansion. The ITA expansion
negotiation had been ongoing for a little more than two years now. This
negotiation, which was meant to be concluded in July of last year, was
suspended a second time in November 2013, and time was costly for
both the industry and consumers. They had been waiting for too long. After more
than a half‑year of suspension, Members must come back to the negotiating table
with a clear commitment to conclude this ITA expansion and to reach an
ambitious, commercially meaningful, and balanced agreement. Her delegation
would therefore urge and strongly encourage the main players, as well as all of
the participants in the ITA expansion, to be more flexible in order to
allow the conclusion in Geneva of the ITA expansion in the near future,
taking into account the interests of all Members involved in this negotiation.
The basis for re‑starting the process should be the draft consolidated list as
at November 2013. It took 15 years to start the review of the ITA,
and more than two years of hard work from all participants in that review.
The multilateral trading system, the industry and consumers all deserved a
better outcome.
2.9. The representative of Israel stated that it had been involved
in the ITA expansion almost from the beginning. They would like to see it
coming to a successful conclusion soon. The group invested lots of energy in
the negotiations, and they would like to be able also to reap the fruit.
However, there had been little progress in the negotiations since they came to
a halt last November. Israel still believed that reaching an agreement was
within reach, but in order to achieve this, the group had to move quickly.
Israel was ready to get back promptly to the table and to resolve all
outstanding issues.
2.10. The representative of Chinese Taipei said that, in May, trade
ministers from 21 APEC members vowed to reach a commercially
significant and balanced deal in the ongoing ITA expansion negotiations in
the shortest possible time. He hoped that this development would bring positive
momentum to the long delayed negotiations. In order to reach a satisfactory
conclusion to the negotiations, it was important that the key Members continued
to play an active role in moving this issue forward. He urged Members once
again to accelerate their domestic consultations and to be active in the
negotiations as soon as possible. It was only by the full engagement of
Members, demonstrating their flexibility and sincerity, and conducting
negotiations in a pragmatic manner, that the group's quest for an expanded ITA
would succeed. Chinese Taipei stood ready to engage in the negotiations.
2.11. The representative of Costa Rica stated that it firmly
supported the negotiations for the enlargement of the ITA, which were essential
to ensure that the Agreement would be updated with the evolution of this
dynamic industry. The ITA was a complement to the efforts of Costa Rica to
promote investment and had contributed to promote an improvement in the
diversification and sophistication of its exports. It also contributed to
improving the competitiveness and efficiency of production and consumption in
Costa Rica by facilitating new technology. Costa Rica was firmly convinced that
the group would reach a prompt and efficient conclusion to the negotiations.
Costa Rica's experience demonstrated that the expansion of the ITA might well
bring important benefits for developing countries.
2.12. The representative of Norway stated that the ITA was in clear
need of updating and expansion, and to conclude a credible agreement would be
of great value for the industry. Norway was extremely disappointed that the
group was unable to finalize the ITA expansion negotiations last year, and
likewise that there had not been any substantive developments so far this year.
The last attempt to update the ITA took place in 1998, and it did not succeed.
It took another 14 years to start the negotiation process again. The group
could not afford another similar delay. There was a sense of urgency for both
industry and consumers, and not least for the multilateral trading system.
Norway was ready and willing to negotiate at any time, the sooner the better.
Norway wanted to build on and benefit from all the work that had been done over
the past two years. In order to reach a final deal, all parties had to be
ready to negotiate, and to step up their efforts to conclude the negotiations.
It was possible to find creative solutions and to accommodate the interests of
the different players. However, the result had to be credible, commercially
significant, and realistic. Norway would mean to include such products as
projectors, monitors, and electronic control units. It should be possible to
agree to a deal that would be of interest to all of the participants, but in
order to do so the group needed to have a candid and concrete discussion on
what the ingredients of that deal should be. She emphasized the need to keep
the process of the expansion negotiations transparent and open, and that all
parties should be allowed to see their interests through.
2.13. The representative of the Philippines, on behalf of the ASEAN participants
in the ITA expansion negotiations, believed that the group could move
forward in their negotiations by resuming the technical discussion in a
transparent and all‑inclusive manner, so as to have an agreement in the
shortest time possible. She called for an Agreement that would be commercially
significant, credible, pragmatic, balanced, and reflective of modern supply
chains.
2.14. The representative of Singapore associated itself with the
statement that the Philippines delivered on behalf of the ASEAN ITA expansion
participants. It was disappointing that the group was still unable to harvest
an Agreement. It was essential that the group continued and intensified their
technical discussions in a transparent manner so as to reach an agreement on
expansion as soon as possible. She said that the group should move towards
achieving an expanded ITA Agreement that would be commercially
significant, credible, pragmatic, balanced, and reflective of modern supply
chains. Singapore remained committed to tariff liberalization. Singapore felt
strongly that it was only by eliminating barriers to trade for these products
that the group could achieve enhanced productivity in their IT manufacturing
sector. Such improved productivity would lead to added benefits in the form of
increased economic prosperity and inclusive growth for all. The business
community had been waiting patiently for such a commercially meaningful
outcome, and the group should not disappoint them.
2.15. The representative of China stated that China had always
supported and actively participated in this expansion negotiation since it
started two years ago. China's discussions and interactions with other
parties had always gone well and had not stopped. Consequently, the key to the
solution of issues was not in the hands of China. China shared the common goal
of all participants, to conclude the negotiations at an earliest possible date,
which would definitely strengthen the multilateral trading system, promote the
drafting of the post‑Bali work program, and bring benefits to the global IT industry.
China was willing and always ready to continue the work constructively with all
parties towards an early conclusion of the negotiations.
2.16. The representative of Australia joined others in expressing
its support for an ambitious outcome and its disappointment at the failure to
reach an acceptable outcome on the ITA expansion at this point. Since the
beginning of the negotiations, Australia had advocated for an ambitious,
balanced, and commercially significant package. He recognized that for this to
be achieved, all Members would need to approach the negotiations in a spirit of
cooperation, and to be prepared to make difficult compromises. In recent
months, the group had seen some positive movement from key proponents and
Members with sensitivities. Australia was appreciative of the flexibility that
had been shown by others on their sensitivities. In a similar spirit, Australia
had done what it could to accommodate other Members' concerns. Unfortunately,
these moments of positive movement had been more than matched by longer periods
where progress had been frustrated. Not all Members appeared to be in the 'end‑game'
at this stage, and not all Members had been engaged in the negotiations.
Australia was aware that considerable work was being done in capitals and
elsewhere by a number of Members with an aim to bringing these negotiations to
a successful conclusion in a timely fashion. He urged all Members to
demonstrate leadership to the broader WTO membership, and to seize the
opportunity offered by the expansion of the ITA. A commercially meaningful deal
was clearly within reach, but could not be achieved unless all Members would
put behind them the short‑term risks of reduced tariff revenue and industry
competition in a global environment and look to the unquestioned longer term
benefits of enhanced trade.
2.17. The representative of Hong Kong, China said that, like
previous speakers, Hong Kong, China, was very supportive of the ITA expansion.
It was encouraging to hear about the positive discussion, enthusiasm, and
optimism among Members to take forward the work with the aim of concluding the
ITA expansion swiftly. She strongly encouraged Members to show more
flexibility, taking into account each other's interests in order to have a more
balanced and commercially credible product list. She hoped that the negotiation
would resume as early as possible. Hong Kong, China, would continue actively to
engage in the process and to look forward to working with all participants
towards an early conclusion of the ITA expansion negotiations.
2.18. The representative of Nicaragua stated that his delegation
had reservations with regard to participating in the work of the expansion of
the ITA. Nevertheless, they were carrying out the relevant analysis and holding
internal consultations domestically on this matter. His delegation would
continue to inform the Committee about the decisions taken by his authorities
with regard to their ability to participate or not in these negotiations in due
time.
2.19. The representative of Colombia stated that, like others,
Colombia was fully committed to the prompt conclusion of the negotiations on
the ITA product expansion, and agreed with what other delegations had said
about its importance. While some Members were holding bilateral discussions,
Colombia hoped that the Geneva discussions would continue rapidly. The solution
for pending matters was a collective task that the group could not hand over to
anyone else.
2.20. The representative of New Zealand supported an outcome to this
expansion exercise, for all the reasons that others had already mentioned. New
Zealand could certainly support an outcome that the group could collectively
reach, that would deliver a commercially meaningful, balanced, and pragmatic
list. It was very clear that participants in the expansion exercise wanted to
get to an outcome; the question was how. Clearly a lot more reflection needed
to go on in capitals, and conversations in Geneva. New Zealand stood ready to
engage in that process, with others, to move things forward.
2.21. The Chairman thanked the eighteen delegations that had
intervened. He said that he was always encouraged by the level of engagement
under this agenda item. He had heard a broad recognition of the importance of
the work, both commercially and systemically, for the WTO as an organization.
There was obviously a desire to keep working, reflecting the high‑level
statements that the Committee had heard outside of Geneva, including recently
at the APEC MRT, to which some had made reference, and there had been
ongoing work, both in capitals and bilaterally. He hoped that that would
continue. He encouraged the group to continue to discuss amongst the
participants how best to advance this process with a view to eventually re‑engaging
in plurilateral discussions at an appropriate time, in order to bring this
exercise to a swift conclusion. He wished the group well in that endeavour. He
suggested that the Committee take note of the statements made, and agreed to
revert to this agenda item, as appropriate, at the next Committee meeting.
2.22. It was so agreed.
3.1. The Chairman recalled that, at the Committee meeting of 14 October 2013,
agreement was reached on the Swiss proposal to organize an industry‑driven
workshop dedicated to NTBs affecting trade in IT products in the
first half of 2014. At the Committee meeting on 17 March 2014,
it was agreed that this workshop would instead be held on 30 September,
and back‑to‑back with this year's WTO Public Forum. Now, for logistical
reasons, as indicated in his fax dated 21 May 2014, it was proposed
to change the date of the workshop to Thursday, 30 October 2014,
which would then be followed by the ITA Committee's autumn meeting, on
Friday, 31 October. Although the deadline for delegations to propose
themes for discussions at the workshop, as well as the names of possible
candidates for speakers or panellists, had been extended twice, only limited
inputs and feedback had been received, notably from the delegations of
Guatemala, Sweden, Switzerland, Chinese Taipei, and the EU, and there still
remained space on the workshop agenda. Therefore, he encouraged delegations to
submit additional proposals as soon as possible after the meeting with a view
to enabling the Secretariat to finalize the development of a draft programme in
the coming days.
3.2. The representative of Switzerland stated that the
postponement of the Workshop on NTBs to 30 October 2014 would give
enough time to Members to propose speakers and themes for discussion. Members
should submit globally relevant inputs and engage with their industry so that
there would be a dialogue on NTB issues, including experiences from
stakeholders. The sooner the Secretariat received those inputs, the sooner
Members would have the possibility to elaborate and to agree on a balanced and
high quality programme. Therefore, she encouraged Members to continue to
contact stakeholders, including globally active firms, so as to ensure that the
workshop would succeed in identifying the main impediments to trade in the IT sector.
A successful workshop would take stock of the main NTBs and the existing
mechanisms to overcome them, and might serve as a starting point for a new and
efficient process to discuss and tackle NTBs in the IT sector.
3.3. The representative of the European Union expressed gratitude
for the call for reactions on the workshop. He stated that the EU industry
was very much involved in organizing the workshop, and encouraged all
delegations to take part. He also encouraged the participation of industry. In
his view, for the success of the workshop, it would be important to have a
broad participation of industry from all around the world.
3.4. The representative of Japan agreed with Switzerland and the
European Union. He said that, since the NTB Workshop would be quite
important for the Committee, Japan was discussing with its industry and
preparing to make some contribution to the workshop. They would report to the
Secretariat as soon as possible.
3.5. The representative of the Philippines, speaking on behalf of
ASEAN, supported the holding of the workshop on NTMs as they believed that NTMs
were becoming an increasingly important topic in their work on market access.
They were trying to find out from their own industry if there could be a
contribution, at least for the Philippines, and her delegation had been trying
to talk with various industry groups although until now they had not received
any feedback. They would keep on trying.
3.6. The representative of Chinese Taipei stated that, since
removing and eliminating NTBs to trade in ITA products was important and
needed, his delegation fully supported the workshop. Therefore, they had
proposed two topics to be presented in the workshop, focussing on the use
of mutual recognition agreements and accreditation to reduce NTBs in ITCT products.
The speakers included non‑profit foundations, and industry. His delegation
looked forward to working together with other Members in the preparations for
the workshop.
3.7. The Chairman thanked those delegations that took the floor
for their interventions. He encouraged all delegations to continue their
engagement in this area and urged them to submit further proposals to the
Secretariat as soon as possible, bearing in mind that the Secretariat would
have then to develop a draft programme for consultation by the Committee. He
also indicated that there might be a risk of revisiting the dates in the
autumn. He suggested that the Committee take note of the statements made, and
agree with the time‑frame and deadlines that he had proposed.
3.8. It was so agreed.
4.1. The Chairman recalled that, at previous meetings of the
Committee, Participants indicated that they had found the information contained
therein very useful and wished to have it completed. To date, among the 50 ITA Participants
(excluding Afghanistan), 29 had provided such information, including the
Survey on EMC/EMI submitted by the Russian Federation, which was received just
prior to the last Committee meeting. However, including the most recently
joined Participants, there were still a total of 21 Participants who had
neither submitted a survey response nor a notification regarding the types of
assessment procedures used by their authorities for EMC/EMI.
4.2. He invited the delegations to comment, intervene, or update
information as contained in document G/IT/W/17/Rev.12. He clarified that
this revision included the survey submitted by the Russian Federation.
4.3. He stated that, since this information increased transparency on the
types of conformity assessment procedures for EMC/EMI used by ITA Participants,
and since it facilitated trade in this important sector, he encouraged those 21 delegations
that had not yet done so to provide this information to the Secretariat as soon
as possible in order to enable the Committee to complete its work. He requested
those delegations that had any query to contact the Secretariat for detailed
information, clarification, or assistance. He also asked the Secretariat to
continue contacting those delegations that had not yet submitted information,
in particular those who had joined most recently, with a view to providing technical
assistance if and as necessary so as to facilitate the preparation of any
outstanding survey responses.
4.4. He asked Participants once again to reflect upon what subsequent
steps, if any, they would be prepared to consider with a view to maximizing the
utility of the information on EMC/EMI conformity assessment procedures
that had already been provided, and that which would hopefully be forthcoming
in the near future. He invited Participants to share their insights with him
and the Secretariat in this regard at any time, or in the Committee now or at
its next meeting. As no delegation wanted to comment on his summary, he
suggested that the Committee take note of his statements.
4.5. It was so agreed.
5.1. The Chairman stated that under this agenda item there were
two sub‑items: (i) the implementation of the Decision (G/IT/27); and (ii) the
Room Document tabled by Switzerland.
5.2. On the first sub‑item, he recalled that, on 20 July 2013,
the Decision contained in document G/IT/27 regarding the endorsement of
List IA items of document G/IT/W/6/Rev.3 was approved. As required by
the Decision, each participant should reflect the agreed classifications in its
WTO Schedule of concessions, as appropriate, and follow the procedures set
forth in the 1980 Decision on Procedures for Modification and
Rectification of Schedules of Tariff Concessions (BISD 27S/25).
Participants should submit the relevant documentation in connection with such
modification no later than 30 April 2014, as specified in the
Decision. The WTO Secretariat agreed to provide technical assistance in
making such modifications to developing country Participants upon request. At the
moment, the Secretariat had been approached by four ITA Participants,
of whom three were developing country Participants. The technical work in the
Secretariat with regard to these requests was ongoing. It should be noted that
the technical work that was involved in this exercise was quite time‑consuming
and so it could only be undertaken on a gradual basis. In anticipation of
additional requests, the Secretariat had undertaken a preliminary analysis of
the remaining developing country Participants. He urged these developing
country Participants to contact the Secretariat as soon as possible if they
anticipated that they would require assistance in this area.
5.3. The representative of the Philippines indicated that her
delegation had requested and received technical assistance from the
Secretariat. The Secretariat's technical assistance had helped her capital to
move the process forward. She hoped that they would be able to submit their
rectification sooner rather than later.
5.4. The Chairman thanked the update by the delegation of the
Philippines and suggested that the Committee take note of the statements made.
5.5. It was so agreed.
5.6. The Chairman referred to the second sub‑item and recalled
that a revised version of the Swiss Room Document was circulated subsequently
as JOB/IT/12 on 11 April 2014, at the request of the Swiss
delegation. He invited the Swiss delegation to speak on the revised Room
Document.
5.7. The representative of Switzerland stated that, in April 2014,
her delegation submitted a proposal to address divergences of classification in
the ITA. In her view, HS96 was a very old classification, which had existed for
almost 20 years. The basic idea of their proposal, as contained in
document JOB/IT/12, was to use the model list of the Secretariat's
Document (JOB(07)/96) to speed up the resolution of classification divergences
for the remaining 37 items as listed in Attachment B or as for
Attachment B in section 2 of Attachment A. The model list was in
HS2007, where the main changes had affected ITA. Switzerland proposed, first,
that the Secretariat would be asked to prepare a simple list for the 37 remaining
items, with their possible HS2007 classification. Second, on the basis of
this document, ITA Participants would be required to indicate the
following: for which item their classification diverged from the list prepared
by the Secretariat, and the relevant HS2007 sub‑heading at the HS six‑digit
level, under which they classified the product in question. Third, the WTO Secretariat
would then compile all the answers received in a document that would act as a
basis for the Committee to assess next steps. She said that, since the summer
break was close, the time‑frame suggested in document JOB/IT/12 (of two months
before the autumn 2014 Committee meeting) was a little bit ambitious.
However, as there were only 37 items to check, which did not require a
huge amount of work, Switzerland was of the view that one month before the
next ITA Committee meeting could be an appropriate target date for the
submission of answers to the Secretariat. She said that Switzerland remained
open to discussions with any interested Member wishing to express engagement
with respect to their proposal.
5.8. The representative of Singapore supported the Swiss proposal
and said that her delegation stood ready to engage on this work together with
other ITA Participants.
5.9. The representative of the Philippines supported the ideas
contained in the Swiss paper. However, she had a technical question, wondering
if, when submitting its schedules for rectification, it would be possible for a
participant to move directly from HS96 to HS2007. She felt that there had
always to be a process by which Participants had to move from one HS classification
system to another before they could come up to HS2007. Her capital had a query
regarding the process to pose to the Committee. In her view, Participants could
not just move from HS96 immediately to HS2007 as there might be something lost
in between.
5.10. The Chairman thanked the delegation of the Philippines. He
proposed that the question be discussed once the Committee had gone through all
other interventions.
5.11. The representative of Canada expressed gratitude for the idea
of adopting HS2007 as the benchmark for identifying classification divergences.
She felt that it was a logical and simplified means of ensuring greater
harmonization and reducing divergences in the future. Therefore, she supported
the Swiss proposal contained in document JOB/IT/12.
5.12. The representative of the United States appreciated
Switzerland's proposal. In her view, it represented a constructive way to
advance technical discussions on the classification divergences relating to
Attachment B commitments and how they were classified in each
Participant's schedule.
5.13. Shifting the Committee's focus to a more updated nomenclature was
prudent as there had been significant changes to the way in which information
technology products were classified. Her delegation felt that the Secretariat's
model list in HS2007 was a useful reference for the Committee's technical discussions,
recognizing, however, that the Secretariat's transpositions were not
definitive, and nor did they reflect any agreement by Participants. In past
discussions, the Committee had determined that many of the classification
divergences with respect to Attachment B items could not be resolved at
the technical level but rather needed policy decisions.
5.14. To have a better understanding of the divergences on the basis of
HS2007 could help inform future discussions and frame possible decisions in the
Committee. In terms of the specifics of the Swiss proposals, given that the
technical work would most certainly require Members' coordination with their
respective customs authorities, it would be difficult to undertake this
technical work based on the timeline outlined in the paper. She suggested
perhaps setting a deadline for later in the autumn, or perhaps early 2015, to
provide sufficient time for each participant to compile their answers. Her
delegation might also consider whether it would be useful to involve customs
experts in the future Committee discussion on this topic.
5.15. The representative of Norway thanked Switzerland for their
contribution with regard to this important and long‑standing issue, and
supported the Swiss proposal. She said that the proposed time‑frames were
workable and could form the basis of the Committee's work. She felt that the
work should be done on the basis of HS2007. She also believed that it would be
useful to consider whether and how the Committee could invite expertise from
the WCO Secretariat to assist the Participants in moving this process
forward.
5.16. The representative of the European Union thanked the
delegation of Switzerland and supported their proposal.
5.17. The representative of India thanked the delegation of
Switzerland for their efforts in bridging the classification divergence in ITA products
and putting forward a proposal for a possible way forward in this area, as
contained in document JOB/IT/12. He felt that the proposal appeared fairly
simple and was based on work already carried out by the WTO Secretariat,
as contained in document Job(07)/96. However, he informed the Committee
that comments from New Delhi were awaited on the proposal and hence that India
wished for the time being to reserve its position on the proposal.
5.18. The Chairman referred then, first, to the question by the
Philippines concerning direct transposition to HS2007, and, second, to the
suggestion by the United States that the timelines proposed by Switzerland
might not be sufficiently generous. He invited Switzerland to speak to these
two points.
5.19. The representative of Switzerland, in addressing the question
regarding timelines, stated that their proposal on timelines was flexible; what
was important was the result. In referring to the question by the Philippines,
she said that they knew that there was an issue with regard to HS changes.
However, according to her knowledge, there were more changes in HS2007 that
affected the ITA than in HS2002. In addition, if one had its schedule, the full
schedule, already certified in HS2002, as per the WTO procedures, she saw
no need for further transposition. Otherwise, one might double one's work to
certify an ITA list in HS2002 again. Also, and at least to her knowledge,
the majority of ITA Participants had already submitted their schedules for
HS2002. She asked the Secretariat to clarify whether or not the work was well
advanced on HS2002, and whether or not it could and should be completed within
a reasonable period of time.
5.20. The representative of the Philippines thanked her Swiss
colleague for her response concerning HS2002. She stated that, as far as her
country was concerned, its schedule had not yet been certified in HS2002. It
was for this reason that her capital had raised the question as to how to move
forward. She noted that the work was ongoing in the Committee on Market Access
regarding HS2002 and HS2007, and that her country might be a unique case. She
asked the Secretariat for clarification.
5.21. The Secretariat reported on the status of the different HS transpositions.
With regard to HS2002, the large majority of Members had already concluded.
With regard to HS2007, about 75 Members had already concluded the
technical work, and had certified, or else were in the process of undertaking
this certification. He reminded the Committee that, in the context of the
technical work and the divergences on classification, the way it was done
before with some of the other issues was that Participants first discussed what
should be the appropriate classification. Only once they had agreed on the
appropriate classification would they decide whether or not to amend their
schedules. This question was not necessarily linked to the status of their
current schedule, but rather the issue was that of the appropriate
classification of those goods in HS2007. So, after an agreement on the
appropriate classification, you might or might not need to take an action.
5.22. The Chairman stated that it would be useful to have an idea
on how to move forward on this item. He felt that the Swiss proposal set things
out quite well. With regard to the comment by the United States, he proposed
that the dates and deadlines contained in the Swiss proposal be treated as
aspirational rather than as binding, and that the Committee move the work
forward as quickly as possible but at a rate that would nevertheless allow it
to be done properly. He asked whether the Committee could agree with the Swiss
proposal on the steps that it had set out.
5.23. By way of summary, he then asked, first, that the Secretariat
prepare, on the basis of document JOB(07)/96, a short and simple list of
the remaining 37 items and their possible classification in HS2007;
second, that each participant indicate those items for which their domestic
classification diverged from the list prepared by the Secretariat and its
relevant HS2007 subheadings, in six digits, for the item in question;
and third, that the Secretariat then compile the answers received from
delegations into a document and, based on that document, that the Committee
assess the next steps to be taken. He asked whether this could be acceptable to
the Committee.
5.24. The representative of India reiterated his earlier statement
that, since his delegation was awaiting comments and a final position from
capital, it might not be possible at this moment to join the consensus so far
as acceptance of the Swiss proposal was concerned.
5.25. The Chairman asked whether it was acceptable to ask the
Secretariat to get started on the work proposed by Switzerland, i.e. to
prepare a document setting out the Secretariat's suggestions for the 37 remaining
items, without then speaking to what next steps may be expected of Members,
because this was work that needed in any case to be done and was without
prejudice, and could be done without necessarily compelling the Committee to take
a particular subsequent course of action. He asked whether India was in a
position to accept such an approach.
5.26. The representative of India stated that he had no further
mandate from capital and placed on record its reservation.
5.27. The Chairman noted that the Committee was not in a position
to take a decision today, and suggested it take note of all the statements
made.
5.28. It was so agreed.
6.1. The Chairman referred to his fax to all Participants, dated
19 March 2014, in which he confirmed the approval of the ITA schedule
of Afghanistan. He informed the Committee that Afghanistan had therefore become
the 79th Participant to the Committee, and that its ITA commitments
would be implemented upon Afghanistan's accession to the WTO. He also informed
the Committee that three more draft schedules of ITA commitments had
been circulated for Participants' consideration and approval, namely the draft
schedules of Azerbaijan, Seychelles, and Kazakhstan.
6.2. He stated that, on 12 March 2014, the Secretariat had received
a communication from the Republic of Azerbaijan confirming its commitment to
join the ITA upon its accession to the WTO. On 17 March, the Secretariat
received Azerbaijan's draft ITA schedule for circulation to Participants
for verification and approval. Thereafter, the Secretariat performed the
electronic verification of Azerbaijan's ITA schedule and found that there
were no discrepancies. On 8 April, the Secretariat distributed
Azerbaijan's draft ITA schedule to all ITA Participants for their
consideration and approval. Comments were received from one delegation
before the deadline of 30 April 2014. Azerbaijan was in consultations
with that delegation and a fax would be issued in due course to all
Participants confirming Azerbaijan's participation to the ITA when remaining
issues were resolved.
6.3. He informed the Committee that, on 2 April 2014, the
Secretariat had received a communication from the Permanent Mission of the
Republic of Seychelles confirming the Seychelles' commitment to join the ITA
upon its accession to the WTO. On the same date, the Secretariat also received
the Seychelles' draft ITA schedule for circulation to Participants for
verification and approval. After performing the electronic verification and
finding no discrepancies, the Seychelles' draft ITA schedule was
distributed to Participants for consideration and approval on 16 April 2014.
A deadline of 16 May 2014 was set for Participants to notify any
objection to the Secretariat. This deadline was extended to 30 May at the
request of one delegation. Subsequently comments were received from another
delegation, within the extended deadline. Currently, the Seychelles was in
consultation with that delegation, and a fax would be issued in due course to
all Participants confirming the Seychelles' participation to the ITA once these
outstanding issues were resolved.
6.4. He also informed the Committee that, on 14 May 2014, the
Secretariat received a communication from the Permanent Mission of the Republic
of Kazakhstan confirming Kazakhstan's commitment to join the ITA upon its
accession to the WTO. On the same day, the Secretariat received Kazakhstan's
draft ITA schedule for circulation to Participants for verification and
approval. After performing the electronic verification and finding no discrepancies,
Kazakhstan's ITA schedule was distributed to Participants also on 14 May 2014
for their consideration and approval. Participants were asked to notify any
objection to the Secretariat with a deadline of 10 June 2014.
Comments were received from four delegations within the deadline, and
Kazakhstan was consulting with these delegations. A fax would be issued to all
Participants confirming the approval of the ITA schedule of Kazakhstan
once these outstanding issues were resolved.
6.5. The Chairman suggested that the Committee take note of the
summaries provided.
6.6. It was so agreed.
7.1. The Chairman stated that, pursuant to the consultations by
the Chairman of the Council for Trade in Goods, a consensus had been informally
reached on the election of Mr Frederic Payot (Switzerland) as the new
Chairman of the Committee. The Chairman therefore proposed the election of Mr Frederic Payot
as the new Chairman of the Committee.
7.2. The Committee elected Mr Frederic Payot as the new
Chairman of the Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in
Information Technology Products by acclamation.
7.3. Mr Frederic Payot assumed his role as Chairman of the
Committee.
7.4. The outgoing Chairman (Mr Aaron Fowler) stated that
the past two years had been a quite interesting and enjoyable period for
him. He expressed his thanks to Members of the Committee and the Secretariat,
and to the new Chairman.
7.5. The incoming Chairman, Mr Frederic Payot, expressed
his appreciation to the outgoing Chairman, Mr Aaron Fowler, for his
valuable contributions to the work of the Committee over the past two years,
and wished him all the best in his future endeavours. He also expressed his
sincere thanks to all Participants for accepting his nomination and for
honouring him with the role of Chairman. He stated that he would do his best to
facilitate the discussions and debates under this Committee impartially. And he
would remain available to Participants for any matter related to the ITA. He
would convene consultations on the different topics whenever needed.
8.1. The Chairman referred to the Chair's fax to delegations of 21 May 2014.
He stated that, as per that fax, the next meeting of the Committee had been
scheduled for 31 October 2014, which would be back‑to‑back with the
forthcoming workshop on NTBs for IT products.
8.2. It was so agreed.
__________