RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/IT/M/8
1 December 1998
(98-4820)
Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade
in Information Technology Products
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 4 JUNE 1998
Chairman:  Mr. M. Harvey (New Zealand)
The Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in Information Technology
Products held its eighth meeting on 4 June 1998.  The agenda proposed for the meeting, contained in
WTO/AIR/848, was adopted as follows:
 Page
1. Review of the status of implementation of the Ministerial Declaration
on Trade in Information Technol ogy Products (G/IT/1/Rev.6)..............................................1
2. Work programme of the Committee
2.1 Divergences in classifying information technology products
(G/IT/2, G/IT/2/Corr.1 and G/IT/2/Add.1)................................................................2
2.2 Review of product coverage ......................................................................................2
2.3 Consultations on non- tariff ba rriers ...........................................................................3
3. New part icipan ts ............................................................................................................. ........4
4. Request for observer st atus from the OECD...........................................................................5
5. Other business
5.1 Date of the next meeting ............................................................................................5
_________________
1. Review of the status of implementation of the Ministerial Declaration on Trade in Information
Technology Products (G/IT/1/Rev.6)
1.1 The Chairman drew participants' attention to document G/IT/1/Rev.6 which updated the
status of implementation.  He informed the Committee that since the document was issued, the
Secretariat had received a communication from Chinese Taipei requesting that its schedule be derestricted
and placed on the WTO Homepage.
1.2 The delegate of Poland confirmed that the first rate reduction had occurred in Poland.
Referring to paragraph 1 of document G/IT/1/Rev .6, which stated that Poland had “indicated that
implementation would begin after the completion of domestic procedural requirements”, he informedG/IT/M/8
Page 2
the Committee that although the domestic procedural requirements were not completed, Poland had
implemented the Ministerial Declaration.
1.3 The Committee took note of the information contained in document G/IT/1/Rev.6 and the
statements made.
2. Future Work programme of the Committee
2.1 Divergences in classifying information technology products (G/IT/2, G/IT/2/Corr.1 and
G/IT/2/Add.1)
2.1.1 The Chairman recalled that the Committee had had meetings in March and April to discuss
the issue of classification divergences;  at those meetings issues specifically relating to semiconductor
manufacturing and testing equipment had been discussed in informal sessions.  He stated that some
progress had been made on this point but, as many delegations were currently focusing on the reviewof product coverage, this matter was not specifically scheduled to be discussed that week.  He
suggested that the Committee revert to this matter at a future meeting after the completion of the
review on product coverage.
2.1.2 The Committee took note of the statement made by the Chairman.
2.2 Review of product coverage
2.2.1 The Chairman recalled that the Annex to the Ministerial Declaration provided that no later
than 30 June 1998, the Committee should meet to decide whether to revise Attachment A or B of the
Annex to the Ministerial Declaration.
2.2.2 The 14 individual submissions that had been received from participants for this review had
been further revised and clarified through a number of technical discussions during the past months.He informed the Committee that this work had also continued during the present week, hence the
proposals were in their final revised state, which would be issued shortly as informal documents by
the Secretariat.  He noted that much work with re spect to the review had taken place in bilateral and
plurilateral meetings during the course of the week.
2.2.3 The Chairman further stated that he had met, and would continue to meet, with each
participant during the week in order to assess the state of play and the process as it stood.  Following
these consultations, he hoped to submit a Chairman's text during the following week or so with a view
to moving the process along.  He believed that much progress had been made and that the Committee
was well on its way to making the necessary decisions by the 30 June 1998 deadline.
2.2.4 The delegate of India stated that with respect to product coverage, during the last decade India
had progressively removed trade barriers in the area of information technology.  India was developing
its industry particularly in information techno logy-based industries, and was incorporating work
standards in this area.  There was a great proliferation of information technology in every walk of life
and they were also engaged in setting up a national information infrastructure in the country.  Small-
and medium-sized enterprise units were encouraged to set up production bases for information
technology and also to use information technology products to enhance productivity and efficiency.
A large number of companies which were engaged in the production of information technology werestarting to take approval of ISO 9000.  He pointed out that the Committee should recognize the fact
that different economies had different futures, different problems, and different systems.  The focus of
ITA II should be to cover those items which were useful for the proliferation of information
technology and at the same time to encourage preservation of the culture and systems of different
countries and not to affect the employment situation.  The scope should not be extended so as toG/IT/M/8
Page 3
adversely affect the trade pattern of the different countries.  His delegation noted that a number of
participants had proposed items which had been rejected as unsuitable for inclusion in ITA I, and that
these items may not have merited consideration in ITA II.  Similarly, a number of items unrelated to
information technology had been proposed by a number of participants, which he believed could be
removed from consideration.  A large number of multiple use products had also been proposed by a
few participants.  It would be appropriate to have only those products which were exclusively used ininformation technology included in ITA II.  His delegation believed that there was a need to screen
these products based on technological standards and their elements to information technology to
ensure the high-tech nature of the ITA.
2.2.5 The delegate of Romania stated that his country had joined in the liberalization of trade in
information technology products soon after the Singapore Ministerial Conference.  The decision to do
so was based on the beneficial effects that a liberalization of trade in information technology products
would have on the development and growth of compet itiveness and also on the basis of the creation of
a more attractive environment for domestic and foreign investments.  Thus, Romania had undertaken
commitments under ITA I and had begun negotiations provided for in paragraph 3 of the Annex to the
Ministerial Declaration to review an extension of product coverage, particularly on the basis of the
same elements.  He appreciated the number of proposals made by various participants for the
inclusion of new products which could contribute to obtaining the effects that were expected andreflected in the spirit of the Annex to the Ministerial Declaration.  As the representative of India
pointed out, he too felt that products which did not represent information technology products should
be withdrawn from the proposals that had already been made.  This would contribute to reaching a
consensus as was required in paragraph 3 of the Annex to the Ministerial Declaration.
2.2.6 The delegate of Poland stated that his authorities were in the final stages of reviewing the list
of products proposed by the participants and noted concerns with respect to the inclusion of consumer
electronic goods, electrical transformers, and accumulators in the product coverage.
2.2.7 The Committee took note of the statements made.
2.3 Consultations on non-tariff barriers
2.3.1 The Chairman recalled that there were a number of proposals put forth at previous meetings
with respect to non-tariff barriers.  These concerned standards-related matters and import licensing
practices, specifically as they related to information technology products.  In particular, the
Committee had decided to conduct a survey on standards-related matters. Referring to document
G/IT/4 dated 19 February 1998 which contained the survey, he reminded participants that the deadlinefor submissions was 15 April 1998.  He noted that, as of the date of the present meeting, responses hadbeen received from the following 20 participants:  Australia;  Canada; Chinese Taipei;  CzechRepublic;  European Communities;  Estonia;  Hong Kong, China;  Iceland;  Israel;  Japan;  Korea;Macau;  New Zealand;  Norway;  Poland;  Slovak Republic;  Singapore;  Switzerland;  Turkey;  andthe United States.  He encouraged those participants that had not submitted the necessary responses todo so as soon as possible.  He further noted that the responses to the survey had been circulated in theG/IT/SPEC/Q1/- document series so that the information provided by the participants on theirparticular practices could be of benefit to the other participants.  He informed the Committee that an
informal meeting would be convened on 5 June 1998 to review the responses to the survey.
2.3.2 The delegate of Canada appreciated the survey responses received thus far and encouraged
others who had not notified to do so as soon as possible.  With respect to import licensing, Canada
intended to continue work in this area over the summer and submit a non-paper on the issue to the
Committee.G/IT/M/8
Page 4
2.3.4 The Committee took note of the statements made.
3. New Participants
3.1 The Chairman noted that the Schedules of China, Kyrgyz Republic, Latvia and Panama were
before the Committee for consideration.
3.2 With respect to the schedule of Latvia, he recalled that clarification had been sought on the
headnote contained in the Schedule with respect to implementation.  As he understood, participants
had no problems with the concessions contained in the proposed ITA schedule, but concerns had been
raised on the procedural aspects with respect to implementation.  For domestic procedural reasons,
Latvia would implement the ITA commitments at the time of the implementation of their otheraccession commitments.  Therefore, he suggested the Committee await notification from the
delegation of Latvia on when implementation would take effect.
3.3 With respect to the schedule of Panama, he recalled that the Secretariat had performed an
electronic verification of the revised schedule of Panama and that the resulting discrepancies had been
conveyed to the delegation of Panama.  At present, a few discrepancies still existed and the delegationof Panama was clarifying the matter.  As soon as this issue was resolved and the verification done, the
schedule would be circulated to participants.
3.4 With respect to the schedule of China, he  recalled that an informal meeting of ITA
participants and China had been convened on 8 April 1998 after China indicated its intention to join
the ITA by submitting a schedule of commitments on 7 April 1998.  The draft schedule, along withthe Secretariat "verification sheet", had been circulated to participants.  Many participants had taken
the floor to welcome China's intention to join the ITA and had noted that additional time was
necessary to fully examine the commitments in the draft schedule.
3.5 The Chairman stated that the schedule of the Kyrgyz Republic had also been recently
received and circulated to participants on 17 April 1998 together with the Secretariat "verification
sheet" which indicated that no discrepancies had been found.
3.6 The delegate of Mauritius, explaining his country's intention to become a participant in the
ITA, said that a characteristic feature of small economies was their relative openness, limited markets
and extensive exposure to the outside world which had encouraged their outward economic
orientation.  Mauritius, with its limited domestic market and remoteness from its export and importmarkets, had adopted liberal trade policies for better integration into the global economic system.  In
this connection, Mauritius wished to inform the Committee that Mauritius had no customs duties on
computers, monitors, and scanners. His authorities had, over the years, gradually lowered or removed
duties on other information technology products, as a result of which Mauritius had enhanced market
access for a greater number of users.  His authorities believed that these measures would help
transform their country into an information-based economy and ensure its integration into the
dynamic trading system of the 21
st century.
3.7 The delegate of the United States welcomed the statement made by the delegate of Mauritius,
and questioned whether the Kyrgyz Republic, like Latvia, would be joining the ITA upon its
accession to the WTO.  With respect to China, the United States had participated in the informal
discussion and welcomed the fact that China was working on its ITA schedule. His understanding
from that meeting was that China needed to do more work on its schedule, that there were someproducts missing and the schedule would be reviewed at an appropriate time.G/IT/M/8
Page 5
3.8 The Chairman confirmed that the Kyrgyz Republic would implement its ITA commitments
upon accession to the WTO and that there had been no indication that they intended to implement the
schedule on an autonomous basis.
3.9 The Committee took note of the above statements.
4. Request for observer status from the OECD
4.1 The Chairman stated that the Committee had received a request for observer status from the
OECD and asked the Committee to take a decision on this request.  In requesting observer status in
this Committee, the OECD stated that its coope ration with the GATT went back many years and,
reflecting the OECD's mandate to support a strong multilateral trading system, with the creation of the
WTO, the two Organizations had continued and strengthened past arrangements.  The OECD
currently had observer status in many WTO bodies, and similarly the WTO had been granted observer
status in many OECD bodies, including those that were undertaking work on information technology
industries, markets and policies.  As a part of this work, the OECD was monitoring the globalizationof information technology industries and analyzing the impact of product standards and regulatory
policies on market access in such fields as telecommunications equipment.  The OECD considered
observer status in this Committee to be of high interest to it especially in view of the latter activity.
4.2 The delegate of the United States requested more time to reflect on the request and suggested
that the Committee revert to this request at a future meeting.
4.3 The Committee took note of the statements.
5. Other business
Date of the next meeting
5.1 The Chairman stated that as a result of the ongoing work on the review of product coverage it
was foreseen that the next formal meeting of the Committee would be held during the week of
22 June 1998.  He proposed that the formal meeting of the Committee be held on 26 June 1998 andthat a number of informal meetings be held during that week.  Depending on the progress made on the
negotiations for the review on product coverage, the date for the formal meeting might have to be
changed at a later point in time.
5.2 The Committee took note of the above statement.
__________