RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/IT/M/1
13October 1997
ORGANIZATION(97-4412)
Committee ofParticipants ontheExpansion ofTrade
inInformation Technology Products
MINUTES OFTHE MEETING OF29SEPTEMBER 1997
Chairman: Mr.A.Hoda
Agenda oftheMeeting Page
1. Organizational Matters oftheCommittee
1.1 Chairmanship ..................................... 2
1.2 Rules ofProcedure ................................. 2
1.3 Status ofnon-participants, acceding countries, andother organizations
inthemeetings oftheCommittee ......................... 2
2. Review oftheStatus ofImplementation oftheMinisterial Declaration onTrade
inInformation Technology Products ............................ 3
3. Derestriction ofSchedules .................................. 4
4. Future Work Programme oftheCommittee ........................ 5
4.1Divergences inclassifying information technology products ........... 5
4.2Review ofproduct coverage andconsultations onnon-tariff barriers ..... 6
4.3Other future work ..................................... 6
5. Other Business .......................................... 7
5.1Schedules submitted ................................... 7
5.2Document distribution ................................... 8
5.3Dateofthenextmeeting ................................. 8
Introduction
TheChairmanwelcomedparticipantstothefirstformalmeetingoftheCommitteeofParticipants
ontheExpansion ofTrade inInformation Technology Products. Henoted thatthismeeting hadbeen
convened among onlytheparticipants totheMinisterial Declaration inTrade inInformation Technology
Products asthere hadbeennodecision taken yetwithrespect toattendance ofnon-participants.
With reference totheproposed agenda setforth inWTO/AIR/682, henoted thathewould
takeupthedateofthenextmeeting aswellasother aspects relating toparticipation, i.e.thequestion
ofadditional schedules submitted anddocument distribution, under theagenda itemof"Other Business".
Theagenda, which wascontained inWTO/AIR/682 dated 18September 1997, wasadopted withthe
inclusion oftheitems mentioned bytheChairman under "Other Business".G/IT/M/1
Page2
1. Organizational Matters oftheCommittee
1.1 Chairmanship
1.1.1 TheChairman recalled theprovisions ofparagraph 4ofthedocument onImplementation of
theMinisterial Declaration onTrade inInformation Technology Products, contained inG/L/160, which
provides thattheCommittee shallelectachairperson fromamong therepresentatives oftheparticipants
orasotherwise decided; andasked forparticipants 'views onthematter.
1.1.2 Therepresentative ofCanada suggested thatadditional timebegiven toconsult onthematter
andrequested thatthecurrent chairman continue tochair thismeeting andperhaps thenextmeeting
oftheCommittee.
1.1.3 Itwassoagreed.
1.2 Rules ofProcedure
1.2.1 TheChairman noted thatthisCommittee ofparticipants wasestablished under theauspices
oftheCouncil forTrade inGoods inorder tocarry outtheprovisions oftheMinisterial Declaration
onTrade inInformation Technology Products. Hefurther noted thatArticle IVoftheMarrakesh
AgreementEstablishingtheWorldTradeOrganizationprovidedthatsuchsubsidiarybodiesshallestablish
theirrespective rules ofprocedure subject totheapproval oftheirrespective Councils. Inorder to
assist discussions onthismatter, theSecretariat hadprepared draftRules ofProcedure based onthe
Rules ofProcedure oftheGeneral Council andofother Committees under theWTO. These draft
rules could befound indocument G/IT/W/1.
1.2.2 ThedelegateoftheUnitedStatesexpressedappreciationforthedraftrulesofprocedureprepared
bytheSecretariat inG/IT/W/1. Henoted thatmore timewasneeded toexamine thedraftandtohold
consultations among participants, andsuggested thattheissue bedeferred untilthenextmeeting of
theCommittee.
1.2.3 Thedelegate ofJapan supported thestatement made bytheUnited States.
1.2.4 Itwasagreed todefer theissue tothenextmeeting.
1.3 Status ofnon-participants, acceding countries, andother organizations inthemeetings ofthe
Committee
1.3.1 TheChairman recalled thecontents ofparagraph 4ofG/L/160 ontheImplementation ofthe
MinisterialDeclarationwhichstatedthefollowing:"TheCommitteemaydecidetoinvite,asappropriate,
representatives ofWTO Members andofobservers totheCouncil forTrade inGoods thatarenot
participants asof26March 1997toattend meetings oftheCommittee asobservers." Fortheinformation
ofdelegations, henoted thattheobservers totheCouncil forTrade inGoods included observer
Governments totheGeneral Council andinternational intergovernmental organizations granted observer
status totheCouncil forTrade inGoods. Currently these organizations weretheFAO, IMF, ITCB,
OECD, UN,UNCTAD, World Bank, andtheWCO. Inthisconnection healsoinformed theCommittee
thattheSecretariat hasreceived twocommunications requesting observership intheCommittee. These
were from theGovernment ofEgypt andfrom theWCO. Specifically, theWCO asked tobeable
toattend meetings when theCommittee takes upmatters relating toHSclassification andHS
amendments.G/IT/M/1
Page3
1.3.2 Thedelegate oftheUnited States noted thatthisissue wasrelated totherules ofprocedure
andindicated thatmore timewasneeded toconsult onthematter, hesuggested thisbedeferred to
thenextmeeting aswell.
1.3.3 Thedelegate ofMalaysia ,speaking onbehalf ofASEAN, stated thatboththeGovernment
ofEgypt andtheWCO should beallowed asobservers tothisCommittee because there would bea
mutual benefit toboththeCommittee andtotheobservers.
1.3.4 Thedelegate ofJapan supported theobserverships ofbothEgypt andtheWCO.
1.3.5 Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities expressed apreference formaximum
participation andtransparency, while alsostating theneedforconsultations onthematter.
1.3.6 Thedelegate ofCanada said,asconcerns observership ofother WTO Members andacceding
countries thathaveaninterest inparticipating, thattheyshould beencouraged tojoin. Furthermore,
henoted thattheUnited States 'proposal withrespect tofurther consultations maybethebestway
toproceed. Specifically, Canada hadnoobjection totheparticipation oftheWCO informal meetings
where classification matters werediscussed. Theobservership ofother NGOs mayrequire additional
consultations.
1.3.7 TheChairman noted thatfromthediscussions itappeared thatadditional consultations were
necessary onthematter.
2. Review oftheStatus ofImplementation oftheMinisterial Declaration onTrade inInformation
Technology Products
2.1 TheChairman drew participants 'attention todocument G/IT/1 anditscorrigendum which
outlined thestatus ofimplementation. Furthermore, heprovided thefollowing update: (i)the
Philippines hadrecently submitted itsschedule under theformal procedures forrectification and
modification ofschedules; (ii)inparagraph 1ofG/IT/1 India, Japan andTurkey hadindicated that
implementation would begin aftercompletion ofdomestic procedural requirements, which wasalso
trueforIsrael astheSecretariat hadreceived suchacover-note aswell. Henoted thatsubsequently
communicationswerereceivedfromIndiaandIsraelindicatingthatthedomesticproceduralrequirements
hadbeencompleted.
2.2 Thedelegate oftheEuropean Communities stated thattheEUhadimplemented theDeclaration
asof1July1997 andfurthermore suggested thateachdelegation giveanupdate astothestatus of
theirimplementation.
2.3 Thedelegate ofCanada noted thatCanada hadimplemented theDeclaration andsupported
thesuggestion made bytheEuropean Communities.
2.4 Therepresentative ofTurkey supported theproposal made bytheEuropean Communities and
noted thatTurkey hadnotyetcompleted theinternal procedural requirements forimplementation.
2.5 Infollowing upontheissue ofimplementation, thedelegate ofPoland tookthefloortostate
thatPoland 'scommitment under theITAwassubject todomestic ratification procedures which would
hopefully becompleted shortly. Additionally, thetariffcommitments werescheduled tobeimplemented
in1998, which would beconsistent withthecommitments undertaken inPoland 'sITAschedule.
2.6 Thedelegate ofRomania recalled thatRomania hadsentaletter totheSecretariat confirming
thatimplementation wasdependent ontheinternal ratification process. Hefurther noted thatRomaniaG/IT/M/1
Page4
should beincluded inthesecond section ofparagraph 1,although ratification would likely occur in
December. Thegovernment hadapproved thedraft billsenttoparliament andtherefore believed
parliament would make itsdecision before theimplementation dateindicted intheschedule.
2.7 Thedelegate ofNewZealand indicated thathisgovernment hadnotyetsubmitted thefinal
schedule forcertification butexpected ittodososhortly. Furthermore, henoted thatNewZealand
hadimplemented theDeclaration asof1July1997, andthatnoactual tariff cutswere necessary.
NewZealand wasfullyintending tomake thenecessary tariff cutson1January 1998 regardless of
thesituation withrespect totheformal certification ofitsschedule.
2.8 Thedelegate oftheSeparate Customs Territory ofTaiwan, Penghu, Kinmen andMatsu
noted thatthecommitments hadbeenimplemented onanautonomous basis on26June1997. This
consisted ofreducing tariffs on259tariff linesofinformation technology products.
2.9 Thedelegate oftheCzech Republic noted thatwhile theinternal procedures were notyet
completed, thedocuments hadbeensubmitted tothegovernment forapproval. Hebelieved thatthe
formal WTO documents would besubmitted shortly.
2.10 Thedelegate ofSwitzerland stated thattheschedule would besubmitted shortly andthat
Switzerland planned toimplement theDeclaration, asagreed, on31December 1997.
2.11 Therepresentative oftheSlovak Republic noted thattheschedule wasnotyetsubmitted and
wassubject todomestic legalprocedures.
2.12 Therepresentative ofIndia stated thatthedomestic ratification procedures were completed
andthatthecurrent tariffs wereincompliance withthecommitments undertaken intheITAschedule.
2.13 TheChairman alsoinformed theCommittee ofthepresent situation asconcerned certification
ofITASchedules. First, henoted thattwoschedules, those ofEstonia andoftheSeparate Customs
Territory ofTaiwan, Penghu, Kinmen andMatsu, would notneedtobecertified asthesetwoparticipants
werenotyetWTO Members. Oftheremaining 26schedules, 14schedules hadbeencertified; 6more
schedules hadbeensubmitted andwere awaiting theexpiry ofthe3month period, afterwhich they
would becertified, assuming noreservations were received; thisleft6schedules which hadnotyet
beensubmitted. Inorder tokeeptheprocess ofimplementation under review, heproposed thatthe
Secretariat update document G/IT/1 onaperiodic basis. Itwassoagreed.
3. Derestriction ofSchedules
3.1 TheChairman recalled theconclusions ofthemeetings heldinthespring, assummarized
inG/L/159/Rev.1, andtheunderstanding reached atthattimethatschedules ofindividual participants
would beputontheinternet iftheparticipant sentacommunication totheSecretariat tothiseffect.
Todate, there hadbeenninesuchcommunications inrespect oftheschedules verified on26March
1997 ofCosta Rica; Singapore; theEuropean Communities; Hong Kong, China; Indonesia; Macau;
NewZealand; Turkey; andtheUnited States; these schedules hadbeenplaced ontheWTO website.
Additionally, henoted thedecision taken bytheGeneral Council onderestriction ofdocuments
inWT/L/160/Rev.1, which provided thatschedules submitted pursuant totheprocedures ofrectification
andmodification ofschedules would bederestricted uponcertification. Therefore, therewerecurrently
14schedules which were deemed tobederestricted through thismeans. Thisincluded seven ofthe
nineschedules which hadalready beenputontheinternet. Thenewschedules which hadbeencertified
andwerenowdeemed tobederestricted werethose ofCanada, Iceland, India, Israel, Japan, MalaysiaG/IT/M/1
Page5
andNorway. These schedules would beputontheWTO website shortly along withother derestricted
documents. Insummary, thatleft12schedules thatremained restricted atthistime.
3.2 Thedelegate oftheUnited States stated thathisdelegation hadreceived many requests for
information ontheschedules ofother participants. Hetherefore encouraged thederestriction of
schedules.
3.3 While agreeing inprincipal withthestatement made bytheUnited States, thedelegate ofthe
Czech Republic ,speaking onbehalf ofthecustoms union oftheCzech andSlovak Republics, pointed
outthattheirschedules would havetobeformally approved bytheirgovernments before derestriction
could occur.
3.4 Thedelegate ofRomania stated thathisdelegation hadagreed toderestrict theRomanian
schedule andtoputitontheinternet.
3.5 Thedelegate ofEstonia indicated thataformal letter forderestriction would beforthcoming
aftercompletion ofthenecessary domestic procedures which were expected tobecompleted soon.
3.6 Thedelegate ofthePhilippines asked forclarification withrespect toderestriction, specifically
whyindividual participants should derestrict theirschedules when thederestriction decision provided
thatschedules willbederestricted aftertheexpiry ofthe90-day period.
3.7 Inreply, theChairman noted thatoneoftheprincipal issues withrespect totheITAwasits
relationship toinvestment. Thetiming ofthederestriction ofschedules could have animpact on
investment decisions. Hefurthermore noted thatsome delegations hadderestricted theirschedules
before formally submitting them, aswasthecasewithNewZealand.
3.8 Thedelegate ofKorea pointed outthattheschedule would bederestricted aftertheexpiry
ofthe90-day period.
4. Future Work Programme oftheCommittee
4.1 Divergences inclassifying information technology products
4.1.1 TheChairmanrecalledtheprovisionsofparagraph5oftheAnnextotheMinisterialDeclaration
andofparagraph 8ofthedocument ontheImplementation oftheMinisterial Declaration (G/L/160)
which stated thatparticipants will"meet asoften asnecessary andnolaterthan30September 1997
toconsider anydivergence among theminclassifying information technology products, beginning with
theproductsspecifiedinAttachmentB".Toassistparticipantsinthiswork,theSecretariathadcompiled,
indocument G/IT/2, thevarious classifications usedbyparticipants ofAttachment Bitems. This
information wasobtained from participants schedules ofcommitments oninformation technology
products, andwascompiled atthe6-digit harmonized system level.
4.1.2 Thedelegate ofCanada expressed appreciation fordocument G/IT/2 prepared bytheSecretariat
which provided useful information ondivergences inclassification. Herequested thatthisdocument
besupplemented toprovide information grouped onanHScode-basis. Specifically thiswould include
thenumber ofparticipants thatclassify aproduct under agiven HScodeandthename oftheparticipant.
4.1.3 Thedelegate oftheEuropean Communities supported therequest made byCanada.
4.1.4 Thedelegate oftheUnited States, expressing support forthestatement made byCanada and
theEuropean Communities withrespect toG/IT/2, noted thathisauthority hadbegun consultationsG/IT/M/1
Page6
withtheprivate sector ontheissues tobepursued intheITAandanannouncement wasrecently
published inthe"Federal Register" which requested public comments, including comments on
classification.
4.1.5 Thedelegate ofThailand noted hisdelegation 'sappreciation forthedocument andstated that
theyexperienced difficulties inidentifying products forAttachment B.Herequested theSecretariat
toinclude the"ex"positions inthedocument.
4.1.6 Thedelegate ofJapan supported thework undertaken inG/IT/2 andsuggested thatthe
Committee holdafuture meeting specifically forexperts onthesubject, which should include the
WCO.
4.1.7 ThedelegateofthePhilippines,speakingonbehalfofASEAN,couldnotagreetothesuggestion
byJapan atthistime.
4.1.8. TheChairman summarized thattheSecretariat would proceed withtherequests made with
respect tosupplementing thedocument, while therequest made byJapan would havetobeaddressed
atalatermeeting.
4.2 Review ofProduct Coverage andConsultations onNon-Tariff Barriers
4.2.1 TheChairman noted thework envisioned onthereview ofproduct coverage andconsultations
onnon-tariff barriers, asprovided forinparagraph 3oftheAnnex totheMinisterial Declaration and
paragraph 7ofthedocument ontheImplementation oftheMinisterial Declaration (G/L/160).
Furthermore, paragraph (a)oftheAnnex toG/L/160 ontheprocedures forconsultation onandreview
ofproduct coverage provided thatbeginning 1October 1997 andnolaterthan31December 1997,
participantsmaysubmittotheCommitteelistsofadditionalinformationtechnologyproductsforpossible
additional tariff concessions.
4.2.2 Thedelegate ofSwitzerland saidthatconsultations wereincourse withSwiss industry onthe
matter, withtheideaofputting forthalistofproducts. Healsonoted thatthelistofadditional products
submitted bySwitzerland atthebeginning ofthisyearwasstillvalid.
4.2.3 Thedelegate oftheEuropean Communities indicated thatconsultations withindustry were
being conducted andproposals would besubmitted induecourse.
4.2.4 Thedelegate oftheUnited States saidthatconsultations withindustry wereongoing andthat
thiswasintended tobeadynamic process which should takeintoaccount newproducts and
developments. Hefurthermore stated that,having inmind theUSinitiative onelectronic commerce,
theUnited Sateshadaninterest inensuring thatfullcoverage wasprovided forproducts andtechnologies
utilized toaccess theinternet.
4.2.4 Thedelegate ofCanada stated thatconsultations withindustry were ongoing.
4.2.5 Thedelegate ofJapan saidthatindustry consultations wereongoing andthatadditional time
maybenecessary.
4.3 Other future work
4.3.1 Thedelegate oftheUnited States pointed outthattheissue ofstandards withrespect to
information technology products should beexamined. Specifically hesuggested thattheChairman
conduct asurvey ofparticipants ontheiradoption anduseoftwostandards--IEC 950andCISPR 22.G/IT/M/1
Page7
Thesestandardswereconcernedwiththeelectricalsafetyandelectromagneticcompatibilityofinformation
technology products.
4.3.2 Thedelegate oftheEuropean Communities noted thattheECwould submit apaper onthe
issue ofnon-tariff measures.
4.3.3 Thedelegate ofSwitzerland recalled theprovisions ofparagraph 10ofdocument G/L/160
onthematter ofadditional procedures toaddress theconcerns ofsmall- andmedium-sized exporting
participants regarding theirrights under Article XXVIII. Thisshould betaken intoconsideration during
thereview.
4.3.4 Thedelegate ofCanada expressed interest inexploring non-tariff measures, inparticular in
theareas ofstandards andimport licensing, andwasopentosuggestions byother participants.
4.3.5 Thedelegate ofNewZealand alsoexpressed interest inpursuing consultations onnon-tariff
measures, asthiswasoriginally noted asaconcern when discussed withindustry.
4.3.6 Thedelegate oftheEuropean Communities ,noting therequest made bytheUnited States,
expressed theneedtohavetimetoreflect onthisissue; hesuggested thatfurther consultations may
benecessary.
4.3.7 While noting theinterest ofother participants inpursuing theissue ofnon-tariff measures,
thedelegate ofJapan stressed theneedtoavoid duplication ofworkparticularly asitrelated tostandards
andtheongoing work intheTBTareaoftheWTO.
4.3.8 TheChairman suggested thatinformal consultations would beinitiated inorder todiscuss
theconcerns raised onthismatter.
5. Other Business
5.1 Schedules submitted
5.1.1 TheChairman raised thematter ofadditional schedules thathadbeensubmitted, i.e.those
ofPanama andLatvia. Inrespect ofPanama ,herecalled thecontent offootnote 2ofdocument G/L/160
ontheimplementation oftheMinisterial Declaration. Inthisrespect, itwasoriginally foreseen that
Panama would submit itsschedule before 1April 1997andthatparticipants would complete thereview
process during theweek of14April 1997. However, while Panama hadsubmitted thedocuments
intime, theywere notinashape thattheycould bereviewed attheITAmeeting of18April 1997.
Thus theprocedures envisaged inthefootnote inrespect ofPanama could notbecompleted intime
forittobeconsidered asaparticipant forthepurpose offurther implementation oftheDeclaration.
Latvia which wasacountry under accession hadalsosubmitted itsschedule. Itwasagreed tofollow
thesame procedures forverification ofschedules asthose usedfortheschedules ofPoland, the
Philippines, andElSalvador.
5.1.2 Recalling theprovisions ofparagraph 5oftheimplementation document G/L/160 thatprovided
forfuture participants intheITA"onterms tobeagreed between itandparticipants atthattime, the
Chairman suggested thattheCommittee needed toaddress theprocedures required todealwith
applications ofWTO Members andacceding countries tobecome participants.
5.1.3 Thedelegate ofPanama pointed outthathercountry hadrecently become aMember tothe
WTO andwasinterested inbecoming aparticipant intheITA.G/IT/M/1
Page8
5.2 Document distribution
5.2.1 TheChairman stated thataseparate document series wascreated forthisCommittee; thus,
documents related tothework ofthisCommittee were being distributed under theG/IT symbol.
Currently thedocuments werebeing distributed onlytoparticipants andinpaper formonly. Theinternet
distribution usedformostWTO documents, known astheDocuments Dissemination Facility, currently
didnotinclude theG/ITseries because itwasdifficult torestrict access onlytothose WTO Members
which were ITAparticipants. Thus, thedocuments were notbeing distributed electronically to
governments either hereorincapitals. Hefurther noted thatother plurilateral Committees under the
WTO dealt withdocument dissemination invarious ways. Some hadopen circulation toallWTO
Members andobservers, while others restricted documents orcertain series ofdocuments tosignatories
only. Therespective Committees hadindividually taken decisions ondocument dissemination.
5.2.2 Thedelegate oftheUnited States pointed outthatsince thiswasrelated tothematter of
procedures oftheCommittee, itwaspreferable toremain withthestatus quountilthose other decisions
were taken.
5.2.3 Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities noted thattherewould probably bedifferent
types ofdocuments; some mayneedtobetreated asinformal room documents while others would
bemore general innature andcould probably bedistributed inthenormal waytoallWTO Members
andobservers.
5.3 Dateofthenextmeeting
5.3.1 Itwasagreed thatthenextmeeting oftheCommittee would bescheduled for30October 1997.