RESTRICTED  
  
G/TRIMS/M/51  
25 April 2022 
(22-3288) Page: 1/8 
Committee on Trade -Related Investment Measures   
 
  
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 23 MARCH  2022  
CHAIR: MS  VILMA PELTONEN  (FINLAND)  
1. The Chair started the meeting of the Committee by referring  to the proposed agenda circulated 
in WTO/AIR/TRIMS/ 14 dated 11 March  2022. No additional item was raised under  "Other Business " 
and the  Committee adopted the following agenda : 
1  INDIA – IMPORT RESTRICTIONS ON AIR CONDITIONERS  ................................ ...........  3 
2  INDONESIA – COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF LOCALISATION MEASURES  .....................  3 
3  INDONESIA – IMPORT RESTRICTIONS ON CARPETS AND OTHER TEXTILES  .................  6 
4  INDONESIA – IMPORT RESTRICTIONS ON AIR CONDITIONERS  ................................ ... 7 
5  NOTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE  6.2 OF THE TRIMS AGREEMENT OF 
PUBLICATIONS IN WHICH TRIMS MAY BE FOUND  ................................ ...........................  7 
6  OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  7 
7  ELECTION OF OFFICERS  ................................ ................................ ...............................  8 
8  DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING  ................................ ................................ .......................  8 
2. Following the adoption of the agenda for the meeting, Ukraine  requested the floor . It recalled 
that the TRIMs Agreement was intended to promote liberalisation of trade and facilitation of 
cross-border investment to enhance economic growth . Ukraine asserted that Russia's actions in 
Ukraine were inconsistent with interna tional law and the object and purpose of the WTO, and had 
damaged infrastructure, the economy, and the climate for investment in Ukraine . In Ukraine's view, 
Russia's actions had resulted in negative systemic consequences, including jeopardization of effort s 
aimed at trade liberalization and intensification of uncertainty in the world economy . Ukraine stated 
that Russia should be deprived of its participation in the multilateral trading system.  
3. Following up on Ukraine's statement, the United States  condemned Russia's actions in Ukraine 
and called upon Russia to cease, and refrain from, unlawful threat or use of force against any 
United  Nations member State. The United States stated that , along with its partners and allies, it 
would ensure that the Russian government is held economically and diplomatically accountable for 
its actions in Ukraine . According to the United States, Russia's actions were incompatible with a 
rules-based internati onal system . The United States said that Russia's actions in Ukraine undermine d 
Ukraine's rights in the WTO and were inconsistent with the values and principles that the WTO is 
built on.  
4. New Zealand  condemned Russia's actions in Ukraine and asserted that R ussia's actions breach 
international law, as well as the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine . New Zealand 
expressed support for Ukraine and for collective action by the international community to impose 
costs on Russia.  
5. The European Union  expressed solidarity with Ukraine and condemned Russia's actions in 
Ukraine . The European Union stated that Russia's actions in Ukraine violate d international law and 
undermine d international security and stability . The European Union asserted that Russia's ac tions 
had caused suffering in Ukraine and had impacted all spheres of policy and economy, including trade 
and investment and the international rules -based system . The European Union stated that it had 
imposed economic and trade sanctions on Russia and call ed upon Russia to immediately end its 
actions in Ukraine.  G/TRIMS/M/51  
- 2 - 
  6. Australia  condemned Russia's actions in Ukraine . Australia stated that they were inconsistent 
with the values and work of the TRIMs committee and the WTO . Australia also stated that Russia's 
actions  breached international law and the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine . Australia 
called upon Russia to withdraw forces from Ukraine . It expressed support for collective action to 
impose costs on Russia for its actions in Ukraine.  
7. Canada  stated that Russia's actions violate d international law and the United Nations charter.  
8. Switzerland  stated that Russia's actions in Ukraine violate d international law . Switzerland 
called upon Russia to reverse its actions in Ukraine and for all actors to respe ct international law, 
including international humanitarian law.  
9. The United Kingdom  condemned Russia's actions in Ukraine and stated that such actions were 
inconsistent with international law and the United Nations charter . The United Kingdom expressed 
the view that , as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, Russia had the 
responsibility for upholding international peace and security but had instead violated the border of 
another country and caused widespread suffering . The United Kingdom asserted that it would work 
with its partners to isolate Russia on the international stage.  
10. Japan  expressed deep concern with Russia's actions in Ukraine and stated that such actions 
violate d international law and the United Nations charter as well as the principles of international 
peace and security . Japan expressed solidarity with Ukraine.  
11. Korea  condemned Russia's actions in Ukraine and stated that such actions violate d the 
principles of the United Nations charter . Korea called for Ukraine 's sovereignty, territorial integrity 
and political independence to be respected.  
12. Chinese Taipei  condemned Russia's actions in Ukraine . In Chinese Taipei's view, Russia's 
actions constituted a clear violation of human rights and undermined regional and glo bal peace . 
Chinese Taipei also stated that Russia's actions appeared to breach rules -based international norms 
and called for Russia to stop aggression immediately.  
13. The Russian Federation  expressed its disappointment with the political interventions of oth er 
Members . It stated that the se interventions were based on unreliable and biased assessments of the 
current situation in Ukraine . Russia asserted that the references to documents pertaining to the 
United Nations had no direct link to the mandate of the W TO. Russia stated that the interventions 
added to the damage to the multilateral trading system already caused by the collapse of the 
most-favoured nations treatment principle and the de facto  blockade of the WTO negotiations . Russia 
stated that the econom ic measures taken by various Members against Russia had caused damage 
to the global economy, resulting in surging prices of basic commodities, including food and energy, 
and disruption of value chains.  
14. The Russian Federation also  asserted that several meas ures recently adopted by the 
United  States, European Union, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Japan, and some other countries 
violated Article XI:1 of the G ATT 1994 and Article 2 of the Agreement on TRIMs and fell within the 
scope of items 2(a) and 2(c) o f the illustrative list . As examples, Russia pointed to the adoption of 
limitations on import from Russia and export to Russia of oil and energy -related products, bans on 
new investment in the Russian energy sector, and the prohibition of exports to Russia  of equipment 
for aircraft and vessels . Per Russia, the consequences of such measures included spiking prices in 
commodities markets and disruptions in logistics pertaining to food commodities, energy, and other 
essential goods . Russia noted that such acti ons had been taken even by Members that were not 
influenced by Russia's actions in Ukraine and were aimed at benefitting suppliers from some of the 
countries that had taken such measures . As an example, Russia suggested that amid restrictions 
affecting the  energy sector in Russia, the United States intended to scale up exports of fossil fuels 
to the European energy market.  
15. Finally, the Russian Federation  expressed disappointment with the Chair's inability to avoid 
political interventions in the Committee me eting unrelated to the mandate of the TRIMs Committee . 
Russia stated that despite being from the European Union, the Chair ought to conduct the meeting 
impartially, which entails avoiding political statements . Russia requested the Chair and the 
Secretariat to exclude statements unrelated to the mandate of the TRIMs Committee made by G/TRIMS/M/51  
- 3 - 
  Members who took the floor before Russia, but to include Russia's statement in the minutes as 
Russia's statement directly relate d to the mandate of the Committee and refe rred to 
TRIMs -inconsistent measures.  
16. The Chair stated that as the statements were made in a formal meeting, all statements would  
be recorded in the minutes.  
17. Before turning to the agenda of the meeting, t he Chair recall ed that this was a hybrid meeting, 
in which some participants were joining physically, while other participants were joining online . She 
reminded the remote participants of the technical arrangements , before moving on to the 
substantive par t of the meeting . 
1  INDIA – IMPORT RESTRICTIONS ON AIR CONDITIONERS  
18. The Chair recalled  that this item , which was first considered by the Committee in March  2021, 
was on the agenda at the request of Japan . 
19. Japan  considered that India's import ban on air conditioners – includ ing refrigerants – based 
on Notification No. 41/2015 -2020 introduced in October  2020 unreasonably imposes a restructuring 
of corporate supply chains . Japan expressed the concern  that this measure was likely to be an import 
ban inconsistent with Article XI:1 of the G ATT 1994 and Article 2.1 of the TRIMs Agreement.  
20. Japan noted that at the last meeting of the TRIMs Committee, India stated that the TRIMs 
Committee was not the appropriate forum for address ing Japan's concerns . Disagreeing with India, 
Japan asserted that the measure requires the localization of the main process of refrigerant filling 
by prohibiting the import of air conditioners filled with refrigerant and  is a trade -related investment 
measu re. 
21. According to Japan, India had responded at its Trade Policy Review and at the Council for 
Trade in Goods that the measure was consistent with India's obligations under the Montreal Protocol . 
However, Japan considered that this import ban was unnecessar y and irrational as it cover ed a wide 
range of air conditioners that use refrigerants , which are neither subject to India's reduction and 
elimination obligation under the Montreal Protocol nor the regulation of the ozone -depleting 
substance, freon gas, und er Indian domestic law.  
22. Japan noted that it had submitted a written questionnaire in September  2021 regarding the 
points for which it sought a more detailed explanation in response to India's answers so far . Japan 
looked forward to a prompt response from t he Indian side.  
23. Japan noted that the scheduled enforcement date for the IS standard certification system 
based on Quality Control Orders for air -conditioners and their parts – an issue on which Japan had 
expressed concerns at the last meeting of the TRIMs Committee – had been extended from 
January  2022 to January  2023. Japan welcomed this extension, but insisted  that, to prevent delays 
in the certification procedure for imported products, India must ensure that the Bureau of Indian 
Standards should conduct smooth overseas factory inspections or consider alternative procedures 
for certification if overseas travel is difficult.  
24. India thanked Japan for its questions . India noted that i n the last two TRIM s Committee 
meetings, India had stated that  the concern ra ised by Japan was not a TRIM s matter and had 
requested Japan to raise the concern in the appropriate committee . India reiterated this view . 
25. The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
2  INDONESIA – COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF LOCALISATION MEASURES  
26. The Chair recalled that this item  was on the agenda at the request of the United States , Japan  
and the European Union . 
27. The delegate of the United States  recalled that, for over a decade, the United States and other 
Members had raised concerns related to Indone sia's broad and expanding use of local content 
requirements across the telecommunications, mobile technology, energy, retail, and franchising G/TRIMS/M/51  
- 4 - 
  sectors . He regretted that he had to raise them again at this meeting . From the outset, he 
underscored that Indone sia's local content requirements ran counter to Indonesia 's own interests . 
He said that although they may help the government achieve certain short -term objectives, they 
seriously undermined Indonesia 's own long -term competitiveness . This was a sentiment h eard 
frequently from U.S. companies interested in entering the Indonesian market but  discouraged by 
such policies.  
28. The United States called to Indonesia 's attention several reports that supported this 
perspective and highlighted the damaging nature of Indo nesia's local content policies . Notably, the 
WTO Secretariat 's Report for Indonesia 's 2020 Trade Policy Review, which summarized Indonesia 's 
continued use of local content requirements and noted "the long -standing and predominantly 
negative evidence of the  impact of LCRs on economic development and trade" ; the World Bank's 
2020 report on Indonesia, which stated that Indonesia 's local content requirements in the solar 
energy sector increased costs and reduced quality ; and the World Bank's separate 2018 repor t, 
which found that Indonesia 's local content requirements for electronics "have been associated with 
stagnating exports, in contrast to the high and growing level of exports and imports of regional peers 
that have maintained more open trade and investment regimes " and "negatively affect both foreign 
and domestic investments" . The delegate of the United States urge d Indonesia to give serious 
consideration to these reports.  
29. The United States also sought updates on several draft measures raised at t he last Committee 
meeting . Specifically : draft regulations announced by Indonesia 's Ministry of Industry in June 2021, 
which aim to tighten and further expand local content requirements for laptops ; formal plans, 
announced by the Indonesian government in August  2021, which aim to suppress imports, including 
through the use of local content requirements, with the goal of "substitut[ing] 35  percent  of imported 
products " by 2022 ; formal plans, announced by Indonesia 's ICT Minister in September  2021, which 
would expand existing local content requirements for 4G cell phones and apply a 30  percent  local 
content requirement on 5G devices.  
30. The United States' delegate asked if Indonesia had any updates on these announced policies ; 
whether Indonesia would make a copy of these draft measures publicly available and hold a notice 
and comment period to ensure affected parties have the opportunity to provide input during the 
drafting process . He strongly urged Indonesia to reconsider moving forward with these policies, and 
to reconsider its use of local content requirements generally . He said the United States stood ready 
to work with Indonesia to discuss and develop alternate policies that encourage rather than mandate 
investment, and he thanked the Indonesian delegation in  advance for its responses to questions at 
the meeting.  
31. The delegate of the European Union  recalled that concerns on the wide -ranging localisation 
requirements applied by Indonesia had long been on the agenda of this Committee . She said that 
the European U nion regretted deeply  that, despite some encouraging progress in 2021  with regard 
to the retail sector, no further progress ha d taken place with regard to similar measures applied in 
the other sectors discussed in the previous meetings of this Committee, a nd she reiterated the  
serious concerns of the European Union on this issue and fully support ed the interventions made by 
other Members.  
32. Regarding the pharmaceutical sector, the European Union  was interested in the adoption of 
new Minister of Industry Regul ation N°16 of 2020 on the calculation of local content levels for 
pharmaceutical products . It continue d to be interested to understand how the regulations would 
apply "to government procurement only ". The delegate  noted that the regulation had not yet been 
notified to the WTO.  
33. The delegate said that the European Union was  concerned that the imposition of arbitrary local 
content percentages, to be met under limited time, would  create an impossible condition and would  
bar most of the players from the market in a situation where , to her knowledge , Indonesia was still 
importing over 95 % of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients . The European Union was  also concerned 
by the requirement introduced by Presidential Regulation 12/2021 for government hospitals to 
purchase, when available, medical devices with a Domestic Content Level and Benefit Weight Value 
of 40% or more ‒ regardless of available foreign products – and the subsequent freezing of several 
foreign medical devices in the I ndonesian e -catalogue for public procurement, preventing their 
purchase by government health institutions . The European Union stood  ready to support Indonesia's 
objective on improving healthcare and promoting the development of the local industry in the he alth G/TRIMS/M/51  
- 5 - 
  sector . However, it believe d that rather than imposing local content requirements , the Government 
should focus on policies that would incentivize  more domestic and foreign investment in the local 
industry.  
34. Regarding certain local content provisions in  the energy sector (mining, oil and gas) , the 
European Union continue d to be concerned with the local content requirements for goods and 
services in the energy sector, including mining, oil and gas, electricity and renewables, as stipulated 
Decree No 1953/ 2018. The European Union  was also concerned that ‒ according to 
Regulation  34/2017 ‒ the license holders were required to "prioritise the utilisation o f domestic 
goods and services according to the prevailing laws and regulations " (Art.31) . Given that fore ign 
companies were not regarded as providing "domestic services " in this regulation even if they were 
locally incorporated, the European Union  consider ed that this measure de facto create d 
discrimination.  
35. Furthermore, the European Union  asked  to be updated on the revision of the Mining Law . It 
understood  that the revised law ha d been adopted in May 2020 and  include d obligations for mining 
license holder to prioritise the use of domestic goods and services . The delegate of the European 
Union sa id she would  welcome further information from the authorities in this respect.  
36. Regarding l ocal content requirements and the Omnibus Law on Job Creation , the 
European  Union asked to be updated on the ongoing review of the Omnibus Law and possible 
impacts on  the current legislations on local content requirements.  
37. Japan  upheld the concerns expressed by other Members on the fact that LCR measures had 
been introduced and maintained in various areas in Indonesia . Japan was particularly interested in 
LCR measures for (i) 4G and 5G LTE mobile devices, (ii) TVs, (iii) retailers, and (iv) franchise 
businesses . As Japan had explained before, among the LCR measures, those that f ell under 
1) "government procurement" appeared to be limited . In addition, it pointed out tha t 2) "fulfilling 
the needs to maintain their life necessities etc." and 3) "securing strategic resources" could not be 
grounds to immediately justify LCR measures under the WTO agreement . Japan understood the 
importance of these objectives but considered t hat taking LCR measures as an easy means to 
achieve them should not be permitted . These LCR measures were likely to be inconsistent with 
Article 3.4 of the GATT and Article 2.1 of the TRIMS Agreement . Japan asked Indonesia to respond 
appropriately to the s pecific concerns of Members, and to rectify these measures in a manner 
consistent with the WTO Agreement.  
38. Australia  stated that it shared the concerns raised by other Members on localisation measures 
applied by Indonesia, which had been a long -standing age nda of the TRIMs Committee.  
39. Australia reiterated its ongoing concerns on Indonesia 's localisation measures in the energy 
sector (Mining, Oil and Gas) . As the Committee had previously heard, Australia had concerns 
regarding local processing requirements and  the 2020 revisions to the Mining Law . The delegate of 
Australia noted that Article 106 of the revised Mining Law, required licence holders to prioritise the 
utilisation of local goods, services and labour, in the country in accordance with the provisions of the 
legislation . The measure adversely impacted the ability of Australian companies to obtain inputs of 
sufficient quality . Australia reiterated its request for an update on the implications of implementing 
the Mining Law in terms of consistency with In donesia 's obligations under the TRIMs Agreement.  
40. Indonesia  thanked the proponents  and Australia  for their continued interests in Indonesia as 
an investment destination for their businesses . Indonesia acknowledged Members ' concerns to 
Indonesia 's measures regarding the level of domestic component . Indonesia reiterated its previous 
statements that the  measures had been put in place based on the following : first, in relation to 
government procurement ; second, in relation to policies which involve fulfilling the needs to maintain 
all of Indonesian people 's welfare and their life necessities ; third, in re lation to policies which involve 
state-managed strategic resources . In relation to the comprehensive review, Indonesia informed 
Members that several reviews of the measures had been initiated regarding the level of domestic 
component, and the process was s till ongoing . The Government of Indonesia was currently putting 
a lot of its attention on local products for government procurement, both the central and local 
governments . As an export and investment destination country, Indonesia was committed to 
improve  the business climate through the simplification of regulations and procedures . These efforts G/TRIMS/M/51  
- 6 - 
  aimed to facilitate investors and improving Indonesia 's economy, in line with Indonesia's 
commitment in the TRIMs agreement and its goals.  
41. The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
3  INDONESIA – IMPORT RESTRICTIONS ON CARPETS AND OTHER TEXTILES  
42. The Chair stated that this item , which was first considered by the Committee in March  2021, 
was on the agenda at the request of Japan  and the European Union . 
43. Japan  stated that, in October  2019, the Ministry of Trade Regulation 77/2019 introduced an 
import registration/approval system for textile products, substantially banning imports for sales to 
consumers . Japan stated that, as a result, the export volume of textile pro ducts from the world to 
Indonesia in 2020 had decreased significantly to about one tenth of the volume in 2019 . Japan 
expressed doubts that this system is consistent with the national treatment stipulated in Article III 
of the GATT, the general elimination of quantitative restrictions stipulated in Article XI of the GATT, 
and the national treatment and quantitative restrictions stipulated in Article 2 of th e 
TRIMs  Agreement.  
44. Japan also noted that, in February this year, Indonesia had imposed a safeguard measure for 
carpets (and other textile floor coverings) . According to Japan, however, the period of investigation 
under this measure was 2017-19, which was i mmediately prior to the abovementioned import 
decrease . Japan considered that, as a result, 'increased imports' were found by the Indonesian 
investigating authority without considering the drastic decrease in import volumes due to the import 
registration/a pproval system . Furthermore, according to Japan, this measure involved imposing 
about 150 to 200 % tariffs ad valorem . Japan considered that this measure did not meet the 
requirements for imposing safeguard measures such as those "to the extent necessary to  prevent 
or remedy serious injury".  
45. Japan expressed serious concerns about these measures . Japan noted that it had expressed 
its concerns on various occasions, for example by submitting a written questionnaire in the 
TRIMs  Committee in September  2021. Japan requested Indonesia to recognize the aforementioned 
problems with these measures and abolish them as soon as possible . Japan hoped to receive a 
sincere response from the Indonesian government on this matter.  
46. The European Union  expressed concerns regardin g Indonesia's import restrictions on carpets 
and other textiles . According to the European Union, following the entry into force of 
Regulation  77/2019, only raw materials or supporting unfinished products and materials imported 
for further processing c ould obtain licences . The European Union stated that this results in a de facto 
prohibition to import finished carpets and other textile products, and, as several other import 
regimes recently adopted by Indonesia for a variety of products, the measure appeare d to be 
inconsistent with WTO rules.  
47. In light of this, and of its severe restrictive impact on trade in carpets and other textile 
products, the European Union urged Indonesia to re -evaluate the measure at stake and bring it in 
conformity with WTO rules.  
48. In addition, the European Union shared Japan's concerns about the proliferation of safeguard 
investigations initiated by Indonesia, which often do not fully comply with WTO criteria . According 
to the European Union, the safeguard instrument should be used in  truly exceptional circumstances, 
due to its highly restrictive nature and Article 5.1 of the WTO Safeguards Agreement, which provides 
that a Member shall apply safeguard measures only to the extent necessary to prevent or remedy 
serious injury.  
49. The United States  shared Japan 's concerns about the local content requirements in this sector 
that were introduced in 2019 . The United States requested Indonesia to confirm that Indonesia had 
fully removed the local content requirements that previously applied  to finished textile products 
classified in 430 HS codes . The United States looked forward to Indonesia's response and expressed 
the hope that Indonesia w ould similarly consider eliminating local content requirements that 
remain ed in place in other sectors  of its economy.  G/TRIMS/M/51  
- 7 - 
  50. Indonesia  thanked Japan, the European Union, and the United States for their interest in 
Indonesia's import regulation on the concerned products . Regarding  written questions on textiles 
products, Indonesia stated that it continued to coordinate among the relevant  government agencies 
and undertook to submit the replies after proper reviews.  
51. Indonesia indicated that Regulation 77/2019, which was purely an impo rt regulation not 
related to investment measures, had been revoked . Indonesia stated that concerns regarding 
safeguard measures must be addressed in the Committee on Safeguard.  
52. The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
4  INDONESIA – IMPORT RESTRICTIONS  ON AIR CONDITIONERS  
53. The Chair recalled that this item , which was first considered by the Committee in March  2021, 
was on the agenda at the request of Japan . 
54. Japan  stated that, with regard to the import restrictions on air conditioners based on the 
Ministr y of Trade Regulation 20/2021, Japan continued to appreciate the improvement in the degree 
of the approved quantity . Japan stated that the reason for limiting the quantity and the judgment 
criteria were nevertheless still unclear . For this reason, Japan re mained concerned that this measure 
was still an import restriction and may violate both Article XI:1 of the G ATT 1994 and Article 2 .1, of 
the TRIMs Agreement . Japan asserted that this measure ought to be administered in a manner that 
ensures that it does n ot effectively equate to a form of import restriction . Japan also stated that it 
expects the permit standards and procedures to be stipulated more transparently.  
55. Japan noted that Indonesia claimed at the last TRIM s Committee meeting that it prefer red to 
refer this matter to the meeting of the Committee on Import Licensing . Japan noted that  it had 
submitted a written questionnaire in September  2021 regarding the operational status of this 
measure, and therefore expected  Indonesia to first provide a prompt re sponse  at this Committee . 
Japan expressed the view that , if the discussions proceed ed constructively in the Committee on 
Import Licensing , it could  afford to limit the discussion to that committee . 
56. The European Union  supported Japan regarding Indonesia import restrictions on air 
conditioners and the import licencing regime under Reg. 68/2020 in general . The European Union 
indicated that it had already made interventions in this context in other WTO Committees and had 
questioned the compatibility of the licensing regime with the WTO legal framework . The 
European  Union requested Indonesia to provide relevant clarifications.  
57. Indonesia  thanked Japan and the European Union for their interest in Indonesia's import 
regulation  on the concerned products . Indonesia stated that Regulation 68/2020 was purely an 
import regulation, which did not relate to investment measures . Indonesia reiterated its response 
delivered in the previous meeting, i.e. that this matter should be referred  to the meeting of the 
Committee on Import Licensing . Indonesia stated that it w ould submit written responses once 
coordination among several of its government agencies is complete.  
58. The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
5  NOTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTI CLE 6.2 OF THE TRIMS AGREEMENT OF PUBLICATIONS IN 
WHICH TRIMS MAY BE FOUND  
59. The Chair  recalled that the WTO Secretariat had circulated a reminder regarding Article 6.2 
notifications on 9 February  2022, in document G/TRIMS/W/ 171 and that the Committee had 
received notification s from Tonga  and Thailand  respectively in documents 
G/TRIMS/N/2/Rev. 31/Add. 1 and G/TRIMS/N/2/Rev. 31/Add.2. The Chair urged Members that had 
not yet notified to do so promptly.  
60. The Committee took note  of the information provided.  
6  OTHER BUSINESS  
61. The Chair  took note that no Member requested to raise any issue under "other business".  G/TRIMS/M/51  
- 8 - 
  7  ELECTION OF OFFICERS  
62. The Chair  recalled that Rule 12 of the Rules of Procedures for the TRIMs Committee meetings 
indicates that "The Committee on Trade -Related Investment Measures shall elect a Chairperson and 
a Vice -Chairperson from among the representatives of Members . The election shall take place at the 
first meeting of the year and shall take effect at the end of the meet ing. The Chairperson and 
Vice-Chairperson shall hold office until the end of the first meeting of the following year ." She 
recalled that consultations at the CTG level regarding the selection of the new chair of this Committee 
as well as of other Committee s under the CTG were still under way.  In these circumstances, she 
suggested that the Secretariat send a fax once the CTG has completed its work, indicating the Chair 
identified by the CTG.  The new Chair would be deemed to be elected by the Committee absent  any 
objection.  This approach, which had been taken last year, would obviate the need for an additional 
meeting of the Committee.  
63. On the Vice -Chairperson, the Chair proposed to postpone the election until the new Chair is 
appointed, to hold the usual consultations, and to send the usual communication nominating a new 
vice-Chair who, absent any objection, would be deemed to be elected by the Committee.  
64. The Committee so decided . 
8  DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING  
65. In accordance with past practice, the Chair suggest ed scheduling the next meeting in the 
Autumn  of 202 2, in order to enable participants to plan their work . The Chair proposed a meeting 
on 12 October  2022. 
66. In order to provide Members with ample opportunity to prepare for this meeting, the 
Secretariat would issue the annotated draft agenda three weeks in advance of the meeting, namely 
on 20 September  2022. Members' requests to place items on the annotated dra ft agenda should be 
communicated in writing to the Secretariat at the latest by COB on 19 September  2022. The 
annotated draft agenda would be open to Members' comments until close of business on 
29 September  2022. The airgram convening the meeting would be issued on 30 September  2022. 
67. The Committee took note  of the information provided.  
68. The meeting was adjourned . 
__________