RESTRICTED  
 
 
G/TRIMS/M/50  
2 December  2021 
(21-9079) Page: 1/8 
Committee on Trade -Related Investment Measures   
 
  
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 12 OCTOBER  2021  
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/ 13 dated 1 October  2021. No additional item was raised under "Other 
Business" and the Committee adopted the following agenda:  
1  INDIA – IMPORT RESTRICTION ON AIR CONDITIONERS  ................................ .............  1 
2  INDONESIA – COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF LOCALIZATION MEASURES  .....................  2 
3  INDONESIA - IMPORT RESTRICTION ON C ARPETS AND OTHER TEXTILES  ...................  5 
4  INDONESIA - IMPORT RESTRICTION ON AIR CONDITIONERS  ................................ ..... 6 
5  RUSSIAN FEDERATION - MEASURES IMPLEMENTING RUSSIA'S IMPORT 
SUBSTITUTION POLICY  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 7 
6  NOTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 6.2 OF THE TRIMS AGREEMENT OF 
PUBLICA TIONS IN WHICH TRIMS MAY BE FOUND  ................................ ...........................  8 
7  OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  8 
8  ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS (ARTICLE 7.3)  ...................  8 
9  DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING  ................................ ................................ .......................  8 
2. The Chair recalled that this meeting was being conducted both in -person and online via 
Interprefy , and some  participants were joining remotely . She reminded the remote participants 
of the technical arrangements, before moving on to the substantive part of the meeting.  
1  INDIA – IMPORT RESTRICTION ON AIR CONDITIONERS  
3. The Chair said that this item was on the agenda at the request of Japan . 
4. Japan  consider ed that India's import ban on air conditioners  – including refrigerants  – based on 
Notification No.  41/2015 -2020 is a measure that unreasonably impos es a restructuring of 
corporate supply chains. Japan indicated that it continued  to be strongly concerned that this 
measure is likely to be an import ban that is inconsistent with Article  11.1 of the GATT and 
Article  2.1 of the TRIM s Agreement.  
5. According t o Japan, India had responded at its Trade Policy Review  and at the Council for Trade 
in Goods that the measure is consistent with India 's obligations under the Montreal Protocol. 
However, Japan considered that this import ban is unnecessary and irrational in that it covers 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, under Indian dome stic law.  
6. Japan noted that it had  submitted a written questionnaire in September 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 the Indian side.  G/TRIMS/M/50  
- 2 - 
  7. Regarding air conditioners,  Japan stated that  the IS standard certification system is scheduled 
to be implemented in January 2022, based on the Quality Control Orders for air conditioners and 
their parts. Japan stated that , since the Bureau of Indian Standar ds (BIS) is no longer conducting 
overseas factory inspections, and the certification procedure for imported products has not 
progressed, it was  concerned that imports may be restricted if this situation continues.  Japan 
requested India to  consider (1) extending  the enforcement date and (2) alternative procedures 
for certification other than overseas factory inspections.  
8. India thanked Japan for the questions it had posed and acknowledged receipt of those questions. 
India noted that, at the previous TRIM s Committee meeting in March 2021, it had responded to 
Japan's concerns by stating that these concerns did not pertain to trade -related investment 
measures. In light of the questions that Japan had again tabled in the TRIMs Committee on this 
matter, India reiterated its response that these concerns should be raised elsewhere in the 
appropriate forum and not in the TRIM s Committee. India indicated that it had taken note that 
this matter had again been raised by Japan in the TRIMs Committee and h ad transmitted this 
back to capital. India's main comment, however, was that the TRIMs Committee is not the 
appropriate forum to discuss this matter.  
9. The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
2  INDONESIA – COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF LOCALIZATION MEASURES   
10. The Chair recalled that this item , which was first considered by the Committee in May 2019 , was 
on the agenda at the request of the United States , the European Union and Japan . 
11. The United States  stated that the  Committee was well aware of the longstanding  concerns with 
Indonesia 's broad and expanding use of local content requirements across the 
telecommunications, mobile technology, energy, textiles, retail, and franchising sectors. The 
United States  stated that it  and other Members had been raising these concerns for over a 
decade now and  regret ted having to again rais e them  at the present Committee meeting . The 
United States indicated that it would focus its remarks on:  
• recent reports from the WTO Secretariat and World Bank that again underscore the 
damaging nature of Indonesia 's local content requirements; and  
• recent statements by Indonesian ministers indicating that, in spite of these reports, 
Indonesia intends to expand its use of local content requirements.  
12. The United States stated that , in the pa st year, it had  seen several reports highlighting the 
damaging nature of Indonesia 's local content policies. The United States indicated that  the 
findings in these reports were not new, but it urged the Indonesian delegation to consider them 
carefully. The United States considered the following to be notable : 
• The WTO Secretariat Report for Indonesia 's 2020 Trade Policy Review summarized 
Indonesia 's continued use of local content requirements and noted "the long -standing 
and predominantly negative evidence o f the impact of LCRs on economic development 
and trade. " 
• The World Bank, in a 2020 report on Indonesia, stated that Indonesia 's local content 
requirements in the solar energy sector increase costs and reduce quality.  
• And the World Bank, in a separate 2018 report, 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. " 
13. The United States stated that, i n the face of the chorus of concerns  expressed in these reports 
and by Members in the present  Committee, it was unfortunate that Indonesia continue d to 
expand its use of local content requirements. The United States noted  the following alarming 
updates from just the past few months:  G/TRIMS/M/50  
- 3 - 
  • In June, Indonesia 's Ministry of Industry announced that it is drafting regulations to 
tighten and further expand local con tent requirements for laptops.  
• In August, the Indonesian government announced plans to suppress imports, including 
through the use of local content requirements, with the goal of "substitut[ing] 35 percent 
of imported products " by 2022.  
• And in September, I ndonesia 's ICT Minister hailed existing local content requirements 
for 4G cell phones as a success for reducing imports, and announced plans to apply a 
30 percent local content requirement to 5G devices.  
14. As a practical matter, the United States  asked that Indonesia provide the Committee with further 
information on these planned policies.  The United States also strongly urge d Indonesia to 
reconsider moving forward with them, and to reconsider its use of local content requirements 
generally.  According to the United States,  such requirements run counter to Indonesia 's own 
interests . Though they may help the government achieve certain short -term objectives, the 
United States considered that they seriously undermine Indonesia 's own long -term 
competitiveness. The United States indicated that  this is a sentiment it hears frequently from 
U.S. companies interested in entering the Indonesian market, but discouraged by such policies.  
15. The United States indicated that it  stood ready to work with Indonesia to discuss and develop 
alternate policies that encourage rather than mandate investment, and it thank ed the Indonesian 
delegation in advance for its careful consideration of the United States' remarks . 
16. The European Union  noted  that concerns on the wide -ranging localisation requirements applied 
by Indonesia have long been on the agenda of this Committee.  The European Union welcomed 
the improvement that had taken place, since the last discussion in the Committee, with regard 
to the conditions in the retail sector, with the adoption of Regulation 23/2021 by the Minister of 
Trade which removes the mandatory 80% requirement for domestic products.  However, the 
European Union expressed regret that no progress had taken place with regar d to similar 
measures applied in the other sectors discussed in the previous meetings of this Committee, 
and reiterate d its serious concerns on this issue . 
17. Regarding the pharmaceutical sector, the European Union stated that it was interested in the 
adoptio n of new Minister of Industry Regulation No 16 of 2020 on the calculation of local content 
levels for pharmaceutical products. The European Union continued to be interested to understand 
how the regulations would apply "to government procurement only ". The European Union noted 
that the regulation had not yet been notified to the WTO.  
18. The European Union stated that it was concerned that the imposition of arbitrary local content 
percentages, to be met under limited time -frames , will create an impossible condi tion and will 
bar most of the players from the market in a situation where , to its knowledge , Indonesia was 
still importing over 95% of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients. The European Union stated that 
it stands ready to support Indonesia's objective on im proving healthcare and promoting the 
development of the local pharma industry. However, the European Union stated its belief that,  
rather than imposing local content requirements , the Government should focus on policies that 
will incentivise more domestic and foreign investment in local pharma industry.  
19. Regarding certain local content provisions in the energy sector (mining, oil and gas), the 
European Union stated that it continued 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 in Decree No 1953/2018.  The European Union stated that it was also 
concerned that – according to the Regulation 34/2017 – the license holders are required to 
"prioritise the utilisation of domestic goods and services according to the prevailing laws and 
regulations " (Art.31). Given that foreign companies are not regarded as providing "domestic 
services " in this regulation even if they are locally incorporated, the  European Union considered 
that this measure de facto creates discrimination.  
20. The European Union also indicated that it would  appreciate being  updated on the revision of the 
Mining Law. According to the European Union's understanding,  the revised law had been adopted 
in May 2020, and includes obligations for mining license holder to prioritise the use of domestic G/TRIMS/M/50  
- 4 - 
  goods and services. The European Union welcomed  further information from the authorities in 
this respect.  
21. With respect to local content requiremen ts and the new Omnibus Law on Job Creation, the 
European Union indicated that it would appreciate any update on how the Omnibus Law and its 
implementing regulations would impact the current legislations on local content requirements, 
and if so, in which se ctors.  
22. Japan  concurred with  the concerns expressed by other Members on the fact that local content  
measures have been introduced and maintained in various areas in Indonesia . Japan indicated 
that it was  particularly interested in local content  measures for (i) 4G LTE mobile devices, 
(ii) TVs, (iii) retailers, and (iv) franchise businesses . 
23. According to Japan, Indonesia had repeatedly explained , citing its response to Indonesia 's recent 
Trade Policy Revie w, that local content  measures in general are being implemented in relation 
to 1) government procurement,  2) policies which  involve fulfilling the need s to maintain all of 
the Indonesian people 's welfare and their life necessities or  3) policies which  involve state -
managed strategic resources.  In this respect , Japan reiterated that, among the local content  
measures , those that fall under  1) "government procurement" appeared  to be limited. In 
addition, Japan considered that it should be pointed out that 2) "fulfilling the needs to maintain 
their life necessities etc." and  3) "securing strategic resources" cannot be grounds to 
immediately justify local content  measures under the WTO Agreement. Japan understood  the 
importance of these objectives, but consider ed that taking local content  measures as an easy 
means to achieve them should not be permitted . 
24. Japan noted that, a lthough Indonesia had stated at previous TRIMs Committee meetings that 
Indonesia  would always ensure that its investment regulations contribute to the ease of 
investment procedures and  an increase in inbound investment , local content  measures have an 
adverse effect on investment companies by limiting procurement routes for items such as 
products, parts, and raw materials . 
25. Japan found it regrettable that Indonesia mentioned at the previous meeting of the TRIMs 
Committee  that Indonesia  did not have any plan to revise the localization measures in the near 
future , in spite of the fact that  these local content  measures are likely to be inconsistent with 
Article III.4 of the GATT and Artic le 2.1  of the TRIM s Agreement. Japan asked  Indonesia to 
respond appropriately to the specific concerns of Members, and to r ectify these  measures in a 
manner  that is consistent with the WTO Agreement.  
26. Australia  supported the statements by the United States, the European Union and Japan on 
Indonesia 's localisation requirements. In particular, Australia shared the concerns expressed by 
other Members on localisat ion measures in Indonesia on minimum local product requirement for 
the retail sector as well as local content provisions in the energy sector (Mining, Oil and Gas). 
In relation to the 2020 revisions to the Mining Law, Australia reiterated its concerns rega rding 
local processing requirements. Australia noted that Article 106 of the revised Mining Law requires 
licence holders to prioritise the utilisation of local labour, goods, and services in the country in 
accordance with the provisions of the legislation.  According to Australia, the measure adversely 
impacts the ability of Australian companies to obtain inputs of sufficient quality. Australia 
indicated that it would again welcome an update on the implications of implementing the new 
Mining Law in terms of consistency with Indonesia 's obligations under the TRIMs Agreement.  
27. Indonesia  thanked the United States, European Union, Japan, as well as Australia, for their 
continued interest in Indonesia as an investment destination for their businesses. Indonesia 
acknowledged Members ' concerns on Indonesia 's measures on the level of domestic content . In 
this regard, Indonesia reiterated its views that its measures had been put in place:  
• first, in relation to government procurement,  
• second, in relation to policies whic h involve fulfilling the needs to maintain Indonesian 
people 's welfare and their life necessities, or  
• third, in relation to policies which involve state -managed strategic resources.  G/TRIMS/M/50  
- 5 - 
  28. In relation to the comprehensive review, Indonesia wished to inform Member s that it had 
initiated several reviews on its measures regarding the level of domestic content,  the process of 
which remained ongoing.  
29. Indonesia also indicated that import data related to the concerned products from 2016 -20, in 
general, d id not show any decline. Instead, according to Indonesia, it had only shown a positive 
trend. Hence, for Indonesia, it seemed that the concerned measures had no impact on the flow 
of imported goods into Indonesia. As an export and investment destination cou ntry, Indonesia 
indicated that it is committed to improve its business climate through the simplification of 
regulations and procedures. For Indonesia, this aims to facilitate investors and improv e its 
economy in harmony with Indonesia's commitment in TRIM s Agreement and its goals.  
30. The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
3  INDONESIA ‒ IMPORT RESTRICTION ON CARPETS AND OTHER TEXTILES   
31. 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 and the European Union . 
32. 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, a s a result, the export volume of textile products 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 
the TRIMs Agreement.  
33. Japan also noted that , in February 2021, the safeguard measure for carpets (and other textile 
floor coverings) had been  imposed. Accordin g to Japan, h owever,  the period of investigation 
(POI) under  this measure had been set to 2017 -19, which was immediately prior to  the above-
mentioned import decrease . Japan considered that, a s a result, ‘incre ased imports ' were found 
by the Indonesian inve stigating authority without considering the drastic decrease in import 
volumes due to the import registration/approval system. Furthermore, according to Japan, this 
measure involved  impos ing about 150 to 200% tariffs in ad valorem  conversion. Japan 
conside red 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 ". 
34. Japan expressed  serious concerns about these measures and recalled that it had expressed its 
concerns on various occasions, including meetings of the TRIMs Committee. Japan request ed 
once again that Indonesia abolish them as soon as possible.  
35. The European Union  stressed its serious concerns on 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 can obtain licences. The European Union stated that th is 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 
appeared to be inconsistent with WTO rules.  
36. In light of th is, 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.  
37. In addition, the European Union shared Japan's concer ns about the continuous 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.  G/TRIMS/M/50  
- 6 - 
  38. The United States  shared the concerns of Japan and  the European Union about the local content 
requirements in this sector that were introduced in 2019. According to the United States, i n the 
past couple of years Indonesia ha d established local content requirements that effectively 
banned imports of finish ed textile products classified in 430 HS codes. United States 
stakeholders had reported that the sudden implementation of these requirements resulted in 
disrupted contracts with customers in Indonesia and had hindered their ability to bid on relevant 
new t enders.  The United States looked forward to hearing Indonesia's response to the concerns 
expressed by Japan and the European Union, and urged Indonesia to rethink this disruptive 
policy.  
39. Indonesia  thanked Japan, the European Union , and the United States fo r their interest with 
regard to Indonesia 's import regulation on the concerned products. With regard to certain 
textiles products, Indonesia stated that it continued to coordinate among related government  
agencies, and undertook to give further information  on this aforementioned provision after the 
review by the Government of Indonesia.  
40. In the meantime, Indonesia sought Japan 's clarification on how its concern regarding the 
safeguard and import licensing requirements would be viewed as falling  under  the TRI Ms 
Agreement. Indonesia also sought to ascertain Japan 's view as to whether this Committee would 
the most suitable forum to address this issue.  
41. The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
4  INDONESIA ‒ IMPORT RESTRICTION ON AIR CONDITIONERS  
42. 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.  
43. Japan  stated that, with regard to the import restrictions on air conditioners b ased on the Ministry 
of Trade Regulation 68/2020, it appreciated the improvement on approved quantities. However, 
Japan considered that there are cases where the approved quantity is considerably limited 
compared with the time when this measure was first i ntroduced. Moreover, Japan stated that it 
was still faced with the problem that the reason for limiting the quantity and the judgment 
criteria are unclear. Therefore, Japan expressed its concern that this measure was still an import 
restriction and may vio late both Article XI.1 of the GATT and Article 2 .1 of the TRIM s Agreement. 
Japan expected this measure to be operated in a manner that ensures it does not effectively 
equate to a form of import restriction. In this connection, Japan also expected permit st andards 
and procedures to be stipulated more transparently.  
44. According to Japan, Indonesia claim ed that this measure was not an issue to be dealt with at 
the TRIM s Committee. Japan noted, however, that i n the past  it had received an oral explanation 
from In donesia declaring that it could consider preferential import approval for companies that 
state they are ready to invest in Indonesia. According to Japan, therefore,  this measure may be 
subject to the TRIM s Agreement. Japan further stated that, i f Indonesia  claims that it has never 
requested domestic investment as a condition of import approval and does not intend to do so 
in the future, Japan would like Indonesia to clearly express that point.  
45. Japan  welcome d Indonesia's expression of its willingness to resp ond to a written questionnaire 
at the previous meeting of the TRIM s Committee.  Japan noted that,  in response to this, it had  
submitted a written questionnaire in September regarding the operational status of this 
measure, and it expected  a prompt response from the Indonesian side.  
46. The European Union  stated that it  supports 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 inte rventions in this context  in other WTO Committees  and 
had questioned the compatibility of the licensing regime with the WTO legal framework.  
47. Indonesia  thanked  Japan and the European Union for their interest in Indonesia's  import 
regulation on the concerned products.  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 G/TRIMS/M/50  
- 7 - 
  Licensing, since Indonesia  believe d that this would be the  most suitable forum to discuss the 
matter.  
48. The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
5  RUSSIAN FEDERATION ‒ MEASURES IMPLEMENTING RUSSIA'S IMPORT SUBSTITUTION 
POLICY   
49. The Chair recalled that this item , which was first considered by the Committee in Ju ne 2016, 
was on the agenda at the request of the United States . 
50. The United States  express ed concern over the trajectory of Russia 's regime and its consistency 
with the TRIM s Agreement.  According to the United States, a t the last meeting the delegate 
from Russia reported that their  government was preparing written responses to its questions 
contained in documents G/TRIMS/Q/RUS/6, G/TRIMS/Q/RUS/8 and G/TRIMS/Q/RUS/10. The 
United States requested  Russia to  give an update o n its responses to those questions . 
51. The United States recalled that it (and others) had raised concerns about a variety of measures 
adopted by Russia that close its market to global trade and implement an ever -broadening 
import substitution regime , includi ng: 
• Decree No. 925, requiring that SOEs give a 15% price preference to domestic 
competitors for many products;  
• Decree No. 878, requiring that SOEs provide a 30% preference to Russian -made radio -
electronic products;  
• Federal Law No. 250 and Resolution No. 20 13, establishing a minimum quota 
(sometimes as high as 90 percent) of over 150 domestically -produced products;  
• Federal Law No. 425, mandating the pre -installation of locally developed Russian 
software on certain consumer electronic products.  
• Resolution No. 550, clarifying that "Russian solutions in the field of information 
technology " includes "import substitution of foreign software and (or) hardware 
systems. " 
• Strategy of Digital Transformation, setting forth an agenda to support the domestic  
digital industry, in part through import substitution.  
52. The United States added two new items to this list : Resolution No. 2013 mandating minimum 
share of purchases of goods of Russian origin, with quotas ranging from 40% to 90%; and 
Resolution No. 1619 of fering subsidies for the purchase of Russian radio -electronic product with 
a 70% local content requirement for the project.  
53. According to the United States, w hen it raised these concerns at the meeting of the TRIMs  
Committee in March, the delegate from Russ ia asserted that these policies were not meant to 
substitute imports but only to increase competitiveness. However, the United States reiterated 
its point in March that many of the Russian measures explicitly identify, in their titles, import 
substitution as the goal of measure. According to the United States,  the Deputy Prime Minister 
of the Russian Federation, Dmitry Chernyshenko, in talking about directives concerning 
digitalization of state -owned enterprises, was quite direct that "The task of the direc tives is to 
scale and structure digitalization and import substitution activities  …". The United States 
requested Russia to explain how these measures, which senior Russian Government officials 
recognize as import substitution, comport with Russia 's obliga tions under the TRIM s Agreement.  
54. Russia  stated that, f irst of all, it should be recalled that this item had remained  on the agenda 
of the TRIMs  Committee since 2015. According to Russia, the WTO Members that had requested 
it have raised concerns about cert ain measures/legal acts, to which they had referred as "import 
substitution policy ". Russia stated that,  in their interventions , these Members had requested 
clarifications about the parameters of operation of the measures, as well as their consistency G/TRIMS/M/50  
- 8 - 
  with the WTO obligations of the Russian Federation.  Russia considered that, g iven this issue ha d 
already been discussed  on numerous occasions , it wishe d to refer the Members to its earlier 
clarifications within the TRIMs  Committee and during bilateral contacts.  
55. Second, regarding  the written questions, Russia thanked  the delegation of the United States for 
the ones in document G/TRIMS/Q/RUS/10. Although Russia had  not yet submitted written 
replies, it wished to refer back  to oral clarifications made during the previous the previous TRIM s 
Committee meetings. As for the written replies, Russia  planned to submit them as soon as they 
are finished.  
56. The Committe e took note  of the statements made.  
6  NOTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 6.2 OF THE TRIMS AGREEMENT OF PUBLICATIONS IN 
WHICH TRIMS MAY BE FOUND   
57. The Chair recalled that the WTO Secretariat had circulated a reminder regarding Article 6.2 
notifications on 31 August 2 021 in document G/TRIMS/W/1 70, noting that the full list of 
notifications received to date is contained in document G/TRIMS/N/2/Rev.3 1, circulated on 
11 October 2021.  The Chair urged Members that had not yet notified to do so promptly.  
58. The Committee took n ote of the information provided.  
7  OTHER BUSINESS  
59. The Chair took note that no Member had requested any item under "other business".   
8  ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS (ARTICLE 7.3)  
60. The Chair recalled that the draft Annual report for 2021 had been placed for Members' 
consideration as a room document on "Documents for Meetings" on the WTO website on 
1 October 2021 as RD/TRIMS/29 . The Chair noted that t he only change made to this draft 
concern ed the reference number of the document containing the list of notifications under 
Article  6.2: since the most recent version of this document had been  circulated on 
11 October  2021, the reference number now read G/TRIMS/N/2/Rev.31 instead of 
G/TRIMS/N/2/Rev .30. The Chair noted that the Secretariat had not received any written 
comments from any Member on the draft report , and the Chair opened  the floor for comments 
on the report and its annexes. In the absence of any comments in this regard, the Chair moved 
to adopt the Annual Report of the Committee for the year 2021 and noted that the report would 
be circulated in usual the "G/L/… " document series.  
9  DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING  
61. In accordance with past practice, the Chair suggested scheduling the next meeting in the Spring  
of 202 2, in order to enable participants to plan their work . The Chair proposed a meeting on 
23 March 2022 . 
62. 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 
1 March 2022 . Members' requests to place items on the annotated draft agenda should be 
communicated in writing to the Secretariat at the latest by COB on 25 February 2 022. The 
annotated draft agenda would be open to Members' comments until close of business on 
9 March  2022. The airgram convening the meeting would be issued on 11 March 2022 . 
63. The Committee took note  of the information provided.  
64. The meeting was adjourned . 
__________