RESTRICTED  
  
G/TRIMS/M/49  
25 May 2021 
(21-4330) Page: 1/9 
Committee on Trade -Related Investment Measures   
 
  
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 23 MARCH 2021  
CHAIR: MR  MANUEL CHACÓN (COLOMBIA)  
1. The Chair started the meeting of the Committee by referring to the proposed agenda circulated 
in WTO/AIR/TRIMS/12 dated 12  March  2021. No additional item was raised under "Other Business" 
and the Committee adopted the following agenda:  
 
1  INDONESIA - COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF LOCALIZATION MEASURES  ......................  1 
2  INDONESIA  - IMPORT RESTRICTION ON CARPETS AND OTHER TEXTILES  ...................  5 
3  INDONESIA - IMPORT RESTRICTION ON AIR CONDITIONERS  ................................ ..... 5 
4  RUSSIAN FEDERATION - MEASURES IMPLEMENTING RUSSIA'S IMPORT 
SUBSTITUTION POLICY  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 6 
5  INDIA - IMPORT RESTRICTIO N ON AIR CONDITIONERS  ................................ ..............  8 
6  INDIA - IMPORT RESTRICTION ON TIRES  ................................ ................................ .... 8 
7  NOTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 6.2 OF THE TRIMS AGREEMENT OF 
PUBLICATIONS IN WHICH TRIMS MAY BE FOUND  ................................ ...........................  9 
8  OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  9 
9  DATE OF THE N EXT MEETING  ................................ ................................ .......................  9 
 
 
2. The Chair recalled that this was a virtual meeting, in which all participants were joining 
remotely . He reminded the remote participants of the technical arrangements, before moving on to 
the substantive part of the meeting.  
1  INDONESIA - COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF LOCA LIZATION MEASURES  
3. The Chair  said that this item was on the agenda at the request of the United States, the 
European Union and Japan . 
4. The delegate of the United States  started his statement by acknowledging the Indonesian 
government's recent issuance of Pre sidential Regulation 10/2021, amending its Negative Investment 
List. He understood that under this regulation, Indonesia had reduced the number of business lines 
subject to foreign investment restrictions and had established new incentives, such as tax all owances 
and tax breaks, for investments in "priority" industries.  
5. The United States underscored its support for policies like this, which encouraged – rather 
than mandated – investment . Such policies were in Indonesia's best interest, and unlike the local G/TRIMS/M/49  
- 2 - 
  content requirements to be discussed that day, they did not raise the same concerns about 
consistency with the TRIMS agreement.  
6. The United States nevertheless reiterated its deep concern about Indonesia's use of 
localization requirements across a broad and  expanding range of sectors, including 
telecommunications, mobile technology, energy, textiles, retail, and franchising . The United States 
and other Members had been raising these issues for at least a decade and it would not be an 
exaggeration to note tha t a seemingly endless flow of measures mandating purchase of local goods 
has had an extremely negative impact on Indonesia's reputation among investors . The United States 
referred to some of Indonesia's measures.  
7. With regard to 4G LTE measures, the United States continued to remain deeply concerned 
about the adoption and implementation of local content requirements for 4G LTE mobile devices and 
base stations . Although Members had raised concerns about this measure for several years, its 
application continue d to expand, and many of the questions posed by the United States remained 
unanswered.  
8. With regard to the energy sector – i.e. oil and gas, and renewable energy – the United States 
indicated that it likewise continued to have concerns with investment restr ictions in Indonesia's 
energy sector, including now renewables, as many of the policies that it had expressed concern 
about in the extractive industry were emerging in the renewables sector . The United States stated 
that, despite trying to find a solution to the concerns raised in this Committee and bilaterally, these 
policies persisted.  
9. With regard to retailing and franchising, the United States was disappointed that, despite the 
apparent progress made in removing the requirement that 80 % of products sold by retail companies 
be of Indonesian origin, Indonesia continued to require retail companies to "prioritize" Indonesian 
goods . The representative of the United States quoted Indonesia's response that "prioritize" meant 
that an investor must use local goods  whenever possible.  
10. With regard to telecommunications, the United States' delegate noted that Indonesia had been 
working on implementing domestic content requirements for licensed telecommunication services 
suppliers for many years . In 2009, Indonesia's Mi nistry of Communications and Information 
Technology (KOMINFO) implemented two regulations imposing domestic purchasing requirements 
and had issued several measures in the intervening years to clarify the requirement for locally 
sourced components or servic es. The United States was concerned that Indonesia was now 
expanding these requirements through KOMINFO Regulations 9/2019 and 10/2019 . These 
regulations called for the application of unspecified local content requirements to "wavelength 
division multiplex ing telecommunication tools and/or devices" and "internet protocol network 
telecommunication tools and/or devices ." Despite repeated inquiries, Indonesia had yet to provide 
further information on these concerning measures.  
11. With regard to textiles, the dele gate of the United States expected this issue to be discussed 
in greater detail in the next agenda item . However, he noted that it raised the same concerns as the 
other measures he had just described.  
12. Despite years of complaints by WTO Members about this l ong list of local content 
requirements, the United States was alarmed that Indonesia was expanding local content 
requirements in sectors such as telecommunications, pharmaceuticals, and textiles . These issues 
had been before this Committee for some time an d the United States has repeatedly engaged with 
the Government of Indonesia on these issues in Washington and Jakarta and in other meetings of 
the WTO committees – such as Agriculture and Import Licensing and in the Council for Trade in 
Goods . As shared at  the last meeting of this Committee, the Government of Indonesia has agreed 
to undertake a "comprehensive" review of its local content policies . The United States encouraged 
Indonesia to expeditiously complete this review and to brief this committee on its  results, at the 
next meeting.  
13. The European Union  said that it supported the statement of the United States on this issue.  
14. Regarding the pharmaceutical sector, the European Union was interested in the adoption of a 
new Minister of Industry Regulation No.  16 of 2020 on the calculation of local content levels for G/TRIMS/M/49  
- 3 - 
  pharmaceutical products and in particular how the regulations would apply "to government 
procurement only" . The European Union noted that this regulation had not yet been notified to the 
WTO. 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 its knowledge, Indonesia was still importing over 95 % of 
Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients . The European Union stood ready to support Indonesia's objective 
of improving healthcare and promoting the development of the local pharma industry . However, it 
believed that rather than imp ose local content requirements, Indonesia should focus on policies that 
incentivise more domestic and foreign investment in the local pharma industry.  
15. Regarding certain local content provisions in the energy sector (mining, oil and gas), the 
European Union  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 was also concerned that - accord ing to Regulation 
34/2017 - license holders were required to "prioritize the utilisation of local employees and domestic 
goods and services according to the prevailing laws and regulations" (Art.31) . Given that foreign 
companies were not regarded as provid ing "domestic services" in this regulation even if they were 
locally incorporated, the European Union considered that this measure de facto created 
discrimination . Furthermore, the delegate of the European Union asked for an update on the revision 
of the M ining Law . The European Union understood that the revised law had been adopted in 
May 2020, with obligation for mining license holders to prioritize the use of local workers and 
domestic goods and services . It said it would welcome any further information from Indonesia.  
16. The European Union also referred to the minimum local product requirement in retail . It 
regretted that the legislation on minimum local content requirements was still in force . It reiterated 
its request to get information on the scope and n umber of exemptions granted under the relevant 
legislation . It said it would also appreciate further information as to the Government's intentions 
regarding possible updates or amendments to the legislation in this sector.  
17. Finally, the delegate of the Euro pean Union took note of the adoption of the new Omnibus Law 
on Job Creation . She wondered if the new Omnibus Law had an impact on the Trade and Industry 
law of 2014, already mentioned in this Committee . She said she would appreciate an update on how 
the Om nibus Law impacts the current legislations on local content requirements, and if so, in which 
sectors.  
18. Japan  upheld the concerns expressed by other Members on the fact that local content 
requirements had been introduced and maintained in various areas in I ndonesia . Japan was 
particularly interested in LCR measures for (i) 4G LTE mobile devices, (ii) TV, (iii) retailers and 
(iv) franchise businesses and (v) general rules regarding LCR for the Trade Law.  
19. In its response to Indonesia's recent Trade Policy Revi ew, Indonesia explained that 
LCR measures in general were being implemented in relation to i) government procurement, 
ii) policies which involve fulfilling the needs to maintain all of the Indonesian people's welfare and 
their life necessities or iii) poli cies which involve state -managed strategic resources . However, 
among the LCR measures for which concerns had been expressed, those that fall under 
i) "government procurement" seemed to be limited . In addition, Japan pointed out that ii) "fulfilling 
the nee ds to maintain their life necessities etc" and iii) "securing strategic resources" could not 
immediately justify LCR measures under the WTO agreement . Japan understood the importance of 
these objectives but considered that taking LCR measures as an easy me ans to achieve them should 
not be allowed.  
20. Furthermore, in its response to its Trade Policy Review, Indonesia had stated that the 
obligation required by LCR measures for retailers and franchise businesses meant that the national 
contribution value and corp orate contribution value were 40 % or more . Japan asked Indonesia to 
explain the definition and details of national contribution value and corporate contribution value . In 
addition, regarding Indonesia's explanation in the Trade Policy Review that imports w ere allowed 
only if they could not be procured domestically under these LCR measures, Japan was concerned 
that such a priority purchase obligation for domestic products would be clearly inconsistent with 
Article 2.1 of the TRIMS Agreement.  G/TRIMS/M/49  
- 4 - 
  21. Japan recalled t hat, in its responses in the Trade Policy Review and at the previous TRIMs 
meeting, Indonesia had explained that it was working on a comprehensive review of various LCR 
measures, and that it was proceeding with harmonizing a set of regulations . Japan asked  Indonesia 
to reply to Members' questions on issues such as concrete work contents and progress being made 
this regard and the work process of the overall comprehensive review.  
22. Australia  reiterated its concerns on Indonesia's local content requirements . The representative 
of Australia noted the ongoing challenges that COVID presents and said that it would welcome any 
update on Indonesia's review.  
23. Regarding 4G LTE local content requirements, Australia remained interested in this issue and 
was monitoring the status and implementation of the regulations, including in other 
WTO Committees . Australia understood that Minister of Industry Regulation 65/2016, in effect from 
27 July 2016, imposes local content requirements for both physical hardware as well as softwa re 
and applications and Australia looked forward to clarifications on how this measure, as well as 
Regulation No.  69, and the local content requirements contained in both, were consistent with the 
WTO TRIMs Agreement.  
24. Australia mentioned the revision to th e 2009 Mining Law regarding ownership divestment 
requirements as well as local processing requirements . Australia looked forward to an update on the 
implications of the new Mining Law in terms of consistency with Indonesia's obligations under the 
TRIMs Agr eement.  
25. Concerning the Industry Law and Trade Law, Australia recalled earlier discussions and 
Indonesia's advice from previous meetings . Australia remained interested in what this means for 
Indonesia's use of trade remedy measures . Australia sought an upda te on how Indonesia intends to 
issue its implementing regulations and to reassure Members that it was taking into account its WTO 
obligations in drafting such regulations.  
26. Australia also indicated that it remained interested in Indonesia's local content requirements 
in the retail sector . While some exemptions were provided for in certain circumstances, the local 
content requirements would still distort trade across a range of goods in which Australia had an 
interest . Australia was seeking assurances that Indonesia implemented these measures in a manner 
consistent with its obligations under the TRIMs Agreement and thanked Indonesia for updating the 
Committee on any developments in implementation.  
27. The representative of Indonesia  thanked the d elegations concerned for their interest in 
Indonesia as a destination for investments . He referred Members to the written replies given by 
Indonesia during its Trade Policy Review . He reiterated the position that Indonesia's localization 
measures were in p lace only in relation to government procurement or policies which involve fulfilling 
the needs to maintain all of Indonesia people's welfare and their life necessities ; or policies which 
involve state -managed strategic resources . He also confirmed the answ er given during the Trade 
Policy Review that Indonesia did not have any plan to revise the localization measures in the near 
future.  
28. However, as one of the most vibrant investment destinations in the region, Indonesia would 
always ensure that its investmen t regulations contribute to the ease of investment procedures and 
increase the inbound investment.  
29. On pharmaceutical and medical devices sector, the Indonesian delegate referred members to 
the communication in G/TRIMS/Q/IDN/8 . He also pointed out that the COVID -19 pandemic had 
shown the palpable condition of health care system of all members, especially developing and 
least-developed countries members . For many developing and LDCs members that heavily relied on 
trade and import for the fulfilment of their a ccess to medicine, vaccines and other medical products, 
the problem was inequality, unaffordability and lack of access to these important medical products 
during this life and death situation.  
30. On divestment measures, Indonesia drew members' attention to th e fact that the divestment 
mechanism had been part of the mining law regime since Indonesia open ed its mining industry for 
investment in 1970s . Previously, the divestment was part of the Contract of Work agreed between 
the government and the investor . Both parties entered the agreement with full knowledge and G/TRIMS/M/49  
- 5 - 
  mutual consent, including on the issue of divestment . The enactment of Mining Law No.  4 Year 2009 
brought change where new request for mining was not granted through Contract but through Mining 
License . However, there was no specific changes on the issue of divestment in the New Mining Law 
and its subsequent revision . Those who requested a mining license under the Mining Law fully 
understood that the divestment terms were part of parcel of the licensing  request.  
31. The fact that investors were willing to sign the contract or request a mining license with the 
entailed obligation showed that there was no issue on divestment nor lack of interest from investor 
to invest in the Indonesian mining sector despite t he measure . The licensing regime and divestment 
obligation were part of the specific implementation of Article 33 of Indonesia's Constitution.  
32. The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
2  INDONESIA  - IMPORT RESTRICTION ON CARPETS AND OTHER TEXTILES  
33. The Chair  recalled that this item was on the agenda at the request of Japan.  
34. Japan  recalled that , in December  2019, Ministry of Trade Regulation 77/2019 had introduced 
an import registration/approval system for textile products, substantially banning imports for sales 
to consumers . As 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 had doubts that this 
system was consistent with the national treatmen t 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.  
35. In addition, Japan r ecalled that, in February this year, a safeguard measure for carpets (and 
other textile floor coverings) was imposed . However, this measure imposed about 150 to 200 % 
tariffs in ad valorem conversion, without considering the drastic decrease in import volum es due to 
the import registration/approval system . 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" . Japan had serious concerns abou t these measures and asked Indonesia 
to abolish them as soon as possible.  
36. The United States  shared Japan's concerns about the local content requirements in this sector 
that were introduced in 2019 . In the past couple of years, Indonesia has established loc al content 
requirements that effectively banned imports of finished 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 tenders.  
37. The delegate of the United States said he looked forward to hearing Indonesia's response to 
the concerns expressed by Japan and urged Indonesia to rethink this disruptive policy.  
38. The European Union  took the floor to support Japan's intervention under this item . The 
delegate of the European Union recalled that the European Union had already raised concerns in the 
WTO Licensing Committee about the consistency with the WTO legal framework , of the licensing 
regime in Regulation 77/2019.  
39. The delegate of Indonesia  responded that this item was on the agenda for the first time and 
that his delegation was still in consultation on this issue with capital . He asked Japan and other 
delegations whic h took the floor under this item to send their written statement or questions for 
further perusal.  
40. The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
3  INDONESIA  - IMPORT RESTRICTION ON AIR CONDITIONERS  
41. The Chair  recalled that this item was on the agenda at th e request of Japan.  
42. Japan  stated that under Ministry of Trade Regulation 68/2020 revised last August, air 
conditioners were subject to import restrictions and it was now mandatory to obtain import licenses . G/TRIMS/M/49  
- 6 - 
  However, there were cases where the issuing of li censes had been delayed and the number of 
licenses was limited without any particular rational reasons . Therefore, Japan was concerned that 
this import licensing system was a substantial import restriction inconsistent with Article XI.1 of the 
GATT and Art icle 2.1 of the TRIMS Agreement . Japan asked Indonesia to explain the background for 
introducing this measure and its consistency with the WTO agreements and asked Indonesia to 
abolish the measure.  
43. The European Union  supported the interventions of Japan un der this agenda item.  
44. The delegate of Indonesia  noted that this issue was not relevant under the TRIMs Agreement 
and asked Japan to send its question in writing, so that Indonesia could revert to this issue at the 
next TRIMs meeting.  
45. The Committee took not e of the statements made.  
4  RUSSIAN  FEDERATION  - MEASURES IMPLEMENTING RUSSIA'S IMPORT SUBSTITUTION 
POLICY  
46. The Chair  recalled that this item, which was first considered by the Committee in June  2016, 
was on the agenda at the request of the United States and the European Union.  
47. The European Union  reiterated its concern on the continued utilisation of requirements for 
state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and other entities to grant preferences to domestic goods and 
services from Russian suppliers . Its concerns and re quests voiced at the previous TRIMs meeting on 
October  30, 2020 remained valid . The European delegate  regretted that, in response, it had only 
received a reference to more general exchanges in the context of the Trade Policy Review.  
48. The European Union stat ed that Russia had continued to adopt and implement measures that 
raised serious concerns as to their compliance with GATT and GATS rules . During the Summer of 
2020, the so -called quota bill (i.e., changes to Federal Laws 44 and 223), was adopted by the Ru ssian 
Parliament and entered into force on July  31, 2020 . The bill introduced fixed quotas on purchases of 
foreign products by State entities and SOEs . Following that bill, a government decree n° 2013, was 
adopted on December  3, 2020, establishing the quot as for a wide range of products and services 
and quotas for Russian products reached up to 90 %. 
49. The European Union recalled that, at the last meeting, the Russian Delegation had stated, that 
"these measures [were] aimed at developing innovative high techno logy industrial production and 
strengthening the competitiveness of Russian -made goods" . Since the list was impressive and 
include d 250 lines of customs nomenclature, the delegate of the European Union said she would not 
refer to all the lines, but would l ike to understand, what high technology development was pursued 
when limiting the purchases of gravel, textile, leather, footwear, paper, cardboard or other similar 
items in this list?  
50. The European Union reminded that measures adopted to support the compet itiveness of local 
industry had to comply with GATT/GATS rules of national treatment, applicable to SOEs purchasing 
goods and services for purposes other than governmental.  
51. The delegate of the United States  explained that he had raised its flag again to seek 
clarification about the consistency of some of Russia's recent legislative initiatives with the TRIM s 
Agreement . Before turning to the new questions, while noting responses provided verbally by Russia 
at the previous meeting to questions posed in document G/TRIMS/Q/RUS/10, the delegate of the 
United  States urged Russia to provide these responses expeditiously in writing to ensure they were 
fully understood . He also reminded Russia that it had not replied  to qu estions posed in 
G/TRIMS/Q/RUS/8.  
52. As the United States and other Members had highlighted in the past (and as raised again that 
day by the  EU), the concerns raised under this agenda item stemmed from Russia's increasing use 
of local content and import subst itution requirements to limit investors' choices and distort trade.  
53. In September, the United States had raised concerns about a law, number 425, mandating 
the pre -installation of locally developed Russian software on certain consumer electronic products.  G/TRIMS/M/49  
- 7 - 
  54. Late last year, Law No.  425 was amended to require that the pre -installed browser must 
provide the ability to use "by default" a search engine of the Russian Federation or another member 
of the Eurasian Economic Union, furthering the government's effort to limit choice and dictate private 
commercial arrangements . The delegate of the United States asked Russia to explain to this 
Committee how such a measure was consistent with its obligations under the TRIM s Agreement.  
55.  In addition, as the EU pointed out in S eptember, Russia had adopted a law that allowed it to 
establish a minimum quota of domestically -produced goods that SOEs must purchase.  
56. In response to these concerns, the Russian delegate had directed the members of the 
Committee to paragraphs 73 -99 of the  Working Party Report which described the legislative 
framework that ensured consistency with the WTO obligations . But, for the United States' delegate, 
the Working Party Report reflected the legislative framework as it existed in 2012 . He said that the 
Russian Duma had been very active since then and the legislative landscape had changed 
significantly . The delegate of the United States said that it was worth quoting from paragraph 99, 
which contained very relevant language:  
He [the Russian delegate] confir med in particular, that such enterprises would make 
such purchases and sales in accordance with commercial considerations, including price, 
quality, availability, marketability, and transportation, and would afford enterprises of 
other WTO Members adequate  opportunity in conformity with customary business 
practice, to compete for participation in such purchases or sales.  
57. The delegate of the United States asked Russia to explain how an enterprise of another 
WTO Member could be provided "adequate opportunity…  to complete for participation in such 
purchases or sales" by SOEs when, pursuant to various measures previously cited, SOEs:  
• must give a 15 % price preference to domestic competitors for many products;  
• must provide a 30 % preference to Russian -made radio -electronic products;  
• must work with the Government Commission on Import Substitution to ensure a 
reduction in the dependence on imports;  
• must seek permission from the Commission on Import Substitution to purchase certain 
imported products for use in large in vestment projects ; and 
• must purchase a minimum quota (sometimes as high as 90 %) of over 
150 domestically -produced products.  
58. The United States acknowledged that this list may not be complete, as it seemed to grow 
every year . The United States and other WTO Members had identified a number of trade -restrictive 
measures in this Committee and elsewhere . This list was, however, quite illustrative of the problems 
faced by enterprises of WTO Members.  
59. Finally, the delegate of the United States recalled that, at the last meeting of this Committee, 
the Russian delegate had disagreed with the US characterization of the measures as "import 
substitution" measures . However, in many cases, the Russian government itself had used that 
phrase in the title of various measures, such as the Decree of the Government of the Russian 
Federation "On approval of the Rules for the provision of subsidies from the federal budget to 
participants of industrial clusters to reimburse part of the costs in the implementation of joint 
projects fo r the production of industrial products of the cluster for the purpose of import substitution" 
or the Order of the Ministry of Industry and Trade of Russia "on approval of the sectoral action plan 
for import substitution in the radio -electronic industry of  the Russian Federation".  
60. The delegation of the Russian Federation  responded that her delegation was preparing replies 
to the questions of the United States contained in documents G/TRIMS/Q/RUS/6, G/TRIMS/Q/RUS/8 
and G/TRIMS/Q/RUS/10 . As far as so -called R ussian "import substitution policy" was concerned, she 
reiterated that Russia applied certain measures not to substitute import but to increase 
competitiveness of domestic industry, an approach which was in line with applicable WTO rules . Most 
of these mea sures were applied in governmental procurement . They will be eliminated if and when 
Russia joins the GPA, subject to the terms of accession.  
61. The delegate of the Russian Federation noted that some trading partners were more and more 
engaged into export proh ibition policies, also aimed at securing their own competitive positions or G/TRIMS/M/49  
- 8 - 
  for other similar purposes . Such policies covered goods, technologies, and services . It was not her 
intention to discuss either their consequences for trade and economy or their ju stification in the WTO 
system . However, she was pretty sure, that if justification of restrictions on export side did exist in 
the WTO, the same justification should be valid also for import substitution of a product or service 
or technology that is subjec t to such restrictions.  
62. The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
5  INDIA - IMPORT  RESTRICTION ON AIR CONDITIONERS  
63. The Chair  recalled that this item was on the agenda at the request of Japan.  
64. Japan  considered that India's import ban on air conditioners including refrigerants, introduced 
on October  15 last year, was a measure that unreasonably imposed a restructuring of corporat e 
supply chains . Japan was strongly concerned that this measure was likely to be an import ban 
inconsistent with Article XI.1 of the GATT and Article 2.1 of the TRIM s Agreement.  
65. Although India had responded, during its T rade Policy Review , that the measure  was 
consistent with India's obligations under the Montreal Protocol and regulations on HCFCs (ozone 
depleting substances), the import ban was unnecessary and irrational in that it covered a wide range 
of air conditioners using refrigerants, which were not  subject to India's reduction and elimination 
obligation under the Montreal Protocol and the regulation of the ozone -depleting substance, freon 
gas, under Indian domestic law . If India considered the measure to be justified, India should explain 
the reason s more specifically . Japan called on India to withdraw this measure.  
66. The delegate of India said that he did not see how the measures at issue could be within the 
scope of the TRIMs Agreement . He also indicated that he did not have a statement under this it em, 
since it was the first time it was on the agenda . He asked Japan to provide its statement.  
67. The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
6  INDIA  - IMPORT  RESTRICTION ON TIRES  
68. The Chair  recalled that this item was on the agenda at the request of Japan.  
69. Japan  noted that India had introduced tire import restrictions in Notification 
No. 12/2015 -2020, which came into effect in June  2020. Japan was concerned that this measure 
may be regarded as an import restriction and be inconsistent with Article XI.1 of t he GATT and 
Article  2.1 of the TRIMs Agreement.  
70. Although India had explained at its TPR meeting that this measure dealt with quality and 
safety issues and was consistent with the GATT, the procedure of confirming the quality and safety 
of imported products was not stipulated under relevant laws and regulations . In this regard, in order 
to ensure transparency and predictability for exporters, the conditions on import licenses and the 
details of the procedures, including quality and safety standards t o be observed, needed to be clearly 
defined . Japan had serious concerns about these measures . Therefore, Japan asked India to explain 
why it considered this measure was consistent with the GATT and TRIMs agreements.  
71. The European Union  said it shared Japan' s concerns regarding the restrictive and 
discriminatory nature of the import licencing regime for tires introduced by Notification 
No. 12/2015 -2020 on "Amendment in Import Policy of Tyres" of June  2020. The delegate of the 
European Union recalled that the European Union had already made interventions in this context 
and had expressed concerns regarding the compatibility of the licensing regime with the WTO legal 
framework in various WTO Committees in the course of 2020, namely the WTO Licensing and Market 
Access Committees . The European Union joined Japan's call of greater transparency with respect to 
the import licencing conditions and the applicable procedures.  
72. The delegate of India thanked the delegations which had taken the floor on this item . He did 
not see how the measures at issue could be within the scope of the TRIMs Agreement but asked the 
European Union and Japan to provide their statements.  G/TRIMS/M/49  
- 9 - 
  73. The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
7  NOTIFICATIONS  UNDER ARTICLE 6.2 OF THE TRIMS AGREEMENT OF PU BLICATIONS IN 
WHICH TRIMS MAY BE FOUND  
74. The Chair  recalled that the WTO Secretariat had circulated a reminder regarding Article 6.2 
notifications on 4  March  2021 in document G/TRIMS/W/169 and that the Committee had received 
new notifications from Turkey and Guinea reflected respectively in documents 
G/TRIMS/N/2/Rev.29/Add.1 and G/TRIMS/N/2/Re v.30/Add.1 . The Chair urged Members that had 
not yet notified to do so promptly.  
75. The Committee took note  of the information provided.  
8  OTHER  BUSINESS  
76. The Chair  took note that no Member had requested any item under "other business".  
9  DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING  
77. Before turning to the date of the next meeting, the Chair  made a statement regarding the 
election of the next Chairperson of the TRIMs Committee . The Chair indicated that the consultation 
at the CTG's level regarding the selection of the new chair of this Committee, as well as of other 
subsidiary bodies under the CTG, was still underway, so the Committee could not elect a new Chair 
at the end of this meeting . The Chair therefore proposed that the Secretariat send a fax once the 
CTG has completed its work, i ndicating the Chair -designate identified by the CTG . The new 
Chair -designate would be deemed to be elected by the Committee absent any objection . This 
approach would obviate the need for an additional meeting of the Committee for that purpose.  
78. The Committe e agreed . 
79. In accordance with past practice, the Chair suggested scheduling the next meeting in the 
Autumn of 2021, in order to enable participants to plan their work . The Chair proposed a meeting 
on 12 October  2021. 
80. In order to provide Members with ample o pportunity to prepare for this meeting, the 
Secretariat would issue the annotated draft agenda three weeks in advance of the meeting, namely 
on 20 September  2021. Members' requests to place items on the annotated draft agenda should be 
communicated in writ ing to the Secretariat at the latest by COB on 17 September  2021. The 
annotated draft agenda would be open to Members' comments until close of business on 
29 September  2021. The airgram convening the meeting would be issued on 1 October  2021. 
81. The Committee  took note  of the information provided.  
82. The meeting was adjourned . 
 
__________