RESTRICTED  
  
G/TRIMS/M/53  
3 April 2023 
(23-2327) Page: 1/13 
Committee on Trade -Related Investment Measures   
 
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON  
23 FEBRU ARY 2023  
CHAIR : Ms Debora Maria PONCE OGALDEZ (GUATEMALA ) 
1. The Chair started the meeting of the Committee by referring to the proposed agenda circulated 
in WTO/AIR/TRIMS/1 6 dated 13 February  2023. No additional item was raised under "Other 
Business" and the Committee adopted  the following agenda:  
1  CHINA – DRAFT OF CHINESE RECOMMENDED NATIONAL STANDARD (GB/T) FOR 
OFFICE DEVICES (INFORMATION SECURITY TECHNOLOGY -SECURITY SPECIFICATION 
FOR OFFICE DEVICES)  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 3 
2  CHINA – THE GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT LAW OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF 
CHINA (THE AMENDMENT DRAFT)  ................................ ................................ ................  4 
3  INDIA – IMPORT RESTRICTIONS ON AIR CONDITIONERS  ................................ .........  5 
4  INDONESIA – COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF LOCALISATION MEASURES  ....................  6 
5  INDONESIA – IMPORT RESTRICTIONS ON CARPETS AND OTHER TEXTILES  ................  8 
6  INDONESIA – IMPORT RESTRICTIONS ON AIR CONDITIONERS  ................................ . 9 
7  NOTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE  6.2 OF THE TRIMS AGREEMENT OF PUBLICATIONS 
IN WHICH TRIMS MAY BE FOUND  ................................ ................................ ...............  10 
8  REPORTING BY THE CHAIRPERSON TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE REPORTS SUBMITTED 
TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE COMMITTEE AND 
THE RESPONSE TO THE PANDEMIC  ................................ ................................ .............  10 
9  OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 12 
10  DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING  ................................ ................................ ................  13 
11  ELECTION OF OFFICERS  ................................ ................................ .......................  13 
2. Following the adoption of the agenda for the meeting, Canada  requested the floor . The 
delegate of Canada  said that the date of 24 February  2023 marked one year since Russia 's illegal 
invasion of Ukraine, an event that has had catastrophic effects on Ukraine, its neighbours, and 
people around the world . For a year, Ukraine had endured staggering levels of destruction and 
human suffering, and its ability to participate in the global trading s ystem ha d been severely 
impaired . The delegate of Canada said that t he consequences of Russia 's actions extended well 
beyond Ukraine 's borders . She added that f or the past 12 months, all of us had lived with rising 
inflation, increasing supply chain instability, and food and energy insecurity . The global community 
needed to stand united against this unprovoked and illegal invasion and th ose attempted 
annexations . The delegate stated that a lack of response to this  invasion, would  erode globally 
accepted rules  ‒ the very thing this institution was designed to support . The delegate of Canada 
concluded her intervention by stating that Canada would stand in solidarity with Ukraine for as long 
as it t akes and she encouraged all other Members to do the same.  
3. The European Union  echoed Canada's statement and expressed support for Ukraine  as well as 
condemnation of the unjustified and illegal invasion by Russia . The EU condemned the escalation of 
violence and  attacks against the Ukrainian people . The delegate of the  EU called upon Russia to 
cease its aggression on Ukraine and stated that cessation of such aggression is the only way to stop 
the current global economic, humanitarian, and security crisis . She sai d that the EU would continue G/TRIMS/M/53  
- 2 - 
  supporting Ukraine by providing economic  and humanitarian assistance as long as it takes and as 
long as is needed.  
4. The delegate of the United Kingdom  aligned with the remarks by the EU and Canada against 
Russia 's continued war of aggression . She noted the one-year anniversary of Russia 's illegal 
invasion , which, according to the UN Human Rights Office , had claimed the lives of over 
8000 civilians in Ukraine so far , a figure that was considered by the  UN Human Rights Office as only 
the "tip of the iceberg ". In addition to the direct consequences of Russia 's actions here – impeding 
the ability of Ukraine to fully participate in the work of this institution, and the global trading system 
– that t he UK and allies have set-out in Committees across the Organization,  the delegate of the 
United Kingdom highlighted  the enormous global impact of the  war. As the people in Ukraine entered 
a second year, living under relentless Russian bombardment, the United Kingdom continued to stand 
with Ukraine – and would do so for as long as it t akes. 
5. The delegate of the United States  said that his country continued to support Ukraine and to 
condemn Russia's premeditated and unprovoked attack . He called upon Russia to immediately cease 
the use of fo rce against Ukraine and refrain from further unlawful threats against any UN Member 
State . He said that the United States and its allies and partners remained united in their commitment 
to ensure that the Russian government paid a severe economic and diplo matic price for its further 
invasion of Ukraine.  
6. Australia  echoed the statements condemning Russia's illegal and immoral aggression against 
Ukraine, which was a gross violation of  international law, including the charter of the United Nations . 
The delegate  of Australia called upon Russia to cease its illegal invasion and stated that her country 
would remain in solidarity with Ukraine, in cooperation with allies.  
7. Moldova  aligned with the statements made by Canada, the EU as well as other members who 
had spoken before on this issue . The delegate of Moldova strongly condemned Russia's aggression 
against Ukraine and stated that her country would remain in solidarity with the Ukrainian people.  
8. The delegate of  Switzerland  stated that his government condemned the Russian military 
aggression on Ukraine in the strongest possible terms . This was a serious violation of international 
law: Russia's actions violate d the prohibition of the use of force , as well as the territorial inte grity 
and sovereignty of Ukraine as enshrined in international law . Switzerland called on Russia to respect 
its international obligations and to reverse its actions, as well as to withdraw its troops and contribute 
to de-escalation . Switzerland call ed on all actors to respect international law, including international 
humanitarian law . Furthermore, the delegate said that Switzerland would  under no circumstances 
recognize the feigned results of the illegal referenda organized in the self -proclaimed Republics  of 
Donetsk and Luhansk and of the occupied territories of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia . These referenda 
constitute d a blatant violation of the international territorial integrity of Ukraine.  
9. Korea  condemned Russia's actions in Ukraine as a violation of the pr inciples of the 
United  Nations charter . The delegate of Korea added that Ukraine's sovereignty and independence 
should be respected.  
10. Japan  recalled that a year had passed since the beginning of Russia's invasion of Ukraine . The 
delegate of Japan strongly condemned Russia's aggression against Ukraine and urged Russia to stop 
the aggression and to immediately withdraw its forces from Ukraine's internationally recognized 
borders . 
11. The Russian Federation  regretted that those same i nterventions had been heard for almost 
one year and recalled that the WTO was not a political forum . The delegate of the Russian Federation 
said that a very narrow group of Members preferred to shift the focus away from trade issues and 
push their politica l interests . He insisted that the issues raised by some Members at the meeting 
were outside of the WTO mandate and of this Committee in particular . He called on Members to 
respect the purely economic nature of this organization . Russia considered the state ments by certain 
delegations on the situation in Ukraine as one -sided and taken out of context.  
12. He said that w hat had relevance to the issues covered by the WTO mandate and what needed 
to be discussed was the negative impact of unilateral restrictive measu res on the world economy 
that were introduced by some Members . Import and export bans, financial blockade s, trade G/TRIMS/M/53  
- 3 - 
  restrictions and other measures had already resulted in increasing trade and transactional costs, 
and also  had had a severe negative impact on  the global energy markets and food security . 
Unfortunately, developing and least developed countries were the ones who experience d the 
strongest effect of such short-sighted  actions, although this "sanction policy " backfired on its authors 
as well . The Ru ssian Federation stressed that instead of assisting in finding a prompt and peaceful 
solution to this crisis , Western countries prolonged the conflict through an endless supply of weapons 
and did their best to drive the international markets into a corner.  
13. Before returning  to the agenda of the meeting, the Chair  recalled 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 arran gements, before moving on to 
the substantive part of the meeting.  
1  CHINA – DRAFT OF CHINESE RECOMMENDED NATIONAL STANDARD (GB/T) FOR OFFICE 
DEVICES (INFORMATION SECURITY TECHNOLOGY -SECURITY SPECIFICATION FOR 
OFFICE DEVICES)  
14. The Chair noted that this item was on the agenda at the request of Japan.  
15. The delegate of Japan  recalled  that, at the previous TRIM s Committee meeting, China had 
said: "Since this issue is related to the recommended national standards and is not related to the 
TRIMs Agreement, the TRIM s Committee is not an appropriate forum for discussion ". The delegate 
of Japan considered however that the contents of the draft national standard were not limited to 
government procurement, and required that multifunction devices, pri nters, etc., including their 
parts procured by critical information infrastructure sectors, be developed and manufactured in 
China . Also, Japan understood that the draft national standard would require information disclosure 
to prove that development and p roduction were being carried out in China . As such, it was not only 
a matter of the TBT Agreement, which stipulates standards, but also of the TRIM s Agreement, which 
stipulates the prohibition of discrimination between domestic and foreign goods in trade -related 
investment measures.  
16. As Japan pointed out at the previous meeting, if the national standard including such 
requirements were introduced and operated in an effectively mandatory manner, in such cases, 
imports of finished products such as multifunctio n peripherals and printers, and the use of imported 
components would not be permitted, and the use of the components made in China would be forced . 
Thus, there was a concern that foreign products, including Japanese imports, would be treated in a 
discrimin atory manner against domestic products and trade would be limited excessively . This would 
be inconsistent with Article 2.1 of the TRIM s Agreement, Articles 2.1, 2.2, and 5.1.2 of the 
TBT Agreement , and Article III.4 of the GATT.  
17. As for the actual operation  of the national standard, for example, Japan had concerns that this 
national standard would effectively force technology transfer when foreign producers face a situation 
in which they have no choice but to provide their technology to China for development , design and 
production in China . This would be inconsistent with Article 7.3 of the WTO Protocol on the Accession 
of China, which set s out China 's commitment not to make technology transfer a condition for 
licensing.  
18. In addition, the delegate of Japan sai d that, at the previous TRIM s Committee meeting, China 
had stated : "China 's current recommended national standards for printers and multifunction 
peripherals have not changed ". However, t he delegate of Japan pointed out that  in less than 
three weeks, the w ebsite of the National Information Security Standardization Technical Committee 
(TC260) had indicated  that this draft national standard ha d been drafted, and Japan underst ood that 
it was being studied under the direction of TC260 . Regarding the status of t his national standard 
draft, Japan requested factual information regarding the schedule until the enactment of this national 
standard, the content of this national standard draft, the scope of application of this national 
standard, including the definition  of critical information infrastructure operators in particular, the 
regulations that require domestic development and production of office equipment and its parts in 
China, and the regulations that require information to prove that development and product ion have 
been carried out in China.  G/TRIMS/M/53  
- 4 - 
  19. Furthermore, the delegate of Japan recalled that China had stated at the TRIM s Committee 
that "when the recommended standards are revised in the future, the Chinese government will make 
public comments on the revised draft ". For the delegate of Japan, it was desirable from the viewpoint 
of not wanting to cause unnecessary concerns that the concerns pointed out by other countries, 
including Japan, should be resolved before public comments are made . Japan believe d that in this 
way, the procedure for the revision of this national standard would move forward efficiently and 
smoothly for China.  
20. Japan strongly hoped that the amendment of this national standard, which includes content 
that discriminates against foreign  products or producers and puts them at a disadvantage to 
domestic ones, and forces technology transfer as mentioned today, would not be realized as it is . 
Japan also hoped that these kinds of measures would not be planned or implemented in other areas.  
21. The European Union  echoed the concerns raised by Japan regarding the draft of Chinese 
recommended national standard for office devices . As indicated by Japan and the European Union 
at the last TBT Committee meeting in November  2022, it seemed that the standa rd was currently 
being revised by the National Information Security Standardization Technical Committee . Based on 
the information received, this standard, if enacted, would rule out the possibility for overseas office 
device providers to participate in gov ernment procurement in China as their products rely heavily 
on overseas components . The delegate of the European Union emphasized that all office equipment 
could not be classified as critical information infrastructure . This highlighted even more the urgen cy 
of having a clear and specific definition of critical information infrastructure operator . The 
European  Union also urged China not to take similar measures in other sectors.  
22. China  thanked Japan  and the European Union  for their interest in this issue and  Japan  for 
bilateral discussions on this issue before the meeting . As indicated in the previous meeting this was 
an issue relating to China 's recommended national standard for office devices . China did  not believe 
that the TRIMs Committee was an appropriat e committee to discuss this issue . The delegate of China 
asked  Japan to raise this issue in an appropriate committee.  
23. The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
2  CHINA  – THE GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT LAW OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA 
(THE AMENDMENT DRAFT)  
24. The Chair noted that this item was on the agenda at the request of Japan.  
25. Japan  noted that in July last year, China published a draft for public comment on revision of 
the Government Procurement Law . In Article 23 of the revised law, local content requirement had 
been maintained from the original law, which states  that "Government procurement shall procure 
goods, works, and services in the home country unless they cannot  be procured within China or 
cannot be obtained under reasonable business conditions ". However, only if the local content 
requirement truly fell under government procurement, it c ould be permitted as a government 
procurement exception under GATT Article II I:8(a).  
26. In addition , regarding government procurement entities, the delegate of Japan stated that in 
Article 2 and Article 12 of the revised draft, "other procurement entities " had been added to the 
"state agencies, business units and organizations " in the  current Article 2 . Regarding "other 
procurement entities ", Article 12 of the revised law refer red to "public interest state -owned 
enterprises that engage in public works and operate public infrastructure or public service networks 
to realize public purpos es" and add ed "Other procurement entities to which this Law applies and 
their specific scope of procurement shall be determined by the State Council ". The delegate of Japan 
said that i f the scope of application of the Government Procurement Law expand ed to include entities 
that could not  be considered a "government agency " even if involved in public infrastructure or public 
service networks, etc., it w ould exceed the scope of procurement exceptions, thus the above local 
content requirements may violate Arti cle 2.1 of the TRIM s Agreement and Article III.4 of GATT . In 
light of this, the State Council 's definition of "other procurement entities " under Article 12 of the 
revised law should not be expanded without limit.  
27. In addition to the existing local content requirements regulation, Article 23 of the revised law 
added a new local content requirement providing  preferential treatment in government  procurement G/TRIMS/M/53  
- 5 - 
  for products with a high added value ratio within China . For the delegate of Japan t his could only be 
permitted under the government procurement exception of GATT Article  III.8(a) if it was really  
government procurement and Japan was keeping a n eye on the scope of application . Japan added  
that these local content requirements were contrary to the substance and spirit of the Government 
Procurement Agreement that China was negotiating to access.  
28. China  thanked Japan for its interest in this issue and for bilateral discussions on this issue 
before the meeting . As indicated in the previous meeting, the amendment draft of China 's 
government procurement law was not a TRIM s matter, but an issue of government procurement . 
China did not believe that the T RIMs Committee was an appropriate committee to discuss this issue . 
China would continue engaging with Japan on this issue bilaterally.  
29. The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
3  INDIA – IMPORT RESTRICTIONS ON AIR CONDITIONERS  
30. The Chair noted that this item was on the agenda at the request of Japan.  
31. The delegate of Japan  said that Japan considers India 's import ban on air conditioners 
including refrigerants, based on Notification No. 41/2015 -2020 and introduced in October  2020, to 
be a measure that unreasonably imposes a restructuring of corporate supply chains . Japan continue d 
to have serious concerns 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.  
32. The d elegate of Japan recalled that at the last TRIM s Committee meeting, India stated that 
Japan 's concerns were "not about trade -related investment measures and it does not think it a good 
forum to deal with this matter ". However, this measure require d the loc alization of the main process 
of refrigerant filling by prohibiting the import of refrigerant -filled air conditioners, and as such 
constitute d a trade -related investment measure . Therefore, he said that it wa s appropriate to discuss 
this issue at the TRIM s Committee.  At its TPR and at the Council for Trade in Goods India had 
responded that the measure was consistent with India 's obligations under the Montreal Protocol . 
However, this import ban was unnecessary and irrational in that it cover ed a wide range o f air 
conditioners that use refrigerants . The delegate of Japan added that , under Indian domestic law, 
refrigerants were subject neither to India 's reduction and elimination obligation under the Montreal 
Protocol nor the regulation of the ozone -depleting s ubstance, freon gas.  
33. The delegate of Japan recalled that Japan had drafted and submitted a written questionnaire 
in September  2021, requesting  more detailed  explanation s. Japan looked  forward to a prompt and 
sincere response from the Indian side, since the  written questionnaire cover ed important matters as 
a prerequisite for constructive discussions to move forward.  
34. Regarding the IS standard certification system based on the Quality Control Orders for air 
conditioners and their parts, Japan was  aware that the scheduled enforcement date ha d been 
postponed from January  2023 to October  2023. Since Japan underst ood that t he certification 
procedure by the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) was behind schedule, in order to prevent delays 
in the certification procedure for imported products, Japan asked  India to conduct smooth overseas 
factory inspections by the Bureau of India n Standards or to consider alternative procedures for 
certification other than overseas factory inspections , in cases where traveling abroad was difficult . 
If these options  were too difficult , Japan would welcome further postponement of the date of 
enforce ment.  
35. India thanked Japan for this question and its continued interest in India . Like in previous 
meetings, India responded that the concern raised by Japan was not a TRIM s matter and requested 
that Japan submit it in the appropriate WTO platform . India no ted that Japan had raised this question 
in other committees of WTO too and hence requested Japan yet again to pursue the issue in those 
committees and remove it from TRIM s Committee as this was not a matter pertaining to TRIM s. 
36. The Committee took note  of the statements made.  G/TRIMS/M/53  
- 6 - 
  4  INDONESIA – COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF LOCALISATION MEASURES  
37. The Chair noted that this item was on the agenda at the request of Japan , the European Union  
and the United States . 
38. The delegate of the United States  said 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, retail, and franchising sectors . The United States 
and other Members ha d been raising these concerns for over a decade now, and the delegate 
regretted  that they had to be raised again . In past meetings Indonesia ha d assured that a 
comprehensiv e review of these harmful policies was underway, with the aim of removing any that 
may not be fully consistent with the TRIM s agreement and with Indonesia 's own economic interests.  
The United States was  hopeful that Indonesia 's decisions to participate in trade agreements such as 
RCEP and it s decision to join the trade pillar of the Indo -Pacific Economic Framewor k discussions 
signal led an intention to modernize their trade policies including by eliminating local content 
requirements . The delegate of the United States underscored  that Indonesia 's local content 
requirements r an counter to Indo nesia's own interests . Though they may help the government 
achieve certain short -term objectives, they seriously undermine d Indonesia 's own long -term 
competitiveness.  This was a sentiment heard  frequently from U.S. companies interested in entering 
the Indonesian market but  discouraged by such policies . The delegate of the United States wished 
to again call to Indonesia 's attention several reports that support this perspective and highlight the 
damaging nature of Indonesia 's local content policies , notably:  
‒ 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 ev idence of 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 separa te 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 inv estment regimes " and "negatively affect both foreign and domestic 
investments ". 
39. The United States urged Indonesia to give serious consideration to these reports . The delegate 
of the United States recalled that, a t the last meeting , his country had sought u pdates from 
Indonesia on three new measure s, specifically:  
‒ Draft regulations announced by Indonesia 's Ministry of Industry last June, which aim to 
tighten and further expand local content requirements for laptops.  
‒ Formal plans, announced by the Indonesian government last August, which aim to suppress 
imports, including through the use of local content requirements, with the goal of 
"substitut[ing] 35  per cent  of imported products " by 2022.  
‒ Formal plans, announced by Indonesia 's ICT Minister last September, which would expand 
existing local content requirements for 4G cell phones and apply a 30  per cent  local content 
requirement on 5G devices.  
40. The United States wished to receive an update on  developments relating to local content 
requirements on medical devices , which occurred in the Summer of 2022 . It request ed that 
Indonesia make a copy of all of these draft measures publicly available, and hold a notice and 
comment period  to ensure affecte d parties have the opportunity to provide input during the drafting 
process . 
41. Finally, the United States reported to the Committee a bout a possible new  mandatory local 
content requirement , to be implemented through the "Neraca Komoditas " (commodity balance) 
policy, which w ould ban imports of certain products where sales of domestic products are considered G/TRIMS/M/53  
- 7 - 
  out of balance . The United States understood  that this policy w ould apply to printers, but may be 
extended to other products  and the de legate of the United States asked Indonesia to clarify this 
issue.  
42. The United States strongly  urged Indonesia to reconsider moving forward with these policies, 
and to reconsider its use of local content requirements generally . The delegate of the United St ates 
said his country 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 posed at the Committee meet ing. 
43. The delegate of the European Union  recalled that concerns on the wide -ranging localization 
requirements applied by Indonesia had long been on the agenda of this Committee . She deeply 
regretted that, despite some encouraging progress with regard to the  retail sector, no further 
progress had taken place with regard to similar measures applied in the other sectors discussed in 
the previous meetings of this Committee . Rather, it saw  an increased resort by Indonesia to 
localization measures, creating furthe r concerns for the EU and other Members . 
44. Regarding the pharmaceutical sector , the EU refer red to its longstanding concerns regarding 
the pharmaceutical and medical devices sector, and notably requirements concerning (1) local 
content levels for pharmaceuti cal products (Minister of Industry Regulation No 16 of 2020) ; 
(2) compulsory registration of imported medicines through domestic companies, as well as 
compulsory transfer of technology and local manufacturing requirements no later than five years 
after the  medicines start being sold in Indonesia (Ministry of Health Regulation No. 1010 of 2008) ; 
and (3) compulsory purchase by government hospitals of medical devices with a Domestic Content 
Level and Benefit Weight Value of 40% or more ‒ regardless of availabl e foreign products – and the 
subsequent non -transparent and uncertain practice of 'freezing and unfreezing ' of foreign medical 
devices in the Indonesian e -catalogue for public procurement, preventing their purchase by 
government health institutions.  
45. The Eu ropean Union said it stood ready to support Indonesia's objective on improving 
healthcare and promoting the development of the local industry in the health sector . However, it 
believe d that rather than imposing local content requirements , the Government should focus on 
policies that incentivize more domestic and foreign investment in the local industry . Additional 
restrictive localization measures w ould only further undermine the attrac tiveness of Indonesia as a 
market of choice for research -based pharmaceutical investors.  
46. The European Union also continued to be concerned with the local content requirements for 
goods and services in the energy sector, including mining, oil and gas, elect ricity, and renewables, 
as stipulated in Decree No 1953/2018  and the requirement for license holders to "prioritize the 
utilization of domestic goods and services according to the prevailing laws and regulations ". Given 
that foreign companies were not rega rded as providing "domestic services " in this regulation even 
if they are locally incorporated, the delegate of the EU  consider ed that this measure de facto creates 
discrimination . She underst ood that similar measures were introduced by the Mining Law, on which 
the EU  would welcome further information  
47. The delegate of Japan  said Japan upheld the concerns expressed by other Members so far on 
the fact that LCR measures had been introduced and maintained in various areas in Indonesia . Japan 
was particularly int erested in LCR measures for (i) 4G and 5G LTE mobile devices, (ii) TVs, 
(iii) retailers, and (iv) franchise businesses . Also, Japan echoe d other countries ' concerns at the 
previous meeting about LCR measures in the energy sector . Based on these concerns, J apan asked 
Indonesia to prepare an environment for adequate consultations with the Indonesian government 
for Japanese companies who do business in Indonesia to avoid unfair disadvantages when the article 
applies.  
48. Japan recalled that, a t the last meeting, Indonesia had said: "Firstly, it concerns government 
procurement . Secondly, it concerns policies such as satisfying the welfare and basic needs of all 
Indonesian citizens . Thirdly, it concerns policy -related items such as state -controll ed strategic 
goods ", thus claiming that LCR measures  were legitimate . However, as Japan explained previously, 
among the LCR measures, those that fall under "government procurement" appear ed to be limited . 
In addition, Japan  pointed out that "fulfilling the  needs to maintain their life necessities, etc." and 
"securing strategic resources" could not  be grounds to immediately justify LCR measures under the G/TRIMS/M/53  
- 8 - 
  WTO Agreement . Japan underst ood the importance of these objectives but  consider ed that taking 
LCR measure s as an easy means to achieve them should not be permitted.  
49. Japan recalled that, a t the last meeting, Indonesia also said : "Regarding the Comprehensive 
Review, I would like to inform you that Indonesia has initiated multiple reviews of measures at the 
level of domestic components and this process is ongoing ". In this regard, Japan asked  for a concrete 
explanation of the details, such as the schedule and the results of  this study.  
50. For Japan, t hese LCR measures were likely to be inconsistent with Article III.4 of the GATT 
and Article 2.1 of the TRIM s Agreement . Japan asked  Indonesia to respond appropriately to the 
specific concerns of Members, and to rectify these measures in a manner that consistent with the 
WTO Agreement.  
51. Australia  shared the concerns raised  by other Members on localisation measures applied by 
Indonesia , which have been a long -standing agenda item of the TRIM s Committee . It reiterated 
ongoing concerns on Indonesia 's localisation measures in the mining, oil and gas sectors . 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 th at Article 106 of the 
revised Mining Law, require d licence holders to prioritise the utilisation of local goods, services and 
labour, in the country in accordance with the provisions of the legislation . Australia considered that  
the measure adversely impacts the ability of Australian companies to obtain inputs of sufficient 
quality . Australia also sought further information from Indonesia on the consistency of its energy 
regulations with Indonesia 's obligations under the TRIM s Agreement . In that regard, Australia was 
also aware of Indonesia 's recent Presidential Regulation on the Accelerati on of the Development of 
Renewable Energy for Electricity Supply.  
52. Indonesia  thanked the Members who took the floor for their interest in Indonesia and repeated 
that the measures at issue had been implemented first in relation to government procurement, 
second regarding policies aimed at fulfilling the needs of Indonesia's people welfare and necessities 
or in relation to policies on State managed strategic resources . While noting Members' concerns, 
Indonesia continued to review its local content measures and this process was  still ongoing . 
Indonesia reiterated that the discussion on the review maintained the spirit of not contradicting 
Indonesia's commitments to comply with the TRIMs Agreement and its objectives.  
53. The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
5  INDONESIA – IMPORT RESTRICTIONS ON CARPETS AND OTHER TEXTILES  
54. The Chair noted that this item was on the agenda at the request of Japan  and the 
European  Union . 
55. The delegate of Japan  recalled 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 . As a result, the export volume of textile products from the world to Indonesia 
in 2020 decrea sed significantly to about one tenth of the volume in 2019 . Though this measure 
seem ed to have been transferred to the Ministry of Trade Regulation 20/2021, and further 
transferred to the Commodity Balance System by the Ministry of Trade Regulation No. 25/2022, 
substantial regulation ha d not changed practically . Thus, Japan ha d doubts that this system was 
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 TRIM s Agreement.  
56. Japan recalled that, i n addition, in February  2021, the safeguard measure for carpets was 
imposed , with a period of investigation (POI) set from 2017 to 2019, i.e immediately prior to the 
above -mentioned import decrease . As a result, 'increased imports ' were found by the Indonesian 
investigating authority, without considering the drastic decrease in import volumes due to the import 
registr ation/approval system . Furthermore, this measure was to impose about 150 to 200% tariffs 
in ad valorem  conversion . Japan consider ed that this measure does not meet the requirements for 
imposing safeguard measures such as those "to the extent necessary to p revent or remedy serious 
injury ". Japan said it  has been raising the issue at the Safeguard Committee and other committees 
but regretted  that Indonesia only emphasized consistency with the Agreement and ha d not made G/TRIMS/M/53  
- 9 - 
  any improvements . The delegate from Japa n recalled that, a t the meeting of the Safeguards 
Committee in October  2022, the Indonesian colleague had stated that "imports from Japan have 
begun to increase by 14% over the past year ". Japan asked  for clear evidence for this and that the 
measure  be abolished as soon as possible.  
57. Japan ha d serious concerns about these measures and ha d expressed its concerns on various 
occasions . For example, it submitted  a written questionnaire at this Committee in September  2021. 
Unfortunately, however, Indonesia ha d not yet responded to the written questionnaire . Japan 
request ed that Indonesia recognize the aforementioned problems with these measures and abolish 
them as soon as possible . Japan hoped  to receive a si ncere response from the Indonesian 
government on this matter.  
58. Finally, Japan stated that , with the introduction of the "Commodity balance system," the 
conventional import application and permission system ha d stopped operating in December  2022. It 
had been announced that the introduction of the new system in January  2023 had been postponed, 
but no alternative mechanism ha s been established . And Japan said it appeared  that applications for 
import approval ha d not been received for some items . Japan asked for  a detailed explanation of 
the latest situation, and strongly request ed the early removal of import restrictions.  
59. The delegate of the European Union  took the floor to welcome the repeal of 
Regulation  77/2019, thereby revoking the de facto  prohibition of im ports in Indonesia of EU finished 
textile items, notably carpets . The EU understood that textile products would now be subject to the 
"commodity balance " mechanism (Omnibus Law 11/2020, Government Regulations 5/2021, 
28/2021 and 29/2021, Presidential Regul ation 32/2022, and Ministry of Trade Regulations 19/2021, 
and its two revisions ). The EU also noted that a system of import quotas/licensing was currently in 
place in Indonesia for textile imports . The EU therefore recalled its request for clarification on the  
current Indonesian import regime for finished textiles, including carpets and rugs . The EU said it 
would like to receive further details on the expected timeline and arrangements for the applica tion 
of the commodity balance system to textile products.  
60. The United States  said it share d concerns raised about the local content requirements in this 
sector introduced in 2019 . The delegate of the United States recalled that, a t the last meeting he 
had called attention to Ministry of Trade Regulation  20/2021, which was expected to  revoke and 
replace the 2019 local content requirements . He understood that MOT had issued regulation n°25 in 
2022 to replace regulation n°20 . However , upon further review,  it appeared that the local content 
requirement for finished textile products applied to 430 HS codes  had not been removed . He urged 
Indonesia to remove local content requirements on textile products and in other sectors of its 
economy.  
61. Indonesia  took note of th e concerns expressed and recalled that Regulation 77/2019 had been 
revoked and reiterated its previous response that the regulation  in question  was an import measure 
which did not relate to investment . The Indonesian delegate stressed that the Regulation a t issue 
did not discriminate and was in line with Indonesia's WTO commitments . 
62. The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
6  INDONESIA – IMPORT RESTRICTIONS ON AIR CONDITIONERS  
63. The Chair noted that this item was on the agenda at the request of Japan.  
64. Regarding the import restrictions on air conditioners , Japan reported that it was  difficult to 
predict the number of permits and the timing of approval after an import application has been 
submitted and that the number of import permits was decreasing . Also, the delegate of Japan 
regretted that Japanese companies still had difficulties understanding the reason for limiting import 
quantities and that the criteria applied were unclear . Therefore , Japan said it wa s concerned that 
this measure was still an import restriction and may violate both Article XI, Paragraph 1, of the GATT 
and Article 2, Paragraph 1, of the TRIM s Agreement . Japan expected  this measure to be administered 
in a manner that en sures it does not effectively equate to a form of import restriction . In this 
connection, Japan also expected  permit standards and procedures to be stipulated more 
transparently.  G/TRIMS/M/53  
- 10 - 
  65. Japan recalled that, at the last TRIM s Committee meeting , Indonesia had claim ed that it 
prefer red to refer this matter to the meeting of the Committee on Import Licensing . However, Japan 
had submitted a written questionnaire in September  2022 regarding the operational status of this 
measure and  expected  Indonesia to first provide a  prompt response at this Committee . Japan 
considered that i f the discussions proceed ed constructively at the Import License Committee, it could  
afford to limit the discussion to that Committee.  
66. Lastly, the delegate recalled that Indonesia had stated at the Import License Committee that 
the regulations that Japan referred to were not applied . Japan said it expected a clear explanation 
on this matter . Japan underst ood that since 2023, the item had been  regulated by the Commodity 
Balance System and by the M inistry of Trade Regulation No. 25/2022, but it requested further 
explanations from Indonesia in this regard . 
67. Korea  said it shared the concerns expressed by Japan on this issue . The delegate of Korea 
explained that Korean exporters faced challenges in participating in this market due to the 
quantitative limitations under Regulation 20/202 1. In particular, Korean business were concerned 
that the authorized quantities were smaller than what was requested without any clear explanation 
and tha t there were delays in the administration of requests . From Korea's perspective, the measure 
at issue appeared inconsistent with WTO rules (in particular GATT Article XI.1 and Article 2.1 of the 
TRIMs Agreement) . Korea requested further clarifications and was hoping to see improvements in 
the situation.  
68. Indonesia  responded that Regulation 68/2020 was an import measure not related to 
investment . It also noted that the same issue had been raised in the Committee on Import Licensing, 
which was a more appropria te forum to address these questions . The Indonesian delegate stressed 
that the Regulation at issue did not discriminate and was in line with Indonesia's commitments in 
the area of TRIMs.  
69. The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
7  NOTIFICATIONS UNDER A RTICLE  6.2 OF THE TRIMS AGREEMENT OF PUBLICATIONS IN 
WHICH TRIMS MAY BE FOUND  
70. The Chair recalled that the Committee had received no new notification since the last meeting . 
The Chair urged Members that had not yet notified to do so promptly.  
8  REPORTING BY THE CHAIRPERSON TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE REPORTS SUBMITTED 
TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE COMMITTEE AND 
THE RESPONSE TO THE PANDEMIC  
71. The Chairperson said that she had placed that  item on the agenda to report back to  the 
Committee on the issue of the ongoing consultations at the level of the CTG regarding WTO reform 
and on the two reports she had  submitted under her own responsibility to the Chair of the CTG – 
upon his request – on the functioning of the Committees an d on the response to the pandemic.  
72. She recalled that in an informal session of the CTG on 1 4 October  2022, the Chair of the CTG 
had reported on his consultations concerning MC12 implementation issues, including the issue of 
improving the functioning of its  different subsidiary bodies . Then, on 2 0 October  2022, the Chair of 
the CTG invited all 14 Chairs of the different CTG subsidiary bodies to a meeting to report back and 
to exchange views on these implementation issues . At that meeting of 2 0 October  and as  
subsequently confirmed by a communication received from the Chair of the CTG, all Chairs were 
requested to prepare two factual reports under their own responsibility with the help of the 
Secretariat . The first report pertained to the WTO response to the P andemic and described the 
activities that the Committee had undertaken in the context of the pandemic over the past two  years . 
The second report concerned the current functioning of the Committee, i.e. the concrete actions that 
the Committee had adopted ov er the past years to improve its work.  
73. The Chair said that her  report was an overview of the reforms that had already been introduced 
and where the Committee currently stood . This exercise only focused on past actions and 
discussions . Since this was meant to be a stocktaking and information gathering exercise to allow 
for a fact-based  discussion among Members, she had refrained from including recommendations or G/TRIMS/M/53  
- 11 - 
  an assessment of what need ed to be improved as this will be for Members to take up, should they 
so choose.  
74. The Chair recalled that o n 21 November  2022, she had  sent both factual reports to the 
Membership in a draft form, to give a chance to Members to make comments . No comments were 
received . On 28 November  2022, she submitted both documents to the CTG.  
75. Based on what was contained in those reports and in all other subsidiary bodies Chairs reports, 
the CTG Secretariat circulated on 1 1 January  2023 a "Comparison Matrix" contained in document 
G/C/W/824 providing a genera l overview of the main elements that seem to be comparable across 
the reports.  
76. Finally, on 3 1 January  2023, the CTG had held an informal meeting to which all 14 Chairs had 
been invited along with all CTG Members . At that meeting, the Chair  provided a brief  overview of 
both reports and listened to Members' comments . On the functioning of the Committees, although 
there were no specific comments directed to the TRIMs Committee's report per se , Members made 
comments and suggestions based on their reading of the  different reports and of the Matrix . Their 
views reflected their own vision as to how to replicate what they considered to be good practices, 
while preserving the individuality of each Committee as clearly there cannot be a one size fits all 
solution . It was clear to the Chair  that it would  be up to the Members of each Committee to discuss 
and decide whether any procedures, practices, or means of conducting business need an 
improvement or change . She recalled that t he Chair of the CTG had recommended and e ncouraged 
discussion of those issues at the level of the Committees.  
77. On the response to the pandemic, no specific questions or comments had been  made on the 
TRIMs report . The main message was that all subsidiary bodies should be applying lessons learnt 
from the pandemic in line with their own mandates . The CTG Chair had indicated that this was a 
steppingstone along the way and that discussions on the issue would continue.  
78. The Chair said she  wanted to draw Members'  attention to those issues and also listen t o any 
suggestions on her report  and how they wished to take up this issue in future Committee's meetings . 
She opened the floor for comments.  
79. Canada  thanked the Chair for the reports . Regarding the report on the functioning of the 
Committee and referring to  the recently updated CTG matrix summarizing the reports of all its 
subsidiary bodies, Canada 's view was that this Committee measures up well in terms of its work to 
promote transparency and engagement . Canada highlighted that the TRIMs Committee was pursu ing 
a hybrid meeting format ; circulating annotated agendas well in advance of the next meeting ; sending 
reminders to submit notifications in advance the next meeting ; circulating an updated contact list in 
advance of each meeting ; and ensuring delegates ha ve online access to room documents and 
minutes of meetings after they have been circulated . That said, there were a couple other areas 
from the CTG matrix that Canada would suggest the Committee consider in relation to its work . They 
included : regular introductory sessions on the processes and procedures the Committee uses to 
carry out its work ; use of the e -Agenda system ; and circulation by the Chair of short factual summary 
of outcomes from meetings and any expected follow -up; in this regard, u se of the ICN nomenclature 
for communications from the Chair c ould be considered . As a next step, Canada suggested the Chair 
and the Secretariat compile written suggestions sent in by Members and organize an informal session 
in the near future to allow for  further discussion on possible improvements to the function of the 
Committee work.  
80. The European Union  said that as part of the reform discussions  in the General Council , 
Members supported a bottom -up process and that this was echoed at the CTG level . The 
European  Union said that it already had a chance to offer some comments on process at the informal 
meeting of the Market Access Committee and that similar comments could be made in the context 
of the TRIMs Committee . The EU said that it did support  initiating a reflection at the level of the 
TRIMs Committee and that such process should be meaningful and at the same time reasonable in 
terms of resources involved . The report produced by the Chair of th e Committee as well as the 
comparison matrix providing an overview of practices in the various CTG subsidiary bodies were 
very useful to inform the reflection going forward . To help Members discuss possible adjustments, 
the EU suggested that the Chair, ass isted by the Secretariat, could collect ideas and suggestions for 
improvement, help organise them by theme and then have an informal dedicated discussion on that G/TRIMS/M/53  
- 12 - 
  basis. The EU believed the CTG should play a facilitating role in the process ‒ which  would be  initiated 
at the level of subsidiary bodies ‒ to help provide a structure and keep an overview of discussions . 
The Chair of the TRIMs Committee may have a role to play in helping with a two -way dialogue with 
the CTG Chair.  
81. The delegate of the United Kingd om thanked the Chair  and the Secretariat  for all the efforts 
made to ensure the good functioning of the Committee and made a few suggestions based on the 
"Comparison M atrix" and on a comparison with other Committees . These suggestions could facilitate 
the work of the Secretariat, such as the use of e -Registration and e -Agenda (in order to help with 
the circulation of statements and the drafting of minutes) . In addition, the m inutes could be made 
verbatim, with a view to saving time . The delegate encouraged Members to submit suggestions to 
be compiled by the Chair and to be discussed during an informal session of the Committee . On a 
more general note, the delegate of the United  Kingdom indicated that each Committee should look 
into what works best for it, but that the CTG could play a coordinating role in this regard.  
82. Australia  said it supported the interventions made . It was i mportant to use this opportunity 
to consider what im provements could be made  to the operations of this committee, including to 
ensure all delegations are able to fully engage in this work and doing so would also support the 
'bottom -up' reform process backed by Members during General Council discussions in O ctober . 
Australia support ed the suggestion for the Chair to consolidate Members ' suggestions for reform and 
to hold an informal dedicated discussion on the matter . Australia  also note d that reform was already 
underway across other WTO bodies, and work alre ady conducted by other committees could be 
utilised by this Committee, for example, the Council for Trade in Goods ' matrix of reform options 
could be a useful basis for our discussions – though it would of course require some tailoring and 
potentially new ideas that are relevant for the TRIMs  specific context.  
83. The delegate of the United States  said he shared the positive assessment of the work of the 
Committee expressed previously by Canada as well as the need for a bottom -up process . He said it 
was interesting to hear general and specific ideas and that an informal session of the 
TRIMs  Committee would be useful to discuss these ideas, in particular to better understand what 
digital tools are available that could assist the work of the T RIMs Committee.  
84. China  thanked the Chair and the Secretariat for presenting these reports . The reports were 
very useful . China supported the idea to further improve the functioning of the Committee . The 
delegate of China said that there were  good documents that could be used for reference such as the 
"Comparison Matrix" prepared by CTG secretariat and the relevant reports of other subsidiary bodies . 
China also support ed the idea to hold an informal session on this issue . 
85. Korea  supported the interventions mad e by other speakers  and the bottom -up process . Korea 
believed that this Committee had been working well in dealing with its issues including trade 
concerns but  based on the matrix made by the WTO CTG Secretariat, there might be some practical 
improvements to be made, as expressed by other colleagues . In terms of moving forward, Korea 
also saw value in the Chair offering a timeline for Members ' inputs in writing, and from that basis, 
continu ing to  seek further improvements in future meetings.  
86. Hong Kong, China  express ed support for using  e-Agenda in the TRIMs Committee and 
discussing the matter in future informal TRIMs Committee meetings . 
87. The Chair thanked the speakers and the Secretariat and said that she was pleased to hear 
support for the reform process  in this Committee . As this was her last meeting as Chairperson of 
the TRIMs Committee, she proposed to pass on this project and the remarks made to her successor.  
88. The Committee took note of the statements made.  
9  OTHER BUSINESS  
89. The Committee took note that no Member requested to raise any issue under other business . G/TRIMS/M/53  
- 13 - 
  10  DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING  
90. In accordance with past practice, the Chair suggested scheduling  the next meeting in the 
Autumn  of 2023, in order to enable participants to plan their work . The Chair proposed a meeting 
on 12 October  2023. 
91. In order to provide Members with ample opportunity to prepare for this meeting, the 
Secretariat would issue the annotated draft agenda several da ys in advance of the meeting, namely 
on 18 September  2023. Members' requests to place items on the annotated draft agenda should be 
communicated in writing to the Secretariat at the latest by COB on 15 September  2023. The 
annotated draft agenda would be op en to Members' comments until close of business on 
28 September  2023. The airgram convening the meeting would be issued on 2 October  2023. 
92. The delegate of the United Kingdom  requested that the proposed dates be circulated by email 
after the meeting.  
93. The Co mmittee took note  of the information provided.  
11  ELECTION OF OFFICERS  
94. 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 regular meeting of the year and shall take effect at the end of the meeting . The 
Chairperson and the Vice -Chairperson shall hold office until the end of the first regular meeting of 
the following year" . 
95. As Members were aware, the consultations at the CTG level regarding the selection of the new 
Chair of this Committee as well as of other Committees under the CTG had not started yet,  so the 
Committee could not  elect a new Chair at that meeting . In those circumstances, the Chair suggested  
that the Secretariat send a communication once the CTG ha d completed its work, indicating the 
proposed Committee 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 in previous years, would 
obviate the need for an additional meeting of the Committee.  
96. On the Vice -Chairperson, she propose d to postpone the elec tion of the new Vice -Chairperson 
until after the new Chair is appointed, with the new Chair hold ing the usual consultations and send ing 
the usual communication nominating a new Vice -Chair who, absent any objection, would be deemed 
to be elected by the Comm ittee. 
97. The Committee so  decided . 
98. The meeting was adjourned . 
__________