RESTRICTED  
 
  
G/TRIMS/M/46  
 
20 September 2019  
(19-6088) Page: 1/13 
Committee on Trade -Related Investment Measures    
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETI NG HELD ON 6 JUNE 2019  
CHAIR: MS CARRIE WU  (CHINESE TAIPEI ) 
1. The Chair  referred to the proposed agenda circulated in WTO/AIR/TRIMS/9 dated 27 May 
2019. Japan indicated that it wished to become a co -sponsor of Agenda Item 2.  No additional items 
were raised under  "Other Business ", and the  Committee adopted the following agenda, as amended 
to add Japan as a co -sponsor to Agenda Item 2 : 
1   CHINA – LOCAL CO NTENT IN CYBERSECURI TY MEASURES (INCLUDI NG PROVISIONS 
ON INSURANCE SYSTEM INFORMATIZATION) ................................ ................................ .. 1 
2   INDONESIA – COMPREHENSIVE REVI EW OF LOCALIZATION M EASURES .....................  3 
3   INDONESIA - LOCA L CONTENT REQUIREMEN TS FOR PHARMACEUTICA L PRODUCTS 
AND MEDICAL DEVICES  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 7 
4   RUSSIAN FEDERATION – MEASURE S IMPLEMENTING RUSSI A'S IMPORT 
SUBSTITUTION POLICY  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 8 
5   RUSSIAN FEDERATI ON – MEASURES TO SUP PORT THE AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY TO 
REPLACE THE AUTOMOTI VE INVESTMENT INCENT IVE PROGRAMS  ................................ . 10 
6   ARGENTINA – ACT 27,263 ON THE DEVELO PMENT AND STRENGTHEN ING REGIME OF 
THE ARGENTINE AUTOPA RTISM  ................................ ................................ .....................  11 
7   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 12 
8   ELECTION OF CHAI RPERSON AND VICE -CHAIRPE RSON  ................................ ............  13 
9   DATE OF THE NEXT  MEETING  ................................ ................................ ....................  13 
 
1  CHINA  – LOCAL CONTENT IN CYBERSECURITY MEASURES (INCLUDING PROVISIONS 
ON INSURANCE SYSTEM INFORMATIZATION ) 
2. The Chair recalled that this item was  first considered by the Committee in June 2016 and was 
on the agenda at the request of the United States. Q uestions were posed to China by the 
United  States in document G/TRIMS/Q/CHN/1 dated 3 June 2016. To date no written replies had  
been submitted.  
3. The United States  remained concerned about China 's Cybersecurity Law and related 
implementing measures that appeared to require local content and that raised questions about their 
consistency with China 's obligations under the TRIMS Agreement. The United States recalled that 
China 's Cybersecurity Law entered into force on June 1, 2017, in spite of serious and lo ng-standing 
concerns from the United States and many other international stakeholders.  The United States 
indicated that, since then, China had continued to develop, and in certain cases, finalize related 
implementing measures that are sometime general in s cope, and sometimes sector -specific. The 
United States indicated that it had many concerns regarding China 's Cybersecurity Law and related 
measures, including those that restrict the ability of companies operating in China including foreign 
investors to pr ocure the technology of their choice, through "secure and controllable " requirements, 
enforced by cybersecurity review regime checks.  The United States recalled the prior meetings of 
this Committee in which the United States had raised concerns relating to  China 's "secure and 
controllable " guidelines that apply generally as well as for specific sectors.  The United States recalled 
its observations in those prior meetings that the respective guidelines clearly indicated a requirement G/TRIMS/M/46  
 
- 2 - 
 
  for the purchase of Chine se rather than foreign technology. For the United States, such standards 
are to the detriment of foreign investors and trade in ICT products more generally, and thus have 
potential implications for China 's TRIMS obligations. The United States noted that , on May 23, 2019, 
China published draft "Cybersecurity Review Measures " for public comment by June 24; once in 
force, the Measures would replace the Cyber Product and Service Security Review Measures, in place 
since June 2017.  The United States indicated tha t it was currently reviewing the draft measure, and 
invited China to inform the Committee how this new draft measure would address the concerns 
raised by Members in past meetings.  
4. The European Union  shared the concern expressed by the United States on Chin a's 
cybersecurity legislation, including the different guidelines and administrative measures designed to 
implement the law. European Union stated that, as with its interventions in the previous meetings 
of this Committee, it continued to have concerns tha t these measures may inadvertently lead to 
possible discriminatory practices against foreign enterprises. The European Union wished to raise 
one issue in particular: cyber -MLPS. The European Union indicated that it had also expressed these 
concerns to Chin a in the connection of draft "Regulation on classified cybersecurity protection'' issued 
in June 2018, which builds on the Administrative Measures for Information Security Multi -level 
Protection (MLPS) from 2007. According to the European Union, under MLPS , a grading into 
protection level three or above had led to the de facto  exclusion of foreign -invested vendors  and, 
together with the wide scope of application of protection level three and above under the established 
MLPS , this had led to unwarranted and significant market entry restriction. The European Union 
expressed concern about the rising burden for networks graded as protection level two and the 
increased scope of protection level three as compared to the 2007 Measures. According to the 
European Uni on, many European -invested companies were operating within the scope of protection 
level two, meaning they would be directly impacted with increased costs and possibly delayed entry 
into operation of new networks. The European Union therefore requested Chi na to provide an update 
of the developments with respect to this draft measure, as well as other implementing rules of the 
Cybersecurity Law, in particular whether and how the key concerns, including those expressed by 
the industry, have been addressed.  
5. Japan shared the concerns raised by the United States and the European Union. Regarding 
the Cybersecurity Law, Japan was also concerned that Chinese authorities could require the use of 
products originating from China through the multi -level protection requi rements applicable to critical 
information infrastructure or through the review process about security and controllability of network 
products and services , which according to Japan was inconsistent with GATT Article III:4 and 
Article  2 of the TRIMS Agreem ent. Japan requested China to elaborate the meanings of "multi -level 
protection requirements" and "security and controllability" in this regard.  Japan also stated that, 
regarding the draft of cyber security review regulation, operators of critical informat ion infrastructure 
must apply to the examination by the authorities. Japan expressed concern that Chinese products 
could be given preferential treatment in such examinations. Japan requested China to make the 
examination criteria clear.  Finally, with regar d to China's explanation that the drafting process of its 
Cybersecurity Law had been open and transparent  and that there has been sufficient bilateral 
discussion , Japan requested China to provide updates at this Committee on its Cybersecurity Law, 
includin g information on the relevant schedule . 
6. China  thanked  the delegation s for raising their concerns on this issue. China  stated that 
cybersecurity threats are common issues that encountered by every country in the world.  According 
to China, it is necessary to carry out cybersecurity protection to ensure the national security, 
economy, and public safety and health. For China, in this case, it had implemented cybersecurity 
law and relevant supporting measures. China indicate d that it was not the only country who protects 
cybersecurity, and pointed out that, for example, the United States also had Cybersecurity laws, 
such as the Cybersecurity Enhance Act of 2014, and National Infrastructure Protection Plan. 
Therefore, China be lieved that the necessity of Cybersecurity legislation had no need to be 
questioned. Regarding the concerns relating to "secure and controllable ", China emphasised that 
there was no requirement for the purchase of Chinese rather than foreign technology in China 's 
Cybersecurity Law and relevant measures. According to China, its intention was to stipulate and 
implement the Cybersecurity Law and relevant measures and not to restrict market access of foreign 
enterprises, technologies or product, but rather to s afeguard cyberspace sovereignty and national 
security, maintain social public welfare, and protect the rights and interests of Chinese citizens, legal 
persons and other organizations. According to China, during the drafting process of the Cybersecurity 
Law and relevant measures, the transparency obligation of the WTO was fully respected and the 
openness and transparency of the drafting process was guaranteed. According to China, it had G/TRIMS/M/46  
 
- 3 - 
 
  solicited public opinions and given opportunities for comments for Membe rs and stakeholders 
including the United States, Japan and other interested members.  
7. The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
2  INDONESIA – COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW  OF LOCALIZATION MEA SURES  
8. The Chair  stated  that this item was on the agenda at the request of the European Union, the 
United States, and Japan . 
9. The United States  remained deeply concerned by Indonesia 's use of localization requirements 
across a broad and expanding range of sectors, including telecommunications, mobile technology, 
energy, agricul ture, retail, and franchising. According to the United States, not only do these local 
content requirements raise questions about consistency with Indonesia 's trade obligations, they also 
act as barriers to trade that potentially divert investment from other developing countries.  The 
United States stated that it and other Members had been raising these issues for at least a decade.  
For the United States, while a few measures have been modified to address concerns, all of these 
measures we re still in place after endless discussions in this committee, and new measures were 
constantly being introduced. According to the United States, it would not be an exaggeration to note 
that 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 wished to consider 
some examples of Indonesia 's measures that Members of this committee should be familiar with.  
10. With regard to 4G LTE measures, the United States  continued to remain deeply concerned 
about Indonesia 's adoption and implementation of local content requirements for 4G LTE mobile 
devices and base stations. Although the United States had raised this matter in the WTO TRIM S 
Committee since Apri l 2015 and bilaterally in its TIFA meetings, it stated that Indonesia had not 
answered its questions or addressed its concerns. The United States indicated that it had hoped that 
over the years Indonesia would have ceased use of local content requirements.  To the contrary, the 
United States indicated that it now saw local content requirements for the 2300 MHz frequency of 
4G LTE subscriber stations and base stations set to increase in 2019 to 30 and 40 percent, 
respectively.  The United States considered thi s a problematic development.  
11. 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 restrictions in Indonesia 's 
energy sector, including now renewa bles 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 that it had raised in this Committee and bi laterally, 
the situation in the energy sector had deteriorated. For the United States, it was deeply concerning 
that despite its concerns about the use of local content requirements, whether in mining, oil and gas 
or in the high-tech sector, the Indonesian  government appeared to have doubled down on this 
approach and was now applying similar requirements in the renewable sector, such as solar power 
plants.  
12. With regard to the mining  sector , the United States  indicated that it also continued to have 
concerns developments in this sector , where despite assurances in this Committee, it appeared to 
the United States that Indonesia was forcing companies to switch from contracts of work to special 
mining licenses, as well as continuing to force companies to build sm elters and divest 51 percent of 
shares to be able to continue to export unprocessed mineral ores.  
13. With regard to retailing and franchising, the United States  noted that, as it had stated in prior 
meetings since 2013, Indonesia imposes a very high local con tent requirement on retailing 
companies , namely that  80% or 85% of the products they sell must be of Indonesian origin. 
Likewise, according to the United States, Regulation 53/2012 requires that "Franchisors and 
franchisees must use domestically produced g oods and/or services for at least 80 percent of their 
raw materials, business equipment and sales. " Further, according to the United States, 
Regulation  68/2012 limits the maximum number of outlets directly owned by "modern store 
businesses, " e.g., supermar kets, to 150 outlets. According to the United States, if an entrepreneur 
wants to have more outlets, then at least 40 percent of them must be franchised to other parties.  G/TRIMS/M/46  
 
- 4 - 
 
  14. With regard to telecommunications, the United States  indicated that Indonesia had bee n 
working on implementing domestic content requirements for licensed telecommunication services 
suppliers for many years.  According to the United States, in 2009, Indonesia 's Ministry of 
Communications and Information Technology (KOMINFO) implemented two r egulations imposing 
domestic purchasing requirements, namely KOMINFO Regulation No. 41 (dated October 16, 2009) 
requiring Indonesian telecommunications operators to expend a minimum of 50 percent of their total 
capital expenditures for network development on locally -sourced components or services, and  
KOMINFO regulation No. 07 (dated January 19, 2009) imposing local content requirements of 30 to 
50 percent in the wireless broadband sector.  
15. According to the United States , despite years of complaints by WTO M embers about this long 
list of local content requirements, rather than curtailing the use of such requirements, Indonesia had 
now expanded them to the pharmaceutical and medical device sector, which it would address in 
further detail under the next agenda item. For the United States, not only had many of these issues 
been before this Committee for some time – some for nearly a decade – but the United States had 
repeatedly engaged with the Government of Indonesia on these issues in Washington and Jakarta, 
and in other meetings of the WTO – such as in Agriculture and Import Licensing  committees , and in 
the Council for Trade in Goods  (CTG) . According to the United States, this reflected the fact that its 
concern with regard to the Government of Indonesia 's trade and investment policies extended 
beyond issues relevant to this Committee.  Despite its engagement to date, the United States stated 
that Indonesian government officials at the highest levels had publicly touted the success of their 
local content requirements, and had called for their expansion to new areas (for example, 
information technology -related "Internet of Things " products, as well as the pharmaceutical products 
and medical devices to be discussed under the next agenda item). For th e United States, such 
measures distort trade by reducing the market access other Members legitimately expect in 
Indonesia, and alter the flow of goods and patterns of investment in ways that directly harm other 
countries, in particular other developing cou ntries. The United States once again urged Indonesia to 
reconsider all of the measures Members had raised to date in particular those it had noted at the 
present Committee meeting.  
16. The United States  also recalled its intervention in the Committee at the 20 18 October meeting 
that there had been some progress in discussions with Indonesia on these distortive local content 
requirement policies.  According to the United States, in its recent engagements in Washington and 
Jakarta, the Government of Indonesia had agreed to undertake a "comprehensive " review of its local 
content policies.  The United States also understood that the Government of Indonesia had 
undertaken similar commitments with other WTO Members.  
17. The United States  explained that it had requested this  agenda item to give the delegation of 
Indonesia an opportunity, in an open and transparent manner, to brief the Committee on the conduct 
of this comprehensive review. The United States noted that at the 2018 October meeting of this 
Committee and at the Ap ril CTG meeting, it requested the delegation from Indonesia to be prepared 
to provide this briefing at the present Committee meeting. The United States asked that Indonesia 
provide the present Committee with the following information: What is the timeframe  and process 
for the comprehensive review, and what policies will the Government of Indonesia examine as part 
of this review? Which measures have been reviewed to date?  What has the Government of Indonesia 
concluded with respect to those measures?  If Indon esia plans to maintain a local content measure, 
please explain the basis on which Indonesia has concluded that the measure is consistent with its 
WTO obligations. Which Indonesian officials are in charge of the comprehensive review? What 
opportunities do s takeholders, including foreign investors have to provide information and views in 
connection with the comprehensive review? Are there publications or other documents that we can 
study in order to learn more about the ongoing comprehensive review?  
18. The Europ ean Union  regretted that the issue of the many local content requirements 
incompatible with TRIMS that Indonesia applies had not seemed to see much improvement. The 
European Union continued to share the concerns consistently raised by other Members with re gard 
to the local content requirements for 4G LTE mobile devices contained in Indonesia's Regulation 
No. 29/2017. According to the European Union, Regulation No 29/2017 detailed the technical 
guidelines for the calculation of the local content percentage a nd requires that a certificate proving 
the fulfilment of the local content requirements is issued by the Minister of Industry, following the 
reception of a verification report attesting surveyors' conformity check. The European Union 
remained unconvinced o f Indonesia's explanation given in this Committee that the purpose of 
Regulation No 29/2017  – technical guidelines for the calculation of the local content percentage and G/TRIMS/M/46  
 
- 5 - 
 
  the requirement for a certificate proving the fulfilment of the local content require ments  – is to 
guarantee the safety of the devices. The European Union did not see any reasonable relationship 
between the requirement to use domestic products and product safety and invited Indonesia again 
to amend its legislation in compliance with WTO ru les without further delay.  
19. The European Union  continued to be concerned that the energy sector, including mining, oil 
and gas, electricity and renewables , continue d to apply local content requirements for goods and 
services, as stipulated recently by the M inister of Energy and Mineral Resources Decree 
No 1953/2018. The European Union also noted that in Regulation 34/2017 the license holders are 
required to "prioritise the utilisation of local employees and domestic goods and services according 
to the prevai ling laws and regulations ". For the European Union, given that foreign companies are 
not regarded as providing "domestic services " in this regulation even if they are locally incorporated, 
it considered that this provision de facto creates discrimination. In addition, the European Union 
indicated that it would appreciate to be updated on the revision of the Mining Law. The European 
Union recalled that it was included in the legislative priorities for 2016 but was not adopted. Instead, 
according to the Europ ean Union, some of the elements that were part of the draft revised legislation 
had been inserted in a number of government or Ministerial regulations issued in 2017. The European 
Union indicated that it would welcome more information from the authorities.  
20. According to the European Union , the Trade and Industry Laws were adopted in 2014 and the 
first deregulation package was adopted in 2015. For the European Union, it  had not yet received 
clear information regarding the list of the measures implementing the  deregulation nor on how the 
deregulation packages affect ed the current legislation on local content requirement s. The European 
Union  regret ted that the legislation on minimum local content requirements in  the retail sector is 
still in force  and enquired how many exemptions had so far been granted under the relevant 
legislation and whether there were any plans regarding any updates on any possibl e new bill of law 
in this sector , and whether and how the rules may be modified.  
21. Japan  indicated that it continued to have concerns on Indonesia 's localization measures 
regarding 4G LTE mobile devices, the Energy Sector, Industry Law and Trade Law, and the  Modern 
Retail Sector. The first issue of concern to Japan was the local content requirement (LCR) for 4G LTE 
mobile devices. According to Japan, the LCR required by Regulation 65/2016 is clearly inconsistent 
with GATT Article III:4 as well as Article 2(1)  of the TRIMS Agreement because the regulation obliges 
companies to fulfil a certain level of local content requirement to sell mobile phones in Indonesia. 
Japan believed that the local content requirement for 4G LTE mobile devices should be eliminated. 
Japan recalled that, at the last meeting, Indonesia had informed that all relevant Ministries continue 
to oversee the existing policy in order to ensure the flow of foreign investment. Japan asked for a 
detailed explanation of oversight regarding this issue.  
22. The second issue of concern to Japan  regarded the energy sector. Japan remained concerned 
about the situation surrounding the Mining Law. Japan recalled that, at the last meeting, Indonesia 
had explained that the requirement to comply with pre -specified p urification thresholds prior to the 
exportation of mineral ores is not a prohibition of exports as such. According to Japan, however, this 
measure did constitute a prohibition of exports for the minerals that do not meet the requirement. 
GATT Article XI an d Article 2 of the TRIMS Agreement prohibit the imposition of restrictions on 
export. For Japan, the requirement to comply with pre -specified purification thresholds is 
inconsistent with these articles. Japan also stated that, the period during which minin g companies 
will be allowed to export their nickel ores is tentatively set at five years. Japan further stated that, 
in addition to the restricted period, mining companies are required to meet certain conditions 
including that they would build their own sm elters within 5 years and that at least 30% of the 
smelted ores would be supplied to Indonesia 's domestic market. Taking these points into account, 
Japan believed that this measure was still inconsistent with GATT rules. Japan indicated that it would 
continue to closely monitor the situation surrounding exportation of these ores.  
23. The third issue of concern to Japan  regarded the Industry Law and Trade Law. Japan recalled 
that it had explained repeatedly at previous meetings that it had concerns about the con sistency of 
the Industry Law and the Trade Law with the WTO Agreements. According to Japan, these laws 
should be implemented in compliance with the WTO rules and Japan indicated that it was closely 
monitoring their implementation, including the establishme nt of implementing regulations. Japan 
requested that Indonesia provide an overview of the implementation regulations for these laws, 
including those that have already been enacted and those that are yet to be enacted as well as the G/TRIMS/M/46  
 
- 6 - 
 
  regulations referred to at the last meeting. Japan also requested an explanation about the current 
situation of implementation of Regulation 01/2018 for imports of rice.  
24. Japan  also indicated that it was concerned about the Modern Retail Sector. Japan recalled that 
it had explaine d repeatedly at previous meetings that it had concerns about the consistency of the 
Minimum Local Product Requirement for the Modern Retail Sector with Article III:4 of GATT and 
Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement and urged Indonesia to remove this measure. J apan also requested 
some clarifications regarding the criteria of the exemption.  
25. Japan  recalled that, at the previous meeting, Indonesia had explained that it is in the process 
of deregulating and overseeing the overall investment related policy, including  in the modern retail 
sector. Japan requested Indonesia to inform the members of updates on this issue.  
26. Switzerland  expressed its continued interest in this matter and  looked forward to further 
information from Indonesia through its follow -up responses to the questions that had been posed in 
this Committee.  
27. Chinese Taipei  shared the concerns expressed by co-sponsors  and requested Indonesia to 
provide updates on any amendments in this regard and  would be closely monitoring the status and 
implementation of Indonesia's measures.  
28. Australia  reiterated its concerns shared at previous meetings on these points. 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 imposes local content requirements for 
both physical hardware as well as software and appl ications, and Australia  looked forward to how 
certain Indonesian measures and the ir local content requirements were consistent with the WTO 
TRIMS Agreement. Regarding measures in the energy sector, Australia remained concerned about 
ownership divestment re quirements, measures to convert Contracts of Work to Special Mining 
Business Licences (IUPK) and restrictions on obtaining approvals for expatriate employees.  
According to Australia, these regulations create uncertainty for foreign and Indonesian mining 
ventures operating in Indonesia, and the regulations are affecting investor confidence more broadly, 
with large foreign players leaving the market.  Australia stated that companies should be treated 
fairly during negotiations. Australia looked forward to ongo ing discussion and further clarification on 
the implementation of these regulations. Concerning Industry Law and Trade Law, Australia 
remained interested in what this means for Indonesia 's use of trade remedy measures. Australia 
sought an ongoing update on  how Indonesia intended to go forward in issuing its implementing 
regulations and reassure Members that it is taking into account its WTO obligations in drafting such 
regulations. Australia also  indicated that it remained interested in Indonesia's local co ntent 
requirements in the retail sector. According to Australia's understanding, while some exemptions 
are provided for in these measures in certain circumstances, the local content requirements would 
still distort trade across a range of goods in which Au stralia has an interest. Australia requested 
Indonesia to ensure that these measures would be implemented in a manner consistent with its 
obligations under the TRIMs Agreement and  requested an update from Indonesia on any 
developments in implementation.  
29. Indonesia  thanked the delegations concerned for their attention to Indonesia's regulations. 
Since Indonesia had yet to receive the written submission on this issue, it would convey its 
preliminary response on this issue. According to Indonesia, investment in  Indonesia remained strong 
and in an upward trajectory. According to Indonesia, UNCTAD reported that FDI inflow into Indonesia 
had increased significantly from 4 billion USD in 2016 to 23 billion USD in 2017. For Indonesia, this 
improvement had continued i n 2018 where the Indonesian Investment Coordinating Board reported 
that the FDI inflow reached 29 billion USD. According to Indonesia, the first quarter of 2019 had also 
shown a strong investment climate in Indonesia, recording more than 6 billion USD. For  Indonesia, 
investment facilitation, including investment simplification procedures, and significant infrastructure 
development, showed the commitment of the government to ensure Indonesia as the main 
investment destination in the region.  While Indonesia u nderstood concerns over the domestic 
component level (or TKDN) in Indonesia, it could not necessarily consider this as a local content 
requirement scheme. For Indonesia, it is mere a manifestation of the Government maintaining 
inclusivity of economic devel opment. According to Indonesia, TKDN provide an investment 
facilitation scheme in which investors have an opportunity that might freely be chosen, and TKDN 
operates on a voluntary basis or is only applied for government procurement, such as public health. G/TRIMS/M/46  
 
- 7 - 
 
  Indonesia indicated that it would take into account the concerns raised in order to study them 
carefully and respond accordingly.  
30. The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
3  INDONESIA - LOCAL CO NTENT REQUIREMENTS F OR PHARMACEUTICAL PR ODUCTS AND 
MEDICAL DEVICES  
31. The Chair recalled that this item was first considered by the Committee in October 2018 and  
was on the agenda at the request of the European Union and the United States.  Written questions 
posed by the United States to Indonesia were circula ted in documents G/TRIMS/Q/IDN/3 and 
G/TRIMS/Q/IDN/5.  Indonesia had replied in document G/TRIMS/Q/IDN/4 . 
32. The European Union  raised its serious concerns on this issue and fully supported the written 
questions and follow -up questions by the United States and looked forward to the replies to those. 
In particular, the European Union indicated that it would be grateful for clarific ations on how the 
mentioned regulations would apply "to government procurement only ". In addition, the 
European  Union stated that Indonesia indicated that the draft Ministry of Industry regulation on the 
calculation of local content levels for pharmaceutic al products was under discussion with relevant 
stakeholders and it is aimed at government procurement. The European Union stated that it was 
interested in getting a clear description of the state of play.  
33. The United States  recalled its concerns from the la st meeting relating to reports that Indonesia 
was considering an expansion of its local content requirements to the pharmaceutical and medical 
device sector. According to the United States' understanding, in June 2016, the Government of 
Indonesia (GOI) iss ued Presidential Instruction No. 6 of 2016 ( "PI 6/2016 "), requiring the GOI to 
accelerate the development of the domestic pharmaceutical and medical devices industry. According 
to the United States, the Presidential Instruction charges the Ministry of Indu stry with implementing 
this local content policy, in conjunction with the Ministry of Health, which had been instructed to 
"prioritize the use of domestic pharmaceutical products and medical devices. The United States 
stated that, in response to this Presi dential Instruction, the MOI and MOH had taken steps that would 
distort trade in both pharmaceutical products as well as medical devices in a manner that raised 
questions about consistency with Indonesia 's obligations under the TRIMS Agreement. The 
United  States stated that in February 2017, the MOH issued Regulation No. 17 of 2017: Action Plan 
for the Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Industries (MOH 17/2017).  According to the United 
States, as directed in the Presidential Instruction, this MOH regulation lays out an action plan to 
increase the use of domestic products in the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. The 
United States stated that the action plan sets a goal of decreasing the market share of imported 
medical devices from 94% to 45% by 20 35, and states that both the private sector and government 
must prioritize the use of domestically produced pharmaceuticals and medical devices. The United 
States appreciate d the efforts of Indonesia to address its questions but noted that the information 
provided did not fully resolve its concerns. For example, according to the United States, Indonesia 
asserts that the relevant measures are limited to government procurement not covered by the 
TRIMS  Agreement , however  nothing in the measures indicates that they are limited in that way.  
Indeed, according to  the United States, Article 6 of the Ministry of Health Action Plan 
("MOH 17/2017 ") states plainly: "(1) The pharmaceutical and medical device industry must prioritize 
the use of domestically -produced raw m aterials; (2) The provision of drugs and medical devices by 
the government and/or the private sector for the needs of the public must prioritize pharmaceutical 
preparations and medical devices that use raw materials produced by the domestic pharmaceutical 
and medical device industry. " According to the United States, this language applies to the private 
sector without regard to whether the transaction in questions constitutes government procurement.  
In light of this and other confusing points, the United Sta tes had posed follow -up questions to 
Indonesia, and looked forward to Indonesia's responses.  
34. Switzerland  remained interested in this agenda item and remained concerned regarding the 
measures implemented by Indonesia, and as stated by the European Union, Sw itzerland looked 
forward to obtaining further information from Indonesia through its responses to the questions posed 
by the United States.  
35. Indonesia  thanked the United States for its written questions circulated in document 
G/TRIMS/Q/IDN/5. Indonesia stated that it would submit a written reply as soon as it could. G/TRIMS/M/46  
 
- 8 - 
 
  Indonesia affirmed its position that local content requirements for pharmaceutical products and 
medic al devices as regulated by MOH No. 17/2017 are aimed solely for Government Procurement 
(Document G/TRIMS/Q/IDN/4). In this regard, Indonesia stated that it did not have any plans to 
extend the domestic component level values requirement for pharmaceutical products and medical 
devices beyond government procurement. Moreover, Indonesia stated that it did not yet intend to 
amend the MOH 17/2017 since its understanding was that the purpose of the regulation, as detailed 
in the attachment of the regulation, in l ine with Presidential Instruction No. 6/2016, is to prioritize 
the use of domestic pharmaceutical products and medical devices through e -tendering and e -
purchasing based on e -catalogue, a system that was used to facilitate the government procurement. 
Accor ding to Indonesia, the regulation at issue is a manifestation of the government of Indonesia's 
duty to provide better public health services, as mandated by Indonesia's constitution. For Indonesia, 
there was no intention to limit market access base d on the  fact that 90 per cent of the raw material 
for pharmaceutical products as well as medical devices supply are imported. Indonesia stated that 
its efforts to enhance public health took momentum in 2005 when it launched the Public Health 
Insurance programme f or the poor (or Jaminan Kesehatan Masyarakat). According to Indonesia, this 
programme had evolved into universal health coverage for Indonesia (what it calls Jaminan 
Kesehatan Nasional). According to Indonesia, this was part of its obligation to fulfil bas ic human 
rights in the health sector, and its determination to reach sustainable development goals. According 
to Indonesia, since its launch, JKN had undergone a number of improvements, including enhanced 
regulations, increased level of participation, impr oved benefits, better calculated premiums, a more 
efficient information management system, improved management and the use of the capitation fund 
at community health clinics, and the use of prospective payment system for hospitals. Indonesia 
stated, howeve r, that JKN faced multifaceted challenges in implementation, including developing a 
strategy for its sustainability, finding new sources of revenue for the health sector, expanding it 
membership, improving the readiness of the supply -side and implementing a pharmaceutical policy 
for the country 's health insurance system. According to Indonesia, the MOH Regulation No. 17/2017 
was published with the main objective of maintaining the sustainability of public health system and 
as a guide to tackle challenges po sed in providing services in public health which require an 
enormous budget.  
36. The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
4  RUSSIAN FEDERATION – MEASURES IMPLEMENTI NG RUSSIA'S IMPORT S UBSTITUTION 
POLICY  
37. The Chair  recalled that this item, which was first c onsidered by the Committee in June 2016, 
was on the agenda at the request of the United States. Questions to the Russian Federation were 
circulated in documents G/TRIMS/Q/RUS/4, 5, 6, and 8. Responses provided by the 
Russian  Federation were circulated in d ocuments G/TRIMS/Q1/RUS/7 and 9.  
38. The United States  expressed concerns about certain measures put in place by the 
Russian  Federation that raise questions with respect to the TRIMS Agreement and noted as an initial 
matter that Russia had replied to questions  raised by the United States in documents 
G/TRIMS/Q/RUS/4, and G/TRIMS/Q/RUS/7 and to questions raised by the European Union in 
document G/TRIMS/Q/RUS/5.  However, the United States recalled that it had submitted follow -up 
questions to Russia about addition al relevant programs in January 2018 in document 
G/TRIMS/Q/RUS/9.  The United States queried whether Russia was able to indicate when answers to 
these questions might be circulated to the Committee. The United States reiterated its concerns, 
which it had ex pressed in this Committee over the past several years, about the apparent expansion 
of Russia 's localization measures.  The United States indicated it would await in particular a response 
to its question from the last meeting: can the delegate from the Russ ian Federation explain to this 
Committee the justification for the Government of Russia directing private companies to give priority 
to Russian -sourced goods, services and works, over imports?  The United States also asked: how is 
that directive consistent with the WTO principle of national treatment?  
39. The European Union  reiterated its concern as to the continued utilisation of requirements for 
state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and other entities to source domestic goods and services when 
acting with a commercia l purpose. For the European Union, this was a separate issue from public 
procurement, i.e. when governmental bodies or SOEs purchase goods and services for the purpose 
of fulfilling missions of public interest, which is not covered by the European's  point at the present 
Committee meeting . The European Union thus referred primarily to procurement covered by 
Law 223/2011 regulating purchases of state -owned enterprises, not to procurement under G/TRIMS/M/46  
 
- 9 - 
 
  Law 44/2013 regulating Government Procurement. According to the Eu ropean Union, when SOEs 
act on a commercial capacity, WTO GATT and GATS basic provisions of national treatment prevent 
WTO members from adopting measures which discriminate between domestic and foreign products 
and services. However, the European Union con sidered that Russia had adopted and is implementing 
several such measures. The European Union wished to recall some of these measures, which it has 
referred to in previous TRIMS Committee meetings.  
40. According to the European Union , buying certain goods abro ad is not possible for Russian 
SOEs without a prior authorisation by the Import Substitution Commission. The European Union 
stated that governmental order N° 2744 of 29/12/2015 lists 11 categories of engineering products 
e.g. metal products (e.g. steam boi lers), electric equipment (e.g. generators) and transport vehicles 
and equipment (e.g. aircraft and helicopters). According to the European Union, the same goes for 
goods listed in the Governmental Order 2781 Of 31/12/2015 that defines 139 types of enginee ring 
goods such as electric and optical equipment (e.g. tomography scans); electric equipment (e.g. 
accumulators and components), plant and equipment (e.g. cranes and earthmovers), transport 
equipment (e.g. railway locomotives), etc. The European Union sta ted that the measures establish 
a different treatment on the basis of origin of the goods.  
41. According to the European Union , Decree No 925, adopted on 16 September 2016 and in force 
since 1 January 2017, introduced a 15% price preference for goods of Russia n origin and services 
provided by Russian suppliers, and concerns: (i) SOEs as defined by Law 223 and (ii) any entity 
(including purely private entities) benefitting (even partially) from state subsidies for implementation 
of investment projects also when these entities are not fulfilling missions of governmental purpose. 
According to the European Union, Law 496 of 31 December 2017 extended the control by the 
government of SOEs' purchases of planes, ships and other machinery, and it continued to seek 
clarification of whether the origin of the goods is one of the criteria for a governmental authorisation. 
According to the European Union, Law 44/2013 -FZ on Government Procurement was amended by 
Law 174 -FZ of 29 June 2018.  The European Union stated that this ame ndment seems to imply that 
Law 44 on Government Procurement, which confers advantages to the public procurement of 
domestic products and services, now covers also investments made by SOEs where these make 
fixed capital investments using state subsidies – including in the case of legal entities which are not 
100% owned by the State and which were previously governed by Law 223/2011 with regard to 
their procurement.  
42. The European Union  also recalled that Russia stated, in previous meetings of the TRIMs 
committ ee that priority for domestic products purchased for governmental purposes is compatible 
with GATT and the measures in question are applied in full regard of WTO obligations. This led the 
European Union to clarify again that the issue it was raising does n ot concern procurement of 
governmental entities or SOEs when purchasing products and services for governmental purposes 
but purchases of SOEs when acting with a commercial purpose. In this situation, according to the 
European Union, the only way to ensure full regard of WTO obligations is to ensure equal treatment 
of domestic and foreign products and services, which excludes special authorisation procedures or 
price advantages for the benefit of domestic procedures. The European Union urged Russia to ensure  
that there is a clear differentiation of the rules applicable to government procurement and to SOEs 
acting on a commercial capacity, and that the latter rules avoid any distinction between foreign and 
domestic goods and services.  
43. The European Union  regret ted that it had not yet received the replies to its questions, other 
than a reference to more general exchanges in the context of the TPR. The European urged Russia 
to submit its detailed replies to all outstanding questions. The European Union indicated i t was very 
interested in seeing Russia's replies to the questions submitted by the United S tates in April 2017 
(G/TRIMS/Q/RUS/6) and in January 2018 (G/TRIMS/Q/RUS/8).  
44. The European Union  indicated that it was also concerned by the Federal Law 166 "On fishe ries 
and conservation of aquatic biological resources " dated 20 December 2004 and its implementing 
measures, in particular Resolution 633/2017 of 25 May 2017 "On securing and granting a catch 
quota of aquatic biological resources, proposed for investment p urposes in the sector of fisheries, 
for the development of industrial fisheries and / or coastal fisheries ". According to the 
European  Union, this Law and the Resolution appear to draw a link between certain investments in 
Russia or certain purchase/constr uction by investors regarding locally manufactured ships and the 
possibility to obtain subsidies granted in the form of fishing quotas which are attributed by type of 
vessel, region and a type of fish species. According to the European Union, based on a pr eliminary G/TRIMS/M/46  
 
- 10 - 
 
  legal analysis, it consequently raises concerns as to its compliance with the TRIMs Agreement and 
notably the principle of national treatment. The European Union sought clarification regarding the 
direct link that the Law and the Resolution seem to establish between the local investment made 
and the possibility to obtain secured fishing quotas for the investors. Secondly, the European Union 
sought to know how this link would be compatible with Russia obligations under the 
TRIMS  Agreement.  
45. The Russian Federation  thanked the delegations concerned for their questions concerning the 
Russian measures. The Russian Federation noted that the replies to the questions G/TRIMS/Q/RUS/8 
had been recently submitted to the Secretariat. The Russian Federation also  noted that the replies 
to the questions G/TRIMS/Q/RUS/6 were at the final stage of consideration by the relevant 
authorities and endeavoured to circulate them shortly. The Russian Federation referred the 
delegations of the European Union  and the United St ates to the Russian Federation's statements at 
the previous Committee meetings. The Russian Federation reiterated that the interested Members 
have introduced certain measures, which are aimed at phasing out economic cooperation with the 
Russian companies. Against this background, the Russian Federation wondered why the proponents 
were persistently placing this question into the WTO agenda instead of eliminating the root causes 
of the issue. Without this, the Russian Federation's producers would require addi tional support with 
the use of all WTO -compatible tools. The Russian Federation regretted that due attention had not 
been paid to the statutory requirement of paragraph 8 of the Resolution of the Government of the 
Russian Federation No. 925. According to t he Russian Federation, this provision states that the 
priority to the Russian products should be provided only taking due account of the requirements 
under the GATT 1994. The Russian Federation stated that, keeping in mind the scope of the national 
treatme nt obligations under Article III of the GATT, in procurement for commercial purposes the 
products of the Russian origin and foreign products should be treated equally. In addition, the 
Russian Federation provided clarifications regarding the amendments of the Federal Law No. 44 -FZ 
introduced by the Federal Law No. 174 -FZ. According to the Russian Federation, the new rules 
govern only procurement of state -owned enterprises carried out at the expense of subsidies granted 
in accordance with the Budget Code of the Russian Federation. Therefore, for the Russian Federation, 
the new legislation covers only budget investments used for procurement. According to the Russian 
Federation, Procurements of state-owned  enterprises on account of the private investments are n ot 
governed by the Federal Law No. 44 -FZ. Moreover, the Russian Federation stated that it is important 
to mention that part 1 of article 14 of the Federal Law No. 44 -FZ establishes general national 
treatment regime for imported goods in the context of proc urement covered by this law. According 
to the Russian Federation, the Russian measures are in full compliance with the WTO rules.  
46. The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
5  RUSSIAN FEDERATION – MEASURES TO SUPPORT  THE AUTOMOTIVE INDU STRY TO 
REPLACE TH E AUTOMOTIVE INVESTM ENT INCENTIVE PROGRA MS 
47. The Chair  noted that this item was on the agenda at the request of the United States.  
48. The United States  stated that, as part of its accession to the WTO, Russia agreed to phase out 
its automotive investment incentive programs by July 1, 2018, and to consult with interested 
Members beforehand on what types of measures it would establish and implement to repl ace those 
programs. The United States understood that Russia met the July 2018 deadline and that the original 
investment incentive programs have been eliminated. The United States wished to know what 
programs Russia had established to replace the measures that formed the original automotive 
investment incentive programs.  The United States reiterated that Russia agreed in its working party 
report to consult with Members about such replacement measures, and the United States had 
requested this agenda item to give Russia the opportunity to provide this information. According to 
the United States, in 2017, the Government of Russia launched "Russia 's Strategy on Automotive 
Industry Development through 2025 ", setting out a variety of programs to support the Russia n 
automotive industry. The United States wished to know more about this Strategy, and the various 
measures it has generated to support the Russian automotive industry. The United States requested 
the representative of Russia to provide this committee with a comprehensive list of all the programs 
it had developed and implemented to replace its automotive investment incentive programs that it 
abolished last year.  The United States stated that one measure that caught its attention was 
Resolution No. 1278 "On implementation of the rules on issuing subsidies in 2018 from the federal 
budget to Russian automakers as compensation for the partial costs of production of wheeled 
vehicles, units and aggregates " (October 26, 2018).  The United States' reading of this meas ure was G/TRIMS/M/46  
 
- 11 - 
 
  that it reimburses up to 80% of the cost of "procuring/transporting " foreign parts and components 
used in domestic car manufacturing. According to the United States: section 4 of the measure 
appears to condition the assistance on the achievement of  production goals; and section 5 of this 
resolution appears to provide that the assistance is available only to companies that are 51 percent 
owned by Russians, and that are not receiving any other incentives for the same expenses. The 
United States reques ted the representative from Russia to explain how such provisions are consistent 
with its obligations under the TRIMS Agreement. The United States also asked: while these 
provisions appear to implicate the SCM, are these provisions in any way conditioned o n the use of 
local inputs?  
49. For the United States , another program of interest is Government Resolution No. 364 
"Regarding the repayment of loss of revenue from financing vehicles purchased by persons in 
2015-2017" (amended on July 7, 2017 through Resolutio n No. 808), which introduced the so -called 
"First Car " or "Family Car " programs.  According to the United States' understanding of the measure, 
this program provides support to banks which in turn provide low -interest loans for automotive 
purchases, but onl y for automobiles that cost under 1 million rubles. The United States stated that 
according to Russian press reports, in the first half of 2017, the average cost of a new car was 
approximately 1.34 million rubles; a top of the line Lada cost 623 thousand r ubles. The United States 
requested the representative of Russia to explain whether its understanding the program is accurate. 
The United States also asked the following: Is this program tied to the origin of the car or its inputs? 
Can the representative pr ovide us with data on the makes and models of automobiles that have 
benefitted from this program each year?  The United States explained that data on the total benefits 
provided by year, and percentages by make/model would help Members understand how this 
program functions.  The United States looked forward to hearing how these and other programmes 
would also function.  
50. The Russian Federation  stated that, at the previous TRIMs Committee meeting, it had informed 
the WTO Members that the obligations under paragraph 1090 of the Working Party Report on the 
Accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO had been fulfilled. The Russian Federation so ught 
to take the opportunity to provide some details in this respect. First, according to the Russian 
Federation, the Auto Investment Programs have been brought in compliance with the WTO rules. 
The Russian Federation stated that on 14 September 2018, the Council of the Eurasian Economic 
Commission adopted the decision No. 73 which raised customs duty rates with respect to goods for 
"for industrial assembly " up to bound levels. According to the Russian Federation, in the absence of 
preferential tariffs that  constituted the benefit for participants of the programme, the localization 
requirements had lost their effect. Second, the Russian Federation stated that it had consulted with 
the interested Members regarding WTO -consistent measures that could be applied  in connection 
with the Auto Investment Programs. In June 2016, the Russian Federation had informed the WTO 
Members through the document G/TRIMS/W/164 about its readiness to engage in such 
consultations. The Russian Federation received the respective reque st from one delegation, namely 
the European Union, and the bilateral meeting took place on 31 May 2018. This Committee was 
informed about that meeting. Third, the Russian Federation noted that, concerning notification of 
measures planned to replace the Aut o Investment Programs. the Auto Investment Programs had 
effectively ceased to be applied, and the Russian Federation had no measures or plans to develop 
new measures to replace these programs. The Russian delegation stood ready to provide additional 
clarifications through bilateral channels . 
51. The Committee took note  of the information provided.  
6  ARGENTINA – ACT 27,263 ON THE DEVELOPMENT AND STRENGTHENING REGIME OF 
THE ARGENTINE AUTOPARTISM  
52. The Chair recalled that this item, which was first considered by the Committee in 
October  2016, was on the agenda at the request of Mexico. Questions to Argentina were circulated 
in documents G/TRIMS/Q/ARG/1, 3, 5, 7 , and 9 . Responses were provided in documents 
G/TRIMS/Q/ARG/2, 4 , 6 and 8 .  
53. Mexico  noted that Law No 27 ,263 entered into force on 2 August 2016, through which a regime 
is created to grant tax incentives to specific producers of autoparts which comply with specific 
national content. The regime was implemented through Resolution 599 -E/2016  from the Industry 
and Services Secretariat of Argentina's Ministry of Production , published on 7  December  2016 in the 
official gazette, and entered into force  on 12 December 2016 . Mexico recalled it had raised this G/TRIMS/M/46  
 
- 12 - 
 
  matter at the TRIMs Committee since October 2016, as well as at the Committee on Market Access 
in a number of sessions , without Argentina having brought its autoparts regime in line with WTO 
rules. According to Mexico, t hrough the regime established by Law 27 ,263, digital tax credit bonds 
are granted, which may be transferred to third parties for the payment of domestic taxes for an 
amount which is equivalent to the ex -factory value  of the amount of domestic autoparts. The digital 
tax credit bond varies from 4  to 15 percent depending on the local content and applies in line with 
the table established in Article  13 of that law, and it also extends to purchasing machinery, which is 
new and which has been manufactured in Argentina. In order to benefit from the regime, the  Act 
also establishes local content percentages which vary according to the autopart in question and run 
from 25 to 50 percent. Mexico consider ed that this law, to gether with the other measures envisaged 
in its application, could violate Article 2 and the Annex of the TRIMS Agreement, because granting 
the tax benefit is conditioned upon legal persons who use inputs and production which comes from 
local manufacturers, and which is not granted to legal persons who use imported inputs. Therefore,  
according to Mexico,  the regime would reduce  the competitive opportunit ies for exporters when 
compared with domestic Argentinian manufacturers of similar autoparts. Mexico recalled that, at the 
previous Committee meeting, Argentina had reported that as of October  2018 no benefit had yet 
been granted and that this was due to the fact that the regime requires the platforms to be new and 
exclusive . Mexico sent questions in April of this year with the objective of knowing the reasons why, 
although the regime has been in force for almost three years, no benefits have been granted. At the 
meeting a year ago, Argentina responded that this is probably due to the fact that the regime 
requires the use of platforms that are new and exclusive, a situation that implies a time of a daptation 
by the beneficiaries, as well as the application by the Argentine Government of a digital system to 
manage the information related to this regime.  According to Mexico, this measure of import 
substitution generates an unfortunate precedent and red uces the competitive opportunities in the 
Argentine market for WTO Members that export auto parts. Mexico expected Argentina to respond 
to its most recent questions, which addressed, inter alia, the amount of tax benefits granted so far, 
and requests that it brings its auto parts regime into conformity with the rules of the WTO.  
54. The European Union  shared  Mexico's views. The European Union wished to reiterate its 
concerns that the scheme is  not compatible with the TRIMS A greement. The European Union sought  
full transparency from Argentina about the new legislative developments and a withdrawal of the 
scheme.  
55. Argentina  thanked Mexico and the European Union for their interest in this agenda item  and 
for the questions posed by Mexico in document G/TRIMS/Q/ARG/ 9. With respect Mexico's first 
question requesting Argentina to provide an update on the latest actions carried out for the 
application of Law 27,263, Argentina stated that there were no further actions beyond those 
described in the last replies circulated b y Argentina in this Committee. With respect to Mexico's 
second question asking how many companies are currently enrolled in the program regulated by 
Law 27,263, Argentina stated that from December 12, 2016 (the date on which the regulation of 
Law No. 27,26 3 entered into force) a total of six companies had joined  the scheme  and satisfied all 
applicable requirements. With respect to Mexico's third question asking what have been the amounts 
in terms of value (dollars of tax credit bonds) that so far the compan ies registered in the previous 
question have benefited since the entry into force of Law 27,263, Argentina stated that the 
government of the Argentine Republic did not keep statistics related to the implementation and/or 
results of the projects implemented  under Law No. 27,263. With respect to Mexico's fourth question 
asking Argentina to explain the reasons why its Autopartism Regime is not operating and therefore 
is not yielding results, Argentina referred Mexico back to its response to its second question . With 
respect to Mexico's fifth question asking Argentina to explain in detail what the results of local 
content are, Argentina responded that the information requested by Mexico is contained in the 
answer to question no. 2. With respect to Mexico's sixth  question asking if Argentina has one or 
more official reports on the impact on trade of Law 27,263, Argentina responded that the 
government of the Republic of Argentina has not developed reports regarding the impact of the 
implementation of Law No. 27,263, but if they are carried out in the future, they will be duly sent to 
the Mexican delegation.  
56. The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
7  OTHER BUSINESS  
57. The Chair  took note that no Member requested to raise any issue under "other business".  G/TRIMS/M/46  
 
- 13 - 
 
  8  ELEC TION OF CHAIRPERSON AND VICE -CHAIRPERSON  
58. 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 am ong the representatives of Members. The election shall take place at the 
first meeting of the year and shall take effect at the end of the meeting. The Chairperson and Vice - 
Chairperson shall hold office until the end of the first meeting of the following year."  The Chair noted 
that the Council for Trade in Goods had agreed on a slate of names for Chairpersons to the different 
subsidiary bodies, including the Chair to the TRIMs Committee. Taking into account that agreement 
in the CTG, the C hair propose d that the Committee agree forma lly to elect Ms Tiziana Zugliano  as 
Chairpers on of this Committee for 2020 . 
59. The Committee elected  Ms Tiziana Zugliano  as Chairperson . In respect of the Vice -Chair 
position, the Chair proposed that the new Chair engage in cons ultation with Members to identify a 
suitable candidate.  
60. The Chair-elect made a brief statement indicating her willingness to commence consultations 
to identify a suitable Vice -Chair.  
61. The Chair thanked  the delegations , as well as the Vice-Chair, for the cooperation and good 
work and wish ed every success to the Chair -elect.  
9  DATE OF THE NEXT MEE TING  
62. The Chair recalled that Article 7.1 of the Agreement provided that the Committee would meet 
not less than once a year, and otherwise at the request of any Member. The Chair noted that the 
Committee usually holds two meetings per year, in the spring and fall. In acc ordance with past 
practice, the Chair suggested that scheduling the next meeting in fall 2019, in order to enable 
participants to plan their work. In particular, the Chair propose d a meeting on 
Wednesday  13 November 2019.  
63. In order to provide Members with ample opportunity to prepare for this meeting, the 
Secretariat would issue the annotated draft agenda three weeks in advance of the meeting, namely 
on Thursday 7 October 2019 . Members' requests to place items on the annotated draft agenda 
should be communi cated in writing to the Secretariat at the latest by close of business Tuesday 
15 October 2019 . The annotated draft agenda would be open to Members' comments until close of 
business on Wednesday Friday 26 October 2019 . In addition, Members wishing to circu late 
documents should do so by close of business on Wednesday Friday 26 October 2019 , so that they 
can be reflected on the airgram. The airgram convening the meeting would be issued on 
Friday , 1 November 2019 . 
64. The Committee took note  of the information pro vided.  
65. The meeting was adjourned . 
__________