RESTRICTED  
  
G/TRIMS/M/48  
30 October  2020 
(20-7645) Page: 1/8 
Committee on Trade -Related Investment Measures   
 
  
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 15 SEPTEMBER 2020  
CHAIR: MS TIZIANA ZUGLIANO  (ITALY )  
 The Chair  started the meeting of the Committee by referring  to the proposed agenda circulated 
in WTO/AIR/TRIMS/ 11 dated 4 September 2020 . No additional item was raised under  "Other 
Business " and the  Committee adopted the following agenda : 
1   INDONESIA – COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF LOCALIZATION MEASURES ....................  1 
2   RUSSIAN FEDERATION – MEASURES IMPLEMENTING RUSSIA'S IMPORT 
SUBSTITUTION POLICY  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 5 
3   NOTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 6.2 OF THE TRIMS AGREEMENT OF PUBLICATIONS 
IN WHICH TRIMS MAY BE FOUND  ................................ ................................ ...................  7 
4   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 7 
5   ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON AND VICE -CHAIRPERSON  ................................ .............  7 
6   DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING  ................................ ................................ .....................  7 
7   ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS (ARTICLE 7.3)  .................  7 
 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 arrangements , before moving on to the substantive par t of the meeting.  
1  INDONESIA – COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF LOCALIZATION MEASURES  
 The Chair  stated  that this item was on the agenda at the request of the United States, the 
European Union  and Japan . 
 The United States  reiterated its deep concerns about  Indonesia 's use of localiza tion requirements 
across a broad and expanding range of sectors, including telecommunications, mobile 
technology, energy, agriculture, retail, and franchising. According to the United States, not only 
do these local content requirements raise questions abo ut consistency with Indonesia 's trade 
obligations, they also act as barriers to trade that potentially divert investment from other 
developing countries. The United States and other Members had been raising these issues for at 
least a decade  and it would n ot 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 appreciated Indonesia's responses 
provided in two re plies circulated in July, as these responses clarified some of the questions it 
had been wrestling with. However, other responses raised even more questions about the 
consistency of Indonesia's measures with its WTO obligations.  The United States wished to  
consider some examples of Indonesia 's measures that Members of this committee were familiar 
with, including some measures where recent changes had been made . 
 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 Members  had raised concerns about this measure for several 
years, its application continued to expand, and many of the questions pos ed by the United States 
remained unanswered.  G/TRIMS/M/48  
- 2 - 
  
 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, inc luding now renewables , as many of the policies that it had expressed concern 
about in the extractive industry were emerging in the renewables sector. The United States 
stated that, despite trying to find a solution to the concerns raised in this Committee and 
bilaterally, the situation in the energy sector had deteriorated.  
 With regard to the mining  sector , the United States expressed concerns about developments in 
this sector , where , despite assurances in this Committee, it appeared that Indonesia was forc ing 
companies to switch from contracts of work to special mining licenses, as well as continuing to 
force companies to build smelters and divest 51 % of shares to be able to continue to export 
unprocessed mineral ores.  
 With regard to retailing and franchisi ng, the United States recalled that, at the last meeting of 
the TRIMs Committee it had asked Indonesia to clarify what the requirement to "prioritize" use 
of local content meant. The representative of the United States quoted Indonesia's written 
response a nd interpreted it as meaning that an investor must use local goods if it is able to do 
so. The United States now wished to understand how such a requirement was consistent with 
the TRIMs Agreement.  
 With regard to telecommunications, the United States stated that Indonesia had been 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 (K OMINFO) implemented two regulations 
imposing domestic purchasing requirements  and issued several measures in the intervening 
years to clarify the requirement for locally -sourced  components or services . The United States 
recalled that , at the last meeting , it had asked about two KOMINFO regulations that 
reinforced  - and potentially expanded – these longstanding domestic content requirements for 
telecommunication services suppliers. Under Regulation 9/2019, KOMINFO required that all 
"wavelength division multi plexing telecommunication tools and/or devices … must meet local 
content levels, in accordance with statutory provisions " (Article 4).  And under 
Regulation  10/2019, KOMINFO required that "each internet protocol network telecommunication 
tool and/or device  … must meet local content levels, in accordance with statutory provisions " 
(Article 4). The United States recalled that it had asked Indonesia what the local content levels 
referred to in these regulations , were . However, the response provided by In donesia was that 
the local content levels are the "national laws and regulations concerning component 
requirement." For the United States, that answer was insufficient  to assess the significance of 
the measure in question. The United States requested that Indonesia review its response on 
KOMINFO regulations 9/2019 and 10/2019 and  underscored its concern that Indonesia appeared 
to be moving in the wrong direction by expanding , rather than eliminating , these trade restrictive 
measures.   
 As noted at the last m eeting , the United States was  also concerned by reports that Indonesia 
considered  expansion of its local content requirements to the pharmaceutical and medical device 
sectors. The United States noted that , in February 2017, through Presidential Instruction s and 
Ministry of Health issued regulations and action plans , Indonesia had set a goal of decreasing 
the market share of imported medical devices from 94% to 45% by 2035, and stated that both 
the private sector and government must prioritize the use of dom estically produced 
pharmaceuticals and medical devices. The United States appreciated Indonesia's efforts to 
address its questions,  but the information provided so far raised additional concerns . The United 
States also said that while it appreciated Indone sia's desire to promote investment in its 
domestic sector , such steps must be taken in accordance with WTO obligations . It appeared that 
Indonesia was not merely facilitating investment, but rather requiring use of local products. The 
United States noted I ndonesia's response that the requirements  related only to government 
procurement , but also pointed to numerous provisions that appear to mandate local content 
outside the procurement context . The United States stated that, i n its response, Indonesia had 
not denied that these provisions were applicable beyond government procurement, but had 
merely said that it had no plans to revise these measures.  
 The United States stated that despite years of complaints by WTO Members, about this long list 
of local content requirements, it was alarmed that Indonesia was moving to reinforce  - and 
potentially expand  - existing local content requirements in sectors such as telecommunications. G/TRIMS/M/48  
- 3 - 
  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 committees  – such 
as Agriculture and Import Licensing, and in the Council fo r Trade in Goods.  
 As the United States had shared at the last meeting of this Committee, in recent engagements 
in Washington and Jakarta, the Government of Indonesia ha d agreed to undertake a 
"comprehensive " review of its local content policies. In respon se to questions about progress on 
this review, Indonesia had said that the current pandemic had slowed work on the review. While 
changes in plans were understandable, the representative of the United States asked Indonesia 
to commit to briefing this Commit tee at its next meeting on the status of its comprehensive 
review.  
 The European Union  said that it supported the statement of the United States on this issue.  
 Regarding the pharmaceutical sector, the E uropean Union was interested in the adoption of new 
Minister of Industry Regulation No. 16 of 2020 on the calculation of local content levels for 
pharmaceutical products, in particular how the regulations would apply "to government 
procurement only ". The E uropean Union noted  that this regulation had not yet b een notified to 
the WTO . The European Union  was concerned that the imposition of arbitrary local content 
percentages, to be met under limited time, would create an impossible condition and would bar 
most of the players from the market in a situation where,  to its knowledge, Indonesia was still 
importing over 95% of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients. The E uropean Union stood ready to 
support Indonesia's objective on improving healthcare and promoting the development of the 
local pharma industry. However, it believed that rather than imposing local content 
requirements , the Government should focus on policies that incentivise more domestic and 
foreign investment in local pharma industry.  
 Regarding local content requirements for 4 G LTE mobile devices , the European Union reiterate d 
its concerns about the requirements contained in  Indonesia's Regulation No. 29/2017. The 
European Union  recalled the  background: Regulation No . 29/2017 details the technical guidelines 
for the calculation of the local content percentage and requires that a certificate proving the 
fulfilment of the local content requirements is issued by the Minister of Industry, following the 
reception of a verif ication report attesting surveyors' conformity check. The European Union  
remain ed unconvinced that the purpose of Regulation No . 29/2017 was to guarantee the safety 
of the devices. The European Union  did not see any relationship between these requirement a nd 
product safety and invit ed Indonesia again to amend its legislation in compliance with WTO rules.  
 Regarding certain local content provisions in the energy sector (mining, oil and gas) , the 
European Union continued to be concerned with the local content requirements for goods and 
services in the energy sector, including mining, oil and gas, electricity and renewables, as 
stipulated in Decree No 1953/2018. The E uropean Union was also concerned that - according to 
Regulation 34/2017 - license holders were required to "prioritise the utilisation of local 
employees and domestic goods and services according to the prevailing laws and regulations " 
(Art.31). Given that foreign companies were not regarded as providing "domestic services " in 
this regulation even if  they were locally incorporated, the E uropean Union considered that this 
measure de facto creates discrimination. Furthermore, the EU asked for an update  on the 
revision of the Mining Law. The E uropean Union understood  that the revised  law had been  
adopted  in May  2020, with obligation for mining license holders to prioritize the use of local 
workers and domestic goods and services . The European Union said it would welcome any further 
information from Indonesia.  
 Concerning the Trade Law and  Industry Law  adopted in 2014 and the first deregulation package 
adopted in 2015 , the European Union said it would appreciate receiving any update on the 
measures implementing the deregulation and how those would impact the current legislation on 
local con tent requirements.  
 Finally, the E uropean Union referred  to the minimum local product requirement in retail . It 
regretted that the legislation on minimum local content requirements was still in force. It 
reiterate d its request to get information on the scop e and number of exemptions granted under 
the relevant legislation. It said it would also appreciate further information as to the G/TRIMS/M/48  
- 4 - 
  Government 's intentions regarding possible update s or amendments to the legislation in this 
sector.  
 Japan  upheld the concerns expressed by other Members so far on the fact that local content 
requirements  had been introduced and maintained in various areas in Indonesia. Japan recalled 
that, at the previous TRIMs meeting, Indonesia had explained that it was working on a 
comprehensi ve review of various LCR measures, and that it was proceeding with harmonizing a 
set of regulations.  Japan asked Indonesia to reply to Members' questions on issues such as 
concrete work contents and progress being made to harmonize the regulations and the work 
process of the overall comprehensive review etc , that the United States asked at the last meeting 
and this meeting of the TRIMs committee.  
 Japan recalled that, at the last meeting of the TRIMs  Committee, Indonesia mentioned that LCR 
measures were in place in the contexts of (1) government procurement, (2) ensuring the 
necessary needs of the population, and (3) strategic resources controlled by the state. However, 
in particular, (2) and (3) c ould not  be grounds to immediately justify LCR measures under the 
WTO agreement. Japan understood the importance of these objectives but  considered that 
taking local content requirement  measures as an easy means to achieve them should not be 
allowed.  
 Japan continued to have concerns regarding the consistency with the TRIM s agreement, 
especially for the following three LCR measures taken by Indonesia. Therefore, in addition to the 
abolition or improvement of the measures, Japan requested Indonesia to pr ovide an appropriate 
explanation and update regarding the contents of the measures and the status of its 
consideration.  
 The first issue of concern to Japan was the LCR for 4G LTE mobile devices. According to Japan, 
this LCR was clearly inconsistent with GA TT Article III:4 as well as Article 2(1) of the TRIM s 
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.  
 Secondly, regarding LCR for retailers, although it seemed that the 80% sales requirement for 
domestic products had been abolished by the regulation change in 2019, Japan understood that 
there was still an obligation t o prioritize the use of domestic products. The representative of 
Japan quoted Indonesia 's response to  Question 2  posed by the United States in 
G/TRIMS/Q/IDN/7 : "if no domestic goods and/or services can qualify with the standard set by 
the franchiser, then the franchiser is free to use any goods and/or services. " Japan considered 
this to be an LCR measure because domestic products that meet the same criteria are clearly 
given preferential treatments over imported products, which is inconsistent with Article 2 of the 
TRIMs Agreement.  
 The third issue that caused concern to Japan was the Industry Law and Trade Law. Japan had 
doubts about the consistency of some provisions with GATT articles XI:1 and III:4 and Article 2 
of the TRIM s Agreement. These laws should be implemented in compliance with the WTO rules 
and Japan request ed Indonesia to provide an overview of the implementing regulations for these 
laws, including those already enacted and those that were yet to be enacted.  
 Finally, Japan continued to pay clo se attention to the revised Mining Law, on which the EU 
requested a consultation with Indonesia in November 2019 and the process had moved on to 
the dispute settlement stage.  
 Australia  reiterated its concerns on Indonesia's local content requirements . The representative 
of Australia noted the ongoing challenges that COVID presents  and said that it would welcome 
any update on Indonesia's review.  
 Regarding 4G LTE local content requirements, Australia remained interested in this issue and 
was monitoring the s tatus and implementation of the regulations , including in other WTO 
Committees. Australia understood that Minister of Industry Regulation 65/2016 , in effect from 
27 July 2016,  imposes local content requirements for both physical hardware as well as softwar e 
and applications, and Australia  looked forward to clarifications on how this measure , as well as G/TRIMS/M/48  
- 5 - 
  Regulation No. 69, and the local content requirements contained in both, were consistent with 
the WTO TRIMS Agreement.  
 Regarding measures in the energy sector, Australia noted the 10 June 2020 revisions to the 
2009 Mining Law, which brought improvements. However, Australia remained concerned about 
ownership divestment requirements  as well as local processing requirements. Australia looked 
forward to an update on the implications of implementing the new Mining Law in terms of 
consistency with Indonesia's obligations under the TRIMs Agreement.  
 Concerning the Industry Law and Trade La w, Australia recalled earlier discussions and 
Indonesia's advice from previous meetings. Australia remained interested in what this means 
for Indonesia 's use of trade remedy measures. Australia sought an update on how Indonesia 
intend s to issue its impleme nting regulations and to 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 content requirements in 
the retail sector. According to Au stralia's understanding, while some exemptions were provided 
for in certain circumstances, the local content requirements would still distort trade across a 
range of goods in which Australia ha d an interest.  Australia was seeking  assurances that 
Indonesia implemented these measures in a manner consistent with its obligations under the 
TRIMs Agreement and thanked Indonesia for any update on any developments in 
implementation.  
 The representative of Indonesia  thanked the delegations concerned for their intere st in Indonesia  
as a destination for investments . He noted that statistics still showed that there was barely any 
meaningful change in the overall import of goods into Indonesia amidst th e present pandemic 
situation. The representative of Indonesia said he  wanted to reiterate the statement made at 
the last meeting of the Committee and to refer Members to Indonesia's communication in 
document s G/TRIMS/Q/IDN/7 concerning Indonesia – Comprehensive Review of Localization 
Measures  and G/TRIMS/Q/IDN /8 concerning Indonesia – Local Content Requirements for 
Pharmaceuticals Products and Medical Devices . 
 The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
2  RUSSIAN FEDERATION – MEASURES IMPLEMENTING RUSSIA'S IMPORT SUBSTITUTION 
POLICY  
 The Chair recalled that this item, which was first considered by the Committee in June 2016, 
was on the agenda at the request of the United States  and the European Union . 
 The European Union  reiterated its concern s with respect to the continued utilisation of 
requirements for state -owned enterprises and other entities to grant preferences to domestic 
goods and services from Russian suppliers. To its knowledge, Russia was currently working on 
a comprehensive reform of its rules for SOEs procurements. The European Union  urged Russia 
to ensure that there was a clear differentiation of the rules applicable to government 
procurement and to SOEs acting in a commercial capacity, and that the latter rules should avoid 
any distinction between foreign and domestic goods, and Russian/ non-Russian  service suppliers.  
 However, for the European Union, Russia continued to adopt and to implement measures that 
raise serious concerns as to their compliance with GATT and GATS rules. The European Union 
noted that during the Summer of 2020, the so -called quota bill (i.e. changes in Federal Laws 44 
and 223), had been adopted by the Russian Parliament  and had entered into force on July 31st. 
The bill introduced fixed quotas on purchases of foreign products by state entities and SOEs. 
While the products and services affected  and the size of the quotas will be determined  by the 
government and impl ementing acts are yet to be adopted, this was another step in deviation 
from GATT and GATS rules.  
 Furthermore, the European Union noted that, in August 2020, the Ministry of Industry and Trade  
had proposed to the Government to widen the scope of direct ba ns for foreign products, under 
Decree 616. The existing Decree under Federal Law 44 (i.e. applicable  to procurement  by state 
entities) was adopted in April 2020, wid ening the scope of previous bans by around 1/3 – to G/TRIMS/M/48  
- 6 - 
  125 industrial/manufactured goods. The European Union explained that t hese goods could not  
be supplied by foreign suppliers, unless conditions for limited exceptions were met. Now the 
Ministry proposed to add another 23 new categories (industrial cranes, passenger lifts, etc), 
which would bring  the list to 148 goods.  
 The European would appreciate any update on these developments as well as a detailed response 
in writing to questions posed by the European Union and other Members.  
 The United States  expressed concerns about certain measures put i n place by the 
Russian  Federation that raise d questions with respect to the TRIM s Agreement and noted that 
Russia had not yet replied to the questions raised by the United States in January 2018 in 
document G/TRIMS/Q/RUS/ 8. The representative of the United  States asked  when answers to 
these questions might be circulated to the Committee . The United  States reiterated its concerns  
about the apparent expansion of Russia 's localization measures  and their consistency with the 
TRIMs Ag reement. In the document the United States had circulated in September 2020, it had 
identified five new measures that appeared to contain local content requirements, mostly 
directed at purchases by SOEs. Among those measures was Law No. 429 of 2 December 2 019, 
mandating the pre -installation of certain Russian software applications on certain "technically 
complex goods". The United States was concerned that the expansion of local content 
requirements to installation of Apps in technology products, although c learly covered by the 
TRIMs Illustrative list, represented a dangerous new direction for such local content 
requirements .  
 The representative  of the United States reiterated  the concerns, expressed in the TRIMs 
Committee over the past several years, about the apparent expansion of Russia's localization 
measures to direct private companies to give priority to Russian sourced goods, services and 
works , over imports . Such a policy raised questions with regard to its consistency with the WTO 
principle of nation al treatment and the TRIM s Agreement.  
 The representative of the Russian Federation  regretted that this topic was raised again at this 
Committee despite the explanations given. She stated that the measures referred to by Members 
as Import Substitution Policy  did not violate WTO rules and were aimed at developing innovative 
high technology  industrial production and strengthening the competitiveness of Russia n-made 
goods . She thanked the United States for the questions posed in G/TRIMS/Q/RUS/10 and made 
some comments.  
 On question 1, the delegate of the Russian Federation referred the United  States to paragraph  73 
to 99 of Russia's Working Party Report on Accession  to WTO , which contains an extensive 
description of the legislative framework which ensures that SOEs act in full conformity  with the 
commitments of the Russian Federation  and, in particular , that the relevant enterprises  act in 
accordance with non-discrimination  principles and engage in purchases and sales in accordance 
with commercial considerations. She said that Russia would be happy to engage with the United 
States bilaterally t o discuss any specific concern related to SOEs' activities.  
 On question 2, the delegate of the Russian Federation noted that Russia 's economy  had been 
affected by the COVID -19 pandemic and that, in response to economic difficulties caused by 
these extraor dinary circumstances , the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation , among 
other actions , issued Resolution 309 , which includes a n extensive  list of actions  that the Federal 
Assembly invited the Government to explore as potential means to mitigate the imp act of the 
pandemic. C onsultation s between the government of the Russian Federation and the Federal 
Assembly  on the actions to be taken were still ongoing . The end -result of these consultations 
would take into account Russia's international obligations.  
 On the last question, Russia referred to Law 429 adopted on 2 December 2019  which is an act 
by virtue of which the Russian Federation ratified an agreement between the Russian Federation 
and the Kirghiz Republic on cooperation in the area of military postal services . In respect of the 
protection of critical infrastructure, the Russian Federation was in the process of establishing the 
relevant legal framework: when developing relevant measures, it would take into account WTO 
commitments as well  as best practices in the area of the protection of critical infrastructure s, 
including practice s of the United States.  G/TRIMS/M/48  
- 7 - 
  
 The Committee took note  of the statements made . 
3  NOTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 6.2 OF THE TRIMS AGREEMENT OF PUBLICATIONS IN 
WHICH TRIMS M AY BE FOUND  
 The Chair  recalled that the WTO Secretariat had circulated a reminder regarding Article 6.2 
notifications on 9 September  2020, in document G/TRIMS/W/ 168 and that the Committee ha d 
received a new notification from Vanuatu and Myanmar respectivel y in documents  
G/TRIMS/N/2/Rev.28/Add. 3 and G/TRIMS/N/2/Rev.28/ Add.4 . The Chair u rged Members that 
had not yet notified to do so promptly.  
 The Committee took note  of the information provided.  
4  OTHER BUSINESS  
 The Chair  took note that no Member requested to raise any issue under "other business".  
5  ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON AND VICE -CHAIRPERSON  
 The Chair  recalled that Rule 12 of the Rules of Procedures for the TRIMs Committee meetings 
indicates that "The Committee on Trade -Related Investment Measures  shall elect a Chairperson 
and a Vice -Chairperson from among the representatives of Members. The election shall take 
place at the first meeting of the year and shall take effect at the end of the meeting. The 
Chairperson and Vice - Chairperson shall hold of fice 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 Chair proposed that the 
Committee agree formally to elect Mr Manuel Chacón of Colombia,  as Chairperson of this 
Committee for 202 1. 
 The Committee elected Mr Manuel Chacón as Chairperson.  
 In respect of the Vice -Chair p osition, the Chair recalled that she had consulted with delegations 
and proposed that Mr Robert Cook of the United Kingdom should be elected as Vice -Chair for 
2021. 
 The Committee elected Mr Robert Cook as Vice -Chair.  
 The Chair -elect made a brief statement .  
 The Chair thanked the delegations, as well as the Vice -Chair, for the cooperation and good work 
in 2020 and wished every success to the Chair -elect.  
6  DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING  
 In accordance with past practice, the Chair suggested scheduling the next meeti ng in the Spring 
of 202 1, in order to enable participants to plan their work. The Chair propose d a meeting on 
23 March 2021 . 
 In order to provide Members with ample opportunity to prepare for this meeting, the Secretariat 
would issue the annotated draft age nda three weeks in advance of the meeting, namely on 
March 1st, 2021 . Members' requests to place items on the annotated draft agenda should be 
communicated in writing to the Secretariat at the latest by COB on 25 February 2021 . The 
annotated draft agenda would be open to Members' comments until close of business on 
10 March 2021 . The airgram convening the meeting would be issued on 12 March 2021 . 
7  ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS (ARTICLE 7.3)  
 The last item for consideration was the Committee's annual report for 20 20. The Chair recalled 
that Article 7.3 of the  Agreement require s the Committee to report annually to the Council for G/TRIMS/M/48  
- 8 - 
  Trade in Goods. As a basis for the Committee's consideration of this matter, the Secretariat had 
circulated to Members the draft annual report for 2020, as document RD/TRIMS/ 25. 
 The Ch air asked if Members had any comments on the draft annual report.  The Chair noted that 
there were no comments and proposed that the Committee adopt the annual report ad 
referendum  and forward it to the Council for Trade in Goods.  
 The Committee took note  of the information provided.  
 The meeting was adjourned . 
__________