RESTRICTED  
 
  
G/TRIMS/M/42  
 
13 July 2017  
(17-3765) Page: 1/15 
Committee on Trade -Related Investment Measures    
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETI NG HELD ON 12 MAY 20 17 
CHAIR: MS MARINE WIL LEMETZ (SWITZERLAND)  
 
1.  The Chair referred to the proposed agenda circulated in document WTO/AIR/TRIMS/5 dated 
2 May 2017. The Committee adopted the following agenda:  
1   CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT  ................................ ................................ ............................  1 
2   CHINA – PROVISIONS ON INSURA NCE SYSTEM INFORMATI ZATION  ...........................  2 
3   INDONE SIA – LOCAL CONTENT REQUIR EMENTS FOR 4G LTE MO BILE DEVICES ...........  3 
4   INDONESIA – CERTAIN LOCAL CONTEN T PROVISIONS IN THE ENERGY 
SECTOR (MINING, OIL AND GAS)  ................................ ................................ .....................  5 
5   INDONESIA – INDUSTRY LAW AND TRA DE LAW  ................................ .........................  7 
6   INDONESIA – MINIMUM LOCAL PRODUC T REQUIREMENT FOR MO DERN 
RETAIL SECTOR  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  8 
7   INDONESIA – CERTAIN MEASURES ADD RESSING LOCAL CONTEN T IN 
INVESTMENT IN THE TE LECOMMUNICATIONS SEC TOR ................................ ..................  10 
8   NIGERIA – GUIDELINES ON NIGERI AN CONTENT IN INFORM ATION 
COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLO GIES (ICT)  ................................ ................................ ..... 10 
9   RUSSIAN FEDERATION – MEASURES IMPLEMENTIN G RUSSIA'S IMPORT 
SUBSTITUTION POLICY  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 11 
10   ARGENTINA – ACT 27,263 ON THE DE VELOPMENT AND STRENG THENING 
REGIME OF  THE ARGENTINE AUTOPA RTISM, PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL 
JOURNAL OF 1  AUGUST  2016  ................................ ................................ .........................  13 
11   NOTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 6.2 OF THE TRIMS AGREEMENT  ..........................  15 
12   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 15 
13   ELECTION OF CHAIRPER SON AND VICE -CHAIRPERSON  ................................ ..........  15 
14   DATE OF THE NEXT MEE TING  ................................ ................................ ..................  15 
 
1  CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT  
2.  The Chair reported on her consultations on possible ways to improve the operation of the 
Committee. These consultations were held pursuant  to paragraph 29 of the 2015 Nairobi 
Ministerial Declaration, which referred to Members' agreement to reinvigorate the work of 
WTO Committees. At the October  2016 meeting, the Chair announced her intention to consult with 
Members. On 1 November 2016 she ci rculated an open invitation to delegations with an indicative 
list of questions that Members might want to address, including on: (i) the frequency of Committee 
meetings; (ii) the Committee's current question and answer process; (iii) whether anything coul d 
be done to improve the timing or quality of questions and responses; and (iv) whether interested 
Members had any other suggestion to improve the functioning of the Committee.  G/TRIMS/M/42  
 
- 2 - 
 
  3.  The Chair met with interested delegations on 7 and 15 December 2016. Only six M embers 
expressed an interest to meet, which was not a number representative of the entire Membership of 
the Committee. However, because all Members consulted were active in the Committee, including 
by raising questions and by providing answers, the consult ations provided a useful indication of the 
perception of the functioning of the Committee.  
4.  Participating Members expressed the general impression that the Committee was functioning 
reasonably well. On the frequency of meetings, the current practice of two meetings per year 
seemed to be generally satisfactory. The question and answer process was perceived to be a 
valuable method to ensure transparency around domestic measures potentially relevant to the 
work of the Committee, as it helped Members to better u nderstand the measures and to become 
aware of measures potentially not compliant with the TRIMS agreement. One participating Member 
stressed the importance of having both questions and answers in writing, preferably in advance of 
the meeting; the Chair not ed that, while this was already the case for questions, it was not always 
so for answers. In conclusion, from the delegations she met with, the Chair felt a general sense 
that the Committee was working reasonably well and there was no pressing need to intr oduce 
changes in the immediate future. While some ideas were advanced to improve the functioning of 
the Committee, these ideas were framed in general terms and no Member made specific proposals.  
5.  The European Union  was willing to work with other Members to find appropriate ways to 
improve the current practices of the Committee, including by providing questions and replies in 
writing ahead of the meeting.  
6.  Cameroon  took note of the report as a point of information.  
7.  The United States  thanked the Chair for condu cting the consultations, and expressed its view 
that the Committee is working relatively well.  
8.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
2  CHINA – PROVISIONS ON INSURA NCE SYSTEM INFORMATI ZATION  
9.  The Chair recalled that this item was first discussed at t he Committee's June 2016 meeting and 
was on the agenda at the request of the United States. Questions had been posed by the 
United  States in G/TRIMS/Q/CHN/1. To date no written replies had been received.  
10.  The United States  expressed concern about draft regu lations published by the China 
Insurance Regulatory Commission (CIRC) in 2015 addressing the use of technology by companies 
in the insurance industry. While these draft regulations were notified to the Committee on 
Technical Barriers to Trade in 2016, some  provisions raised issues of concern to this Committee as 
well. The regulations would impose severe restrictions on a wide range of information and 
communications technology  (ICT) products and services, and raised broader concerns about 
China's investment and commercial environment. While the United States respected China's desire 
to improve the integrity of ICT products in its insurance sector, such policies should not prohibit 
insurance institutions in China from choosing secure and reliable ICT hardware and software from 
vendors anywhere in the world.  
11.  The United States highlighted several provisions of concern. The phrase "secure and 
controllable" technology, in conjunction with the reference to "conditions to raise the indigenous 
research and development  level", used in article 53 of the draft regulations, could be read as a 
reference to indigenous or local technology. Did  this phrase require the use of indigenous or local 
hardware equipment and software products? In April 2015 the United  States had raise d concerns 
in the Committee about certain draft measures pertaining to use of technology by the banking 
sector. The phrase "secure and controllable" technology had now come up again in a draft 
measure, and once again appeared to be linked to the use of ind igenous technology. The 
United  States was also concerned that articles 25(2) and 54 would require purchase of indigenous 
encryption technology, and that such technology might be incompatible with the systems used by 
international insurance companies. The U nited States requested China to provide further 
information about the current status of the regulations, and estimate when China would reply to its 
written questions.  G/TRIMS/M/42  
 
- 3 - 
 
  12.  Japan  share d the US concerns . In Japan's view, the issue should be discussed at this 
Comm ittee since it appear ed to include trade -related investment measures . Articles 25, 53 and 56 
of the draft regulations c ould be inconsistent with Article III:4 of GATT 1994 and Article 2 of the 
TRIMs Agreement  because, depending on the manner in which they were implemented, the y could 
constitute a de facto  requirement to use Chinese products.  Japan asked  China to expla in the 
implementation of those articles, and, if detailed regulations and requirements were to be 
prescribed, to provide information on such r egulations and requirements.  
13.  Canada  expressed particular concerns with articles 20, 23, 53 and 56  of the draft regulations , 
which appeared to suggest that China considered indigenous technology more "secure and 
controllable" than foreign -made ICT goods and  services. Was China's intention to require foreign 
investors to source indigenous ICT products in their operations? If so, how this would conform with 
China's TRIMs commitments? Canada understood China's desire to minimize threats to its ICT 
infrastructur e, but if firms were prohibited from procuring innovative and cutting -edge foreign 
made ICT products, cybersecurity for China's network and insurance ICT  infrastructure would 
decrease, not increase. Moreover, t his approach had the potential to distort trad e and impose 
significant costs on foreign invested enterprises in China. Canada encouraged China to work 
closely with foreign ICT suppliers in finding regulatory approaches that met China's network 
security expectations without imposing indigenous technolo gy requirements.  
14.  China  attache d much importance to cyber and information security . The objective of China's 
Provisions on Insurance System Informatization  was to ensure the information security  of 
insurance industries. The process of drafting  these regulat ions had been open and transparent. 
The provision s applied to insurance institutions legally established in the territory of China without 
discriminati on to foreign insurance  institutions. These provisions would be further revise d and 
improve d according to  a recently adopted Cyber Security Law.  The phrase " secure and controllable 
products " meant that products  or service providers : (i) should not illegally obtain users' data and 
curtail the users' right of control ; (ii) should not illegally  control and manip ulate users ' devices or 
destroy the ir right of control over the devices  they own and use ; and (iii) should not take 
advantage of the ir position, among other things,  to suspend providing reasonable security 
technology support and to force users to updat e systems.  
15.  The United States  looked forward to written responses with more depth on issues such as the 
meaning of the phrase "secure and controllable" technology, and hoped that China would keep the 
Committee informed of the status of the draft regulations.  
16.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
3  INDONESIA – LOCAL CONTENT REQUIR EMENTS FOR 4G LTE MO BILE DEVICES  
17.  The Chair stated that this item, which had been considered at prior meetings, was on the 
agenda at the request of the European Union, Japan, and the United States. Questions to 
Indonesia had been circulated in G/TRIMS/W/148, and replies were circulated in G/TRIMS/W/162.  
18.  The United States  remained deeply concerned about Indonesia's local content requirements 
for 4G LTE mobile devices and base statio ns. Indonesia's previous responses to questions and 
interventions in the Committee had not resolved these concerns and had raised further questions 
about how these measures were being implemented. While the United States recognized that 
Indonesia had worke d with certain firms seeking clarity as to how they should comply with these 
measures and appreciated Indonesia's efforts to work with companies that wished to invest in 
Indonesia, Indonesia's measures were drawing investment away from other developing cou ntries.  
19.  The United States disagreed with Indonesia that these requirements were not investment 
measures. In order to invest in Indonesia as a distributor, investors had to meet the local content 
requirement: i.e., they had to purchase or use products of do mestic origin. Indonesia's own 
regulations included provisions relating to investment as a means to fulfilling the local content 
requirements. Ministry of Industry Regulation 65 of 2016 broadened the scope of local content to 
include local manufacturing, d evelopment, software applications, such as apps, and investment 
plans. This seemed to specifically require investment of some sort, whether through local 
manufacturing, development, software applications or investment plans.  G/TRIMS/M/42  
 
- 4 - 
 
  20.  The United States disagreed tha t foreign products were not treated less favourably, since 
products that did not meet the local content requirement (i.e. contain at least a minimum amount 
of domestic products) could not legally be sold in Indonesia. Further, new import licensing 
regulati ons (such as MOT  41/2016) as written did not allow the importation of finished 4G -enabled 
phones, handheld computers and tablets even if they meet the local content requirement at an 
earlier stage in the manufacturing process. Taken together, all these reg ulations appeared to force 
investment and disadvantage foreign products. The United States asked Indonesia how companies 
could fulfil the local content requirements without investing in Indonesia.  
21.  The United States was fundamentally concerned with the use of local content requirements. 
These measures illustrated the dangers of local content requirements to the ICT manufacturing 
base of all Members. It should be of great concern for this Committee and its Members if Indonesia 
was successful in driving manufa cturing into its market at the expense of countries where these 
products were currently manufactured or might be manufactured. This was a pathway by which 
large developing countries could take investment away from smaller ones. Over the long term, this 
was not in the interest of any Member. The United States was aware of specific cases in which 
investors were already pulling resources away from other developing countries, and putting them 
into Indonesia. Once these firms pulled out of another developing cou ntry, that move would not be 
easily reversed.  
22.  The United States remained concerned that these requirements resulted in favourable 
treatment for domestic products and inputs over imported products and that firms could be 
penalized if they did not comply. Co mpliance imposed its own costs on firms, disrupting supply 
chains, forcing inefficient company operations and causing other trade restrictive and distorting 
effects. The United States requested Indonesia to keep the Committee informed on developments 
regar ding these requirements and urged it to reconsider them and provide further information 
about Indonesia's efforts towards economic reform and whether there were any plans to curtail the 
various local content requirements it had adopted.  
23.  Japan  share d the US concern s. The local content requirements for  4G LTE mobile devices go 
against Article III:4 of GATT 1994 and Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement. Regardless of a Member's 
intentions, a measure should be regarded as an investment measure under the TRIMs Agree ment 
as long as it related to investment. With respect to Indonesia's explanation that the measures 
were applied in a non -discriminatory manner, regardless of how the measures were applied, 
Indonesia imposed a local content requirement which wa s by nature discriminatory and 
inconsistent with Article  III:4 of GATT 1994 as stipulated in paragraph 1(a) of the Annex  to the 
TRIMs  Agreement.  
24.  Since the introduction this January by Indonesia of requirements to meet the local content 
rates on 4G LTE mobile devices, Japan ha d suffer ed adverse trade effects. Some Japanese 
companies ha d stopped exporti ng their products to Indonesia because of the local content 
requirements.  Japan  urged Indonesia to eliminate the local content requirement for 4G LTE mobile 
devices, and r eiterated its request to Indonesia to provide an English translation of 
Regulation  27/2015 issued by its Ministry of Communication and Information in order to hold fact -
based discussions on the measures in question.  
25.  Japan f inally  referred to the Industry M inister Regulation 65/2016 issued in July 2016 that 
provide d for the calculation  of local content rates. Many of the provisions in this regulation we re 
not clear. For example, Article 4 stipulate d that the local content rates of electronic devices were 
set as a percentage of three elements, namely: manufacturing, development , and application . How 
were these rates calculated  (based on the costs of the three elements, on the quantity of parts , or 
on other criteria )? In addition , Japan sought information about  regulations related to the 
calculation of local content rates, including whether detailed rules and requirements were to be 
prescribed in other subordinate regulations , and asked  Indonesia to explain the implementation  of 
the Minister Regulation.  
26.  The European Union  reiterated its concerns on the local content requirements for 4G LTE 
mobile devices contained in Regulation 65/2016. This regulation contained technical guidelines for 
the calculation of local content percentages and required that a certificate verifying the fulfilment 
of the local content requirements be issued by the Minister of Industry, after receiving the report 
of local content verification conducted by surveyors (Articles 35 and 36 of the Regulation). In the 
EU's view, l ocal content requir ements could artificially distort trade, restrict market access and G/TRIMS/M/42  
 
- 5 - 
 
  hamper the efficiency of investments. The negative impacts of these requirements were 
exacerbated by the uncertainty around them, which affected the ability of manufacturers to 
introduce n ew products in Indonesia. While Indonesia had explained that the purpose of the 
measures was to assure consumers of device safety, the European Union did not see any 
reasonable relationship between the requirement to use domestic products and product safet y. 
The European Union would continue monitoring these measures and called on Indonesia to amend 
its legislation in compliance with WTO rules.  
27.  Australia  was monitoring the status and implementation of the regulations. 
Regulation  65/2016 issued by Indonesia' s Ministry of Industry imposed new local content 
requirements to both physical hardware and software and applications. Australia was concerned 
about this measure, as well as Regulation 69, and whether these regulations had local content 
requirements that w ere inconsistent with the TRIMs Agreement.  
28.  Canada  continued to closely follow the development of Indonesia's regulations concerning 
4G LTE mobile phone sector and had taken note of Ministry of Industry Regulation 65/2016 which 
outlined the formula to calcu late local content. Local content requirements could artificially distort 
trade, restrict market access and hamper the efficiency of investments. The negative impacts of 
these requirements were exacerbated by uncertainty, which had affected manufacturers' ability to 
introduce new products in Indonesia. Canada sought an update from Indonesia regarding next 
steps in implementation of the regulations.  
29.  Chinese Taipei  shared the concerns raised. In its view, these measures could constitute local 
content requirem ents. It requested Indonesia to consider eliminating these measures and 
indicated that it would continue monitoring these regulations and measures.  
30.  Indonesia  recalled that this item had been discussed in this Committee for the past two years. 
Some of the q uestions posed at this meeting had been raised before; it referred to the comments 
and responses provided in earlier meetings as well as to the written responses in  G/TRIMS/W/162.  
31.  Indonesia explained that there were three mechanisms to obtain domestic cert ification for the 
4G LTE mobile devices. The first was through investment; it only applied to new companies. Under 
this mechanism, companies that built factories in Indonesia were recognized as fulfilling the 
domestic requirements taking into account the s um of investments. The second mechanism was by 
manufacturing devices in Indonesia. Each component that was domestically produced as well as 
imports from abroad would be calculated and accredited towards a baseline of domestic 
certification requirements. Th e third mechanism was by incorporating software into the devices. 
These mechanisms were created as a tailor -made approach to adjust to the capabilities of the 
various companies which were investing or planning to invest in Indonesia. There was no intention  
to hamper investment by creating these mechanisms. Before creating these mechanisms the 
government consulted with the relevant stakeholders in Indonesia, including companies that 
produce 4G LTE mobile devices and companies that planned to invest in Indone sia. 
32.  Indonesia emphasized its view that investment should benefit all parties. Investment should 
support economic growth and contribute to development. Indonesia would act in a manner 
compatible with its WTO commitments. As a developing country, Indonesia needed policy space to 
channel positive outcomes from investment for communities and development in a wider context. 
Indonesia believes that sustainability was a shared goal, and it was important that investment fit 
within that goal.  
33.  The Committee took not e of the statements made.  
4  INDONESIA – CERTAIN LOCAL CONTEN T PROVISIONS IN THE ENERGY SECTOR 
(MINING, OIL AND GAS ) 
34.  The Chair recalled that this item had been under consideration by the Committee since 
October  2009. Questions to Indonesia had been circulated  in G/TRIMS/W/70, 88, 108 and 128; to 
which Indonesia has replied in G/TRIMS/W/74, 79, 100, 123, 137 and 137/Corr.1. This item had 
been placed on the agenda at the request of Canada, the European Union, Japan, and the 
United  States.  G/TRIMS/M/42  
 
- 6 - 
 
  35.  Japan  referred to the passing of Indonesia's Government Regulation 1/2017 in January  2017, 
as well as other relevant ordinances, which allowed mining companies to export several semi -
processed mineral ores from Indonesia. In terms of copper concentrates, the current provisional 
measures of the export license system were extended for another five years under certain 
conditions, including a requirement that mining companies convert their contracts of work into 
special mining licenses. In terms of low -grade nickel ore, mining compan ies would be allowed to 
export their ores for a period of five years, on certain condition s including that they would build 
their own smelters within five years and that at least 30% of the smelted ores would be supplied 
to Indonesia's  domestic market.  Regarding the export of nickel ore, Japan appreciate d the reforms 
that ha d been made to partially lift the complete prohibition of nickel ore exports , and that the 
Indonesia n government had issued  export license s to companies.  At the same time , Japan urged 
Indonesia to further revise the legal measures that prohibited or restricted the exportation of these 
mineral ores, which were inconsistent with Article  XI of GATT 1994. As a result of these measures, 
Japanese industries had suffered economic injuries. Japan  would continue to closely monitor the 
situation surrounding the exportation of nickel and copper.  
36.  The United States  expressed its continued concerns with investment restrictions in Indonesia's 
energy sector (mining, oil and gas, and more recently renewabl es). Despite trying to find a 
solution to the questions and concerns that have been raised in this Committee and bilaterally, the 
situation in the energy sector had deteriorated. The United States continued to have questions 
about the requirement to "prior itize" the use of domestic goods and services in the mining, and oil 
and gas sectors, and how that requirement is being enforced. Despite assurances by Indonesia 
that the requirement to "prioritize" was not mandatory and that companies were still able to 
import, the United  States understood that "prioritize" meant that companies were "required" to 
use domestic goods and services if available. The United States understood that Indonesia's 
parliament was considering revisions to the Oil and Gas Law, and asked  for an update of those 
discussions, particularly any elements that might address the concerns raised in this Committee, 
as well as any information on the timing for passage of the draft bill.  
37.  The United States also shared concerns about firms being requir ed to switch from contracts of 
work to special mining licenses. Despite assurances by Indonesia that there was no pressure to 
renegotiate contracts of work, this has not been the United States' experience.  In January 2017 
Indonesia had issued a number of r egulations that outlined the requirements companies must fulfil 
to continue exporting certain unprocessed mineral ores. Among the requirements, companies 
would be required to switch from contracts of work to special mining licenses, commit to building 
smelters in Indonesia, and divest 51% of their shares to Indonesian interests over a period of 10 
years.  The United States was deeply concerned about these measures and would appreciate 
further clarification from Indonesia.  
38.  The United States was concerned that  these policies in the fossil fuel sector were being 
replicated in the renewable energy sector. Indonesia was targeting the development of 35,000 MW 
of power system capacity within the next few years with a similar requirement to "prioritize" the 
use of do mestic content.  The Ministry of Industry had issued two new regulations in 2017, namely 
Regulation  4/2017, concerning Provisions and Procedures for Valuing Local Content for Solar Power 
Plants, which would act as a solar -specific local content guide, and R egulation 5/2017, concerning 
the Guide to Using Domestic Products for Electricity Infrastructure Construction. Regulation 5/2017 
would set forth mandatory "minimum" local content levels for solar plant goods and services, 
ranging from 34 -40% for goods (dep ending on the type of solar plant), and 100% for services in 
all solar plants. Furthermore, Regulation 4/2017 would set forth procedures for obtaining proof, in 
the form of a local content certificate, that these mandatory levels had been met; and that sol ar 
plants were subject to annual monitoring whereby a solar plant with "production consistency" 
below its certified local content level would have its certificate revoked. The United States asked 
Indonesia to confirm its understanding of these measures and  to indicate the purpose of these 
minimum local content levels and local content certification. Broadly speaking, by setting minimum 
local content levels, these measures would not "prioritize" the usage of local products and 
services, but rather "require" it. Could Indonesia clarify what the consequence would be for 
companies that do not fulfil the minimum local content value? The United States further 
understood that the types of goods and services subject to minimum local content levels varied 
based on th e type of solar plant, namely whether a solar plant was on -grid or off -grid, and 
centralized ("communal") or decentralized and asked Indonesia what is the reasoning behind this. 
Moreover, the United States understood that Regulation 4/2017 would give a 90%  local content G/TRIMS/M/42  
 
- 7 - 
 
  weighting to solar plant goods and a 10% local content weighting to solar plant services and asked 
Indonesia to clarify the intended goal of these differential weights.  
39.  The United States remained deeply concerned about the use of local conte nt requirements 
that favoured domestic products and services. Such policies adversely hindered Indonesia's power 
sector development goals by driving up costs and hampering access to the most innovative 
technologies and companies. Furthermore, the United St ates remained concerned about the 
impact on Indonesia's overall investment climate through these and other actions that had created 
uncertainty about the market generally and contract sanctity specifically. These developments 
could negatively affect Indone sia's own stated goals of improving the investment climate, 
increasing infrastructure investment, and attracting foreign investment.  
40.  The European Union  had conveyed since  2009 its concerns with regard to the prioritization of 
local content in Indonesia's l egislation covering mining products in the mineral and coal sectors. At 
a previous meeting, Indonesia had stated that the phrase "the use of domestic goods and/or 
services" in the regulations referred to goods and services available in the Indonesian marke t, 
imported or domestically produced, which could be used by companies, and that the purpose of 
that phrase was only to encourage the use of available domestic goods and services including 
increasing domestic expenditure but that investors could always imp ort the required product 
pursuant to Regulation 23/2010. Could Indonesia identify the legislation setting the above 
mentioned rule? In 2016 Indonesia had informed Members that the amendment of relevant laws 
was still being considered by its Parliament. Cou ld Indonesia provide an update on the process? 
The European Union encouraged Indonesia to take into account the concerns expressed in this 
Committee.  
41.  Canada  continued to follow developments in Indonesia's mining regime as Canadian 
companies were directly a ffected by the new regulations. Canada was concerned about the 
negative impact on both current and future foreign mining investments in Indonesia, particularly in 
relation to investment ownership requirements, the export ban, and local processing requireme nts. 
Investors required legal certainty and transparency and the rules must be clear and consistent. 
Canada encouraged Indonesia to abide by its existing contractual commitments and to ensure that 
future revisions to the 2009 Mining Law be consistent with Indonesia's WTO obligations.  
42.  Australia  welcomed the opportunity to discuss implementation of Indonesia's mining sector 
regulations, specifically Regulation 1/2017 and Regulation 9/2017 . It remained concerned about 
ownership divestment requirements, measure s to convert contracts of work to special mining 
business licenses  and restrictions on obtaining approvals for expatriate employees. These 
regulations created uncertainty for foreign and Indonesian mining ventures, and affected investor 
confidence more bro adly as large foreign players are leaving the market. Companies should be 
treated fairly during these negotiations. Australia looked forward to further clarification on the 
implementation of these regulations.  
43.  Indonesia  indicated that there was no obligati on to prioritize the use of domestic over foreign 
goods and services in the energy sector. The main purpose of the policy was to encourage the use 
of available goods and services. There were no barriers to investors importing the required 
products in accor dance with Regulation 23/2010. The purification regulations were based on the 
implementation of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade. There were no export 
prohibitions as long as the materials met the purification levels as required in Regulation 8 /2015. 
The spirit of Law 4/2009 was that prior to exportation all minerals must meet the standards of 
purification levels; this regulation was consistent with Article XI:2(b) of GATT 1994. The 
amendments to the Mineral, Coal, Oil, and Gas Law were still un der consideration and Indonesia 
was not in a position to indicate the time frame for the process, but it was consulting with 
interested Members. Indonesia was committed to utilizing non -renewable energy and minerals in a 
manner that can help secure a bette r environment for future generations.  
44.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
5  INDONESIA – INDUSTRY LAW AND TRA DE LAW  
45.  The Chair noted that this item was first discussed at the Committee's meeting in June 2015 
and was on the agenda at the request of the European Union and Japan. Questions to Indonesia G/TRIMS/M/42  
 
- 8 - 
 
  were circulated in G/TRIMS/W/138 and 140, to which Indonesia had responded in G/TRIMS/W/157 
and 158. 
46.  The European Union  reiterated its concern with respect to the laws in question as they 
provided the le gal basis for imposing local content requirements. At a previous meeting, Indonesia 
had indicated that the two laws were created to support the advancement of its national economy, 
while ensuring Indonesia's WTO commitments. The European Union asked Indone sia to clarify 
what it meant when it also indicated that the Trade Law would serve as a legal basis for the 
release of deregulation packages. It further asked Indonesia to present the most recent 
developments, and in particular, to provide a list of the me asures implementing the deregulation 
and explain how these measures would affect the current legislation on local content.  
47.  Japan  had concerns about the consistency of the Trade Law and the Industry Law with 
Article s III:4 and XI:1 of GATT  1994 and to Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement . Japan indicated that 
these laws should be implemented in compliance with the WTO Agreements and that Japan was 
monitoring their implementation, including the establishment of implementing regulations.  
Referring to Article 121 o f the Trade Law and Article 124 of the Industry Law, Japan reiterated its 
request for Indonesia to provide up -dated information about implementing regulations , including 
the time schedule.  
48.  The United States  shared the concerns raised about the Industry and  Trade laws. It continued 
to seek updates from Indonesia on the implementation of these laws, in particular any 
implementing regulations related to concerns raised in the Committee.  
49.  Australia  echoed the concerns expressed about Indonesia's import -restricti ng policies in 
recent years, including the overarching industry and trade laws. Australia noted Indonesia's 
statement at a previous meeting of the Committee that it had passed these laws to promote 
economic development; however, it remained concerned about  the potential impact of the 
eventual implementing regulations on trade and investment. Australia asked Indonesia to update 
how it intended to go forward in issuing its implementing regulations and to reassure Members 
that it was taking into account its WT O obligations in drafting such regulations.  
50.  New Zealand  shared the concerns raised regarding Indonesia's Trade Law and Industry Law. 
It expressed its interest in receiving updates from Indonesia regarding the implementation of 
these laws.  
51.  Indonesia  stated that the two laws were tools to support job creation, improvement of 
competitiveness, and increasing production capacity. They were adopted to support the 
advancement of the national economy, while respecting Indonesia's WTO commitments. Regarding 
requests  for updated information regarding implementing regulations, Indonesia was still 
consulting with stakeholders.  
52.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
6  INDONESIA – MINIMUM LOCAL PRODUC T REQUIREMENT FOR MO DERN RETAIL 
SECTOR  
53.  The Chair recalled that th is item was first discussed in June 2014 and was on the agenda at 
the request of the European Union and Japan. Questions to Indonesia from the United States and 
the European Union were circulated in G/TRIMS/W/139 and  141 respectively, and responses were 
provided in G/TRIMS/W/159 and 161.  
54.  Japan  expressed concerns about the consistency of the Trade Ministry Regulations  53/2012, 
68/2012, 7/2013 and 70/2013 with Article III:4 of GATT 1994 and Article 2 of the TRIMs 
Agreement. Regulation 70/2013 would require sh opping cent res and modern  retailers to sell at 
least 80% domestic products, and the other Regulations would require franchisors  and franchisees 
to ensure that purchases of raw materials, equipment and products for sale comprise d at least 
80% domestically  produced goods or services. Japan urged Indonesia to either expeditiously 
eliminate the se regulations or bring them into conform ity with the WTO Agreement . G/TRIMS/M/42  
 
- 9 - 
 
  55.  Japan posed two questions. First, Article 22 of Regulation  56/2014 provide s that some 
products , such as "premium products ", were exempted from the local content requirements. Could 
Indonesia explain the scope of this and share an English translation of 
Decision  16/PDK/KEP/3/214 ? Second, Indonesia had explained that the government only 
encourage d modern re tailers to have or to display domestic goods produced by small and medium 
enterprises ( SMEs ) in their stores and that such action would be settled through agreements 
between the modern retailers and the SMEs concerned.  Japan had understood that 
Regulation  70/2013  oblige d modern  retailers to sell at least 80%  domestic products , but 
Indonesia' s explanation appear ed to indicate that retailers were merely encouraged , and not  
obliged, to sell at least 80% domestic products. Could In donesia to expand on its previ ous 
statement and explain whether or not the regulation obliged  modern retailers to sell a certain 
percentage of domestic products ? 
56.  Finally, Japan referred to Indonesia's previous statement that it would conduct a review to 
ensure the applicability and fun ction of the regulations  in question. Japan requested Indonesia to 
inform about  the current status of the review.  
57.  The European Union  regretted that the legislation on minimum local content requirements for 
the retail sector was still in force and reiterate d its concerns about the 80% local content 
requirement imposed by Regulation 70/2013. At a previous meeting, Indonesia had not been in a 
position to reply to Members' questions regarding recent developments in the regulations and had 
informed Members that discussions were still on -going.  The European Union wished to resubmit 
the questions it had raised and asked Indonesia about the number of exemptions granted so far 
under the legislation as well as any updates on any possible new bill or law in this sector . 
58.  The United States  reiterated its concerns about these measures and asked Indonesia for an 
update on their implementation. These regulations seemed to provide that, in order for a foreign 
investor to establish itself in this sector in Indonesia, that inve stor must acquire and sell local 
goods. The United States' fundamental concern about these requirements was the direct link 
between access to the Indonesian market and mandated support for domestic products. While 
supporting SMEs was a shared goal, providi ng domestic goods better treatment in the market was 
not an approach the United States could support. The United States asked Indonesia to keep the 
Committee apprised of developments concerning implementation of the regulations, including any 
further amend ments, and asked whether the measures in question were under reconsideration.  
59.  Australia  reiterated its concerns about Indonesia's introduction of local content requirements 
in the retail sector. While exemptions were provided in certain circumstances, the local content 
requirements would still distort trade across a range of goods in which Australia had an interest. 
Australia asked Indonesia to ensure that these measures were implemented in a manner 
consistent with the TRIMs Agreement.  
60.  New Zealand  echoed th e concerns raised regarding Indonesia's local content requirements in 
the retail sector. This type of local content requirements restricted trade across a large range of 
products in a way that undermined core WTO principles, including those in the TRIMs Ag reement. 
New Zealand joined the calls from other Members for Indonesia to provide an update on the 
implementation of these regulations as well as notice on any further amendments.  
61.  Indonesia  noted that the measure in question was not being enforced in its e ntirety yet, as 
there was still need to introduce adjustments for different regions in Indonesia. The purpose of the 
legislation was to support SMEs in Indonesia. The scope of the measure was very limited as it 
applied only to local retail stores, which we re located in certain areas only and sold basic goods, 
such as soap and snacks. Modern and specialized retail stores were exempt from the measure if 
they sold products that complied with the following characteristics: require a uniformity of 
production der ived from a single unit of a global supply chain; were premium products not 
produced in Indonesia; and originated in certain countries to meet the needs of their citizens that 
live in Indonesia. Indonesia referred to the responses previously provided to si milar questions 
in G/TRIMS/W/159 and G/TRIMS/W/161. The policy was still being discussed with stakeholders; 
and for this reason the existing regulation is still in force.  
62.  The United States  indicated that Indonesia's response highlighted the concerns raised  by 
these measures. While Indonesia had stated that the scope of the measure was limited as it only G/TRIMS/M/42  
 
- 10 - 
 
  affected retail establishments in certain areas and that sell certain basic goods like soap, while 
premium products were exempted, there was a broad range o f products between soap and 
premium products. The United States sought further clarification as to the products covered by the 
measures and the precise scope of the exemptions mentioned by Indonesia.  
63.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
7  INDONESI A – CERTAIN MEASURES ADD RESSING LOCAL CONTEN T IN INVESTMENT IN 
THE TELECOMMUNICATIO NS SECTOR  
64.  The Chair noted that this issue had been under consideration since May 2009. It was on the 
agenda at the request of Japan. Questions had been posed to Indonesia in  G/TRIMS/W/61, 71, 78, 
86, 104, and 154, as well as in document G/TRIMS/Q/IDN/1. Responses could be found 
in G/TRIMS/W/63, 75, 80, 96, 131, and 160.  
65.  Japan  still had significant concerns about the possibility that local content requirements for 
Indonesia' s telecommunications sector were be ing implemented inconsistently with WTO rules. 
Indonesia's  responses to Japan's questions in G/TRIMS/W/160 had not  provide d answers to 
Japan's questions.  Japan remained unc onvinced that the measures in question f ell under 
government procurement activities  regulated under Article III:8(a) of GATT 1994 . Japan also had 
strong doubts about the consistency of the measures with Article III:4 of  GATT 1994 and Article 2 
of the TRIMs Agreement.  Japan had submitted questions  on these  measures  in G/TRIMS/Q/IDN/1  
and was  looking forward to Indonesia' s response.  
66.  The United States  expressed its specific concern with Indonesia's use of local content 
requirements in the telecommunications sector, namely that the requirements result in favou rable 
treatment for domestic versus imported products and that investors could be penalized if they do 
not comply. Moreover, instead of curtailing its use of local content requirements, Indonesia 
appeared to be expanding their use to other sectors, as demo nstrated by the growing list of 
concerns expressed in this Committee.  
67.  The European Union  shared Japan's position. The European Union had raised the issue of local 
content provisions in the telecommunications sector on several occasions, not only in this 
Committee but also on a bilateral basis with Indonesia. The European Union asked Indonesia to 
clarify what reforms were planned in this sector.  
68.  Indonesia  informed that the policy of fulfilling minimum local content requirements contained 
in Ministerial Decre e 38/2007 has been revoked and amended by Ministerial Decree  25/2015. This 
amendment did not include a local content requirement. Likewise, the calculation methods for local 
content requirements in Ministerial Decree  38/2007 and 41/2009 had also been dropp ed. With 
respect to Ministerial Decree 7/2009, as expressed in previous written responses, this was a legal 
instrument to support the Indonesian government's programme for the utilization of certain parts 
of the radio spectrum for implementing broadband wi reless access (BWA) systems. Ministerial 
Decree 7/2009 was only implemented for BWA operators which were winners of bidding processes 
of government projects to build telecommunications facilities in remote areas that were 
underdeveloped/underserved/unserve d which the government considers to be non -profitable and 
non-attractive for telecommunication service operators. Furthermore, the technology regulated in 
Ministerial Decree 7/2009 was no longer relevant with the technology developments occurred in 
Indones ia; with the development of 4G technology, the use of wireless broadband and the number 
of operators became very limited.  
69.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
8  NIGERIA – GUIDELINES ON NIGERI AN CONTENT IN INFORM ATION 
COMMUNICATIONS TECHN OLOGIES (I CT) 
70.  The Chair noted that this item was on the agenda at the request of Canada and the United 
States. Questions had been posed to Nigeria in document G/TRIMS/Q/NGA/1. To date no written 
replies had been received.  G/TRIMS/M/42  
 
- 11 - 
 
  71.  The United States  recalled its concerns abou t the increasing use of local content measures in 
Nigeria, in areas such as energy and information and communications technology. In 2013, 
Nigeria's National Information Technology Development Agency ("NITDA"), under the auspices of 
the Federal Ministry of  Communication Technology (MCT), issued "Guidelines for Nigerian Content 
Development in Information and Communications Technology". These Guidelines imposed broad 
requirements on investors to use local content on hardware, software, and services in the 
information communications technologies (ICT) sector. For example, Article 10.1(3) required 
original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) to maintain at least 50% local content in any segment 
of the product value chain. In addition, Article 12.1(3) required ICT com panies to use only locally 
manufactured SIM cards for devices providing telephone and data access. Further, Article 12.1(7) 
required ICT companies to use local companies to build out cell sites, towers, and base stations 
and ensure that at least 50% of the  value of such facilities was locally sourced. The United States 
asked whether the Guidelines were currently in effect and whether there was any ongoing process 
for reviewing or modifying them.  
72.  The United States noted that there was some confusion as to ex actly which products were 
covered by this measure. Other than Article 3.0(v), were there other legal sources that elaborated 
on the definition of ICT? With respect to implementation, could Nigeria further clarify the meaning 
of "any segment of the product value chain", in reference to the requirement for OEMs to maintain 
at least 50% local content, and whether there were any restrictions on importation of completed 
ICT products that were otherwise lawful for sale in Nigeria? Finally, other sections of the m easure 
directed NIDTA to provide incentives. Pursuant to Article 12.2(5), had NIDTA taken steps to 
"provide incentives and motivations for ICT service providers to develop their own unique local 
content offerings"? Had Nigeria provided the incentives menti oned in the Guidelines and, if so, 
could it describe those incentives?  
73.  Canada  was concerned with Nigeria's move to impose requirements on investors to use local 
content on hardware, software, and services in the ICT sector, including a high threshold that 
broadly applied to "any segment of the product value chain". In Canada's view, local content 
requirements could artificially distort trade, restrict market access, and hamper the efficiency of 
investments.  
74.  Nigeria  indicated that the Guidelines at issue wer e elaborated in collaboration with a wide 
range of stakeholders, taking into account Nigeria's international obligations, best practices, as 
well as the realities of the ICT sector in Nigeria. The Guidelines were aimed at guiding the 
development of the ICT  sector and harnessing its power for national development. Nigeria had 
received the questions posed by the United States and responses would be transmitted to the 
Committee  as soon they were ready.  
75.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
9  RUSSIAN FE DERATION – MEASURES IMPLEMENTIN G RUSSIA'S IMPORT 
SUBSTITUTION POLICY  
76.  The Chair  recalled that this item was first discussed by the Committee in June 2016 and was 
on the agenda at the request of the European Union and the United States. Questions had been 
circulated in G/TRIMS/Q/RUS/4, 5, and 6. To date, no written responses had been received.  
77.  The United States  recalled that at the previous meeting of the Committee it had posed 
questions to Russia about a number of measures that could implicate its TRIMs obli gations. The 
United States asked Russia when it would be able to respond to these questions. It shared 
concerns raised in previous meetings by the European Union concerning Russia's Law 223, which 
governed purchases by state owned enterprises (SOEs), and l ooked forward to Russia's responses 
to those questions as well. As SOEs accounted for nearly half of Russia's GDP, their purchasing 
practices were of great significance to Russia's trading partners. The United States referred to 
another measure that appear ed to require purchase of local goods by SOEs. On 
16 September  2016, the Russian Federation issued Decree 925 "On priority of commodities of 
Russian origin and work done and services provided by Russian persons over commodities 
originating from a foreign s tate and work done and services provided by foreign persons". 
Decree  925 implemented Article 3(8) of Law 223 "On purchases of goods and services by certain 
types of entities" by establishing a 15% price preference for goods of Russian origin.  G/TRIMS/M/42  
 
- 12 - 
 
  78.  The United St ates highlighted two additional concerns. In the United States' understanding, 
Law 223 applied to purchases by SOEs, business enterprises in which the Russian state, regional, 
or municipal government owned more than 50%, and legal persons using State fundi ng for certain 
investment projects. Therefore Decree  925, which implemented Law 223, also applied to SOEs. 
Further, Law 223 seemed to establish the terms under which SOEs and certain other legal persons 
must give priority to goods of Russian origin, and to  works and services performed and rendered 
by Russian entities. According to the US' reading of paragraph 2 of Decree 925, if goods, works, or 
services were purchased through a tender process, in evaluating the tenders the price of a Russian 
offer (i.e., a n offer for Russian -made goods or Russian -supplied works or services) would be 
putatively reduced by 15% when compared against tenders involving foreign goods, works, or 
services. If the Russian tender is successful, however, the final contract would be fo r the full price. 
As a result, all else being equal, entities covered by Law 223 had to purchase Russian -produced 
goods unless those goods were more than 15% more expensive than imported goods.  
79.  Further, paragraph 3 of Decree 925, which applied to so -called  "reverse auctions" (where 
firms bid to provide goods, works, or services for the lowest price), appeared to provide that the 
final price paid to a foreign firm who wins a contract to provide goods, works, or services will be 
15% less than the contract pri ce proposed in the winning proposal. In effect, foreign bidders must 
increase their bids by 15%. Other provisions seemed to state that a local bidder could offer goods 
at a price of zero, win the bid, and nevertheless be paid for the goods. The United Stat es asked for 
clarification on how such a process would work. Another provision seemed to disfavour bids for 
purchases by SOEs where Russian origin goods make up less than half of the value of the goods 
being offered.  
80.  Finally, the United States noted that a  final provision of Decree 925 indicated that it would be 
implemented in a manner consistent with Russia's WTO obligations. The United States welcomed 
such a statement, and asked how Russia intended to implement the provisions described in a 
manner consist ent with its obligations under the GATT, the TRIMs agreement and other 
WTO Agreements. In the United States' view, simply stating that such provisions would be 
implemented consistently with the WTO, without explaining how that can be done, may at a 
minimum  introduce significant uncertainty for firms attempting to sell to SOEs.  
81.  The European Union  reiterated its concerns as to the growing utilisation of requirements for 
SOEs and other entities to source domestic goods and services . The European Union had 
subm itted questions to Russia regarding Law 223 and its implementing measures. At the previous 
meeting of this Committee, Russia announced that replies to these questions were imminent. The 
European Union was looking forward to hearing more from Russia at this  meeting. The 
European  Union also expressed its serious concern regarding Decree 925, in force since 
1 January  2017, which introduced a 15% price preference for goods of Russian origin and services 
provided by Russian suppliers, asked to hear Russia's view s on the compatibility of this decree 
with WTO rules. The European Union thanked the United States for the questions submitted on this 
measure and looked forward to reading Russia's replies.  
82.  Ukraine  shared the concerns raised by the United States and the E uropean Union and 
expressed its interest in receiving more information from Russia regarding these measures and 
their potential impact on foreign suppliers. Ukraine expressed its interest from a systemic point of 
view and would monitor the situation surrou nding these measures.  
83.  Japan  express ed its interest from a systemic point of view  and would continue to closely 
monitor the situation surrounding these measures . 
84.  Canada  reiterated its interest in receiving more information on the Russian measures and 
their potential impact on foreign suppliers and was looking forward to hearing Russia's responses 
to the questions posed by the United States and the European Union.  
85.  The Russian Federation  noted that it was in the process of finalizing its replies to written 
questions from the United States and the European Union; those replies would be submitted in due 
course. Some aspects related to measures that had no trade effect. They referred to proposals 
that may be implemented or not. In most cases, no legal acts or draf ts had been prepared. Should 
any decisions be adopted, they would be subject to examination to assess compliance with 
Russia's international obligations. Some of the questions posed by the United States related to G/TRIMS/M/42  
 
- 13 - 
 
  measures establishing procedures for purch ases from SMEs. These measures did not impose any 
limitation or restriction on purchases from foreign SMEs. There was no reason to link such 
measures with import substitution policies. With respect to questions from the European  Union on 
Law 223, some resp onses were already provided in G/TRIMS/Q/RUS/3, as well as in responses 
provided by Russia in the course of its trade policy review. The upcoming written responses should 
complement those clarifications. The objective of its import substitution policy was to create a 
competitive environment, with an innovative, high technology, and environmentally -friendly 
industrial production. The aim was to create favourable conditions for the development of Russian 
enterprises, rather than granting preferences. The poli cy was not aimed to drive foreign producers 
out of the Russian market or to create unfavourable conditions for these producers, and had been 
created with best efforts to ensure consistency with WTO rules.  
86.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
10  ARGENTINA – ACT 27,263 ON THE DE VELOPMENT AND STRENG THENING REGIME 
OF THE ARGENTINE AUTOPA RTISM, PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL  OF 
1 AUGUST  2016  
87.  The Chair noted that this item was first discussed by the Committee in October 2016 and was 
on the agenda at th e request of Mexico. Questions had been circulated in G/TRIMS/Q/ARG/1. To 
date, no written responses had been received.  
88.  Mexico  noted that Argentina's Act 27,263 on the Regime for the Development and 
Strengthening of the Argentine Auto Parts Industry entere d into force on 2 August 2016. This Act 
created a regime for the development and strengthening of the Argentine auto parts system 
granting fiscal support to specific auto parts producers who comply with specific minimum local 
content requirements. The matt er had been discussed at Mexico's request by the Committee at its 
meeting on October 2016, as well as in the Committee on Market Access. Notwithstanding the 
concerns expressed by Mexico and other Members the measure was still in force and apparently 
was al ready being applied . 
89.  Mexico recalled that, u nder Act 27,263 a transferable digital tax credit was awarded, which 
may be used for the payment of domestic taxes for an equivalent percentage of the ex factory  
value of domestic auto parts. This credit varied f rom 4 to 15% depending on local content and as 
established under a table contained in Article 13 of the Act. The credit was awarded to legal 
persons using auto parts for the production of vehicles and other auto parts and the benefit was 
also extended to t he purchase of new machinery made in Argentina. To benefit from the regime, 
the Act also established percentages of local content for specific auto parts which vary from 25 
to 50%.  
90.  In Mexico's view, the Act might be inconsistent with Argentina's obligation s under Article 2 
and the Annex of the TRIMs Agreement, as it made the granting of a fiscal advantage to legal 
persons conditional on the use and production of domestic products. In contrast, the advantage 
would not be available to legal persons that used imported products. Moreover, Article 6.2 of the 
TRIMs Agreement required Members to notify the publications where TRIMs may be found. To 
date, Argentina had not notified this measure.  
91.  Mexico recalled that, at the previous meeting of this Committee, Argenti na indicated that the 
regime had not yet been implemented pending the issuance of the corresponding implementing 
regulations. However, on 12 December 2016, Argentina's Ministry of Production had published 
Resolution 599 - E/2016 which contains provisions f or the implementation of Act 27,263. This 
resolution entered into force on the day of its publication and a website had been created which 
would allow interested parties to initiate the procedure for obtaining the fiscal benefit. This 
suggested that the re gime is operative. Mexico has submitted written questions to Argentina 
seeking clarification on this matter.  
92.  Mexico encouraged Argentina to undertake the notification provided for in Article 6.2 of the 
TRIMs Agreement and to revise the provisions of the au to parts regime that could be inconsistent 
with the TRIMs Agreement.  G/TRIMS/M/42  
 
- 14 - 
 
  93.  The European Union  supported Mexico's intervention about Law 27,263. This law was an 
investment measure with trade restrictive effects in the form of local content requirements.  
Therefore , it appeared to violate Article 2 of the TRIMs  Agreement in conjunction with the annexed 
Illustrative List because it was  inconsistent with the non -discrimination obligation in Article III of 
GATT 1994. As mentioned in this Committee and in the Committee on Market Access, this measure 
contravened basic WTO principles of non -discrimination enshrined in the GATT and instituted 
import substitution subsidies that were prohibited under the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures . At the previous meet ing of this Committee, Argentina had informed 
Members that the law was not yet implemented because no regulatory legislation had been 
established. The European Union regretted that, despite informal indications that Argentina was 
willing to address the con cerns raised by Members, implementing regulations were adopted in 
December 2016, confirming the WTO incompatible aspects of the law. The European Union called 
on Argentina to review this law and implementing regulations to remove all local content 
requirem ents that discriminated against imported car parts and remove the prohibited subsidies 
granted to local producers in the car sector.  
94.  The United States  shared the systemic concerns raised by Mexico and the European Union 
with respect to this measure. It loo ked forward to responses from Argentina and would continue to 
monitor the measure closely.  
95.  Argentina  explained that, f ollowing the adoption of Act 27,263 , the regime was regulated by 
Resolution 599 – E/2016 from the Industry and Services Secretariat of Arg entina's Ministry of 
Production. The Resolution was published in the Official Bulletin on 7 December 2016, and the 
measure entered into force on that date. According to Resolution 599, the Industry and Services 
Secretariat of the Ministry of Production was  the implementing authority for this regime. The 
Resolution also established the application requirements and application formalities for interested 
companies; the economic and productive criteria used in examining applications; and the 
measures that must be adopted for admittance to the regime.  
96.  The Act was part of a process that Argentina began in December 2015 aimed at opening up 
and seeking global insertion. The regime aimed to transform the productive structure of the 
automotive industry to promote grea ter specialization and productive integration at a global level, 
which would facilitate the use of international technology and make the sector more competitive. 
Enhancing the levels of specialization and economic efficiency of the productive structure wou ld no 
doubt enhance the flow of trade. In order to make the regime application process described in 
Article 29 of Act 27,263  more transparent and predictable, Argentina had created a website 
specifically for the purpose of publishing tutorials and a manual  on how to submit the information 
and documentation required to begin the application process. This website also described the 
objectives, general characteristics, and beneficiaries of the regime.  
97.  Resolution 599 – E/2016 did not permit retroactive applicat ions to the regime prior to the date 
of the law's entry into force. Membership came into effect once the application had been approved 
by the implementing authority. Such approval was to be granted through an administrative act of 
a public nature, which wo uld stipulate when the regime may be applied to the production 
programme. When determining the relevant date, the implementing authority would take into 
consideration the date on which the applicant complied with all formal and technical requirements. 
To date, no companies had joined the regime.  
98.  Finally, Argentina was open to engaging in a bilateral dialogue with Mexico and any other 
interested Members in order to address any further concerns regarding this matter.  
99.  Mexico  thanked Argentina for its explanati ons and for its willingness to discuss this matter. 
Mexico indicated that a resolution to the matter should be found multilaterally, and not just at a 
bilateral level.  
100.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
101.  The Chair requested Members that had pos ed oral questions, or that had provided oral 
responses to oral or written questions on any of the above agenda items, to provide their 
questions and responses in writing to the Secretariat for circulation.  G/TRIMS/M/42  
 
- 15 - 
 
  11  NOTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 6.2 OF THE T RIMS AGREE MENT  
102.  The Chair recalled that Article 6.2 of the Agreement and the 1996 Committee Decision 
contained in G/TRIMS/5 require Members to notify the names of publications in which TRIMs might 
be found, where such publications exist, including those applied by re gional and local governments 
and authorities within their territories, and the addresses from which copies could be obtained, 
without prejudice to the legal consistency of any TRIM which might be found in the publications 
notified. Since the last meeting o f the Committee, Malawi submitted a notification under 
Article  6.2. The Chair urged Members that had not yet notified to do so promptly.  
103.  The Committee took note  of the information provided.  
12  OTHER BUSINESS  
104.  No Member raised any items under other business.  
13  ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSO N AND VICE -CHAIRPERSON  
105.  The Chair  recalled that at its meeting of 11 May, the CTG had agreed on a slate of names for 
chairpersons to the different subsidiary bodies, including the Chairperson of the TRIMs  Committee.  
106.  The Committee elected  Mr Ali Alwaleed Al -Thani (Qatar) as Chairperson of this Committee 
for 2017. The Committee also decided that the new Chairperson would engage in consultations 
with Members regarding the election on a Vice -Chairperson for the Committee.  
14  DATE OF THE NEXT MEE TING  
107.  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. For some years now, 
the Committee had regularly met twice a year, in the spring and fall , and some Members have 
indicated that they would like to continue in this manner in 2017. Thus, the Chair proposed to 
schedule the next meeting for Monday, 6 November 2017.  
108.  In order to provide Members with ample opportunity to prepare for this meeting, th e 
Secretariat would issue the annotated draft agenda three weeks in advance, i.e., Monday, 
16 October  2017. Requests to place items on the annotated draft agenda should be communicated 
in writing to the Secretariat at the latest by close of business on Fri day, 13  October 2017. The 
annotated draft agenda would be open to Members' comments until close of business on Monday, 
23 October  2017. In addition, Members wishing to circulate documents should do so by close of 
business on Monday, 23 October 2017 so that  they could be reflected on the airgram. The airgram 
convening the meeting would be issued on Friday, 27  October 2017.  
109.  The Committee took note  of the information provided.  
110.  The meeting was adjourned . 
__________