WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
G/SCM/M/81 
25 July 2012  
 
(12-4071) 
Committee on Subsidies 
and Countervailing Measures  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING  
HELD ON 26 APRIL 2012 
 
Chair:  Mr Andreas Krallmann (Germany) 
  
1. The Committee on Subsidies and Countervailin g Measures ("Committee") held a regular 
meeting on 26 April 2012, convened in WTO/AIR/3927. 
2. The Committee adopted the following agenda: 
A.  NATIONAL LEGISLATION – REVIEW OF NOTIFICATIO NS OF NEW OR AMENDED 
LEGISLATION OR REGULATIONS NOT PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE  .................. 2  
1.  United States (G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 - G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9) ........................... 2  
2.  Tonga (G/SCM/N/1/TON/1) ..................................................................................................... 2  
3.  Burkina Faso (G/SCM/N/1/BFA/1) ......................................................................................... 2  
B.  NATIONAL LEGISLATION – CONTINUED REVIEW OF PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED 
NOTIFICATIONS OF LEGISLATION OR REGULATIONS  ................................................................... 2  
1.  Ecuador (G/SCM/N/1/ECU/3) ................................................................................................. 2  
C.  SEMI -ANNUAL REPORTS OF COUNTERVAILING DUTY ACTIONS  ................................................... 2  
D.  NOTIFICATIONS OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL COUNTERVAILING DUTY ACTIONS  ....................... 3  
E.  CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSIONS "ON WAYS TO IMPROVE THE TIMELINESS AND 
COMPLETENESS OF NOTIFICATIONS AND OTHER INFORMATION FLOWS ON TRADE 
MEASURES " UNDER THE SCM AGREEMENT  .................................................................................. 3  
F.  CONSTANT DOLLAR METHODOLOGY FOR GRADUATION FROM SCM ANNEX VII(B) ................... 5  
G.  PERMANENT GROUP OF EXPERTS  ................................................................................................. 6  
H.  ANNUAL UPDATING NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PROCEDURES FOR THE 
CONTINUATION OF EXTENSIONS OF THE TRANSITION PERIOD FOR THE ELIMINATION 
OF EXPORT SUBSIDIES SET OUT UNDER ARTICLE 27.4  OF THE SCM AGREEMENT  ........................ 7  
I.  ELIMINATION OF EXPORT SUBSIDIES FOR TEX TILES AND APPAREL BY INDIA PURSUANT 
TO ARTICLE 27.5  OF THE SCM AGREEMENT  ................................................................................. 7  
J.  NON-NOTIFICATION BY CHINA OF ALLEGED SU BSIDIES CONTAINED IN THE REQUEST 
BY THE UNITED STATES UNDER ARTICLE 25.10  OF THE SCM AGREEMENT  .................................. 8  
K.  NON-NOTIFICATION BY INDIA OF ALLEGED SUBS IDIES CONTAINED IN THE REQUEST BY 
THE UNITED STATES UNDER ARTICLE 25.10  OF THE SCM AGREEMENT  ....................................... 9  
L.  OTHER BUSINESS  ......................................................................................................................... 9  
M.  DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING .............................................................................................. 9  
N.  ELECTION OF OFFICERS  ............................................................................................................. 10  G/SCM/M/81 
Page 2  
 
   
A. NATIONAL LEGISLATION – REVIEW OF NOTIFICATIONS OF NEW OR AMENDED LEGISLATION OR 
REGULATIONS NOT PREVIOUS LY REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE  
1. United States (G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9 - G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.9) 
3. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
2. Tonga (G/SCM/N/1/TON/1) 
4. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
3. Burkina Faso (G/SCM/N/1/BFA/1) 
5. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
B. NATIONAL LEGISLATION – CONTINUED REVIEW OF PREVIOUS LY REVIEWED NOTIFICATIONS OF 
LEGISLATION OR REGULATIONS  
1. Ecuador (G/SCM/N/1/ECU/3) 
6. Written questions and replies with respect to this  notification were available in the following 
documents:  
- Questions from the US (G/SCM/Q1/ECU/12) - Replies from Ecuador (G/SCM/Q1/ECU/13) 
- Follow up question from the US (G/SCM/Q1/ECU/14) - Reply from Ecuador 
(G/SCM/Q1/ECU/15). 
7. There were no further questions or comments regarding this notification. 
C. SEMI -ANNUAL REPORTS OF COUNTERVAILING DUTY ACTIONS  
8. The Chair noted that reports of countervailing (" CV") actions taken during the period 1 July – 
31 December 2011 had been received from Austra lia, Brazil, Canada, China, the EU, Mexico, 
Pakistan and the US and circulated in document series G/SCM/N/235.  Members that had made a nil 
notification were listed in paragraph 2 of document G/SCM/N/235/Add.1.  A large number of 
Members still had not submitted a report and thus fa iled to comply with this important notification 
requirement. The Chair recalled the one-time notif ication format adopted by the Committee in 
October 2009 and urged Members that qua lified to make such a notification.  
9. There were no comments or questions with respect to the reports of Australia  
(G/SCM/N/235/AUS), Brazil  (G/SCM/N/235/BRA), Canada  (G/SCM/N/235/CAN) and Pakistan  
(G/SCM/N/235/PAK). 
10. With respect to the report of China  (G/SCM/N/235/CHN), the US recalled the concerns it 
had raised at the meeting of the Committee on Anti-dumping Practices ("AD Committee") and 
reiterated its call to China to improve transparency  and procedural fairness in CV duty proceedings.  
China recalled its replies to the US concerns at th e meeting of the AD Committee and stated that its 
CV duty proceedings were in full compliance with WTO rules. 
11. With respect to the report of the EU (G/SCM/N/235/EU), China recalled the concerns it had 
raised at the meeting of the AD Committee with re gard to the overprotection of the EU's bicycle  G/SCM/M/81 
 Page 3 
 
 
  industry.  This industry had had AD protection for almost twenty years and the EU was now 
considering initiating a CV duty investigation.  Chin a invited the EU to take into consideration the 
information submitted with respect to this proceeding and reject the complaint.  The EU stated that 
there were no on-going CV proceedings on bicycles in  the EU and that any case that could be initiated 
would be conducted fully in accordan ce with the EU's WTO obligations. 
12. With respect to the US report (G/SCM/N/235/USA), India commented on the preliminary 
determination by the Department of Commerce ("DOC ") in the investigation on circular welded 
carbon pipe from India.  In its subsidy calculations the DOC had cumulated a number of schemes that 
were mutually exclusive and which therefore could not  be used simultaneously by an exporter.  Also, 
in using adverse facts available the DOC had not  checked the facts on the record.  India was 
concerned over the treatment of the responses provide d by the government of India.  India had replied 
within the relevant deadlines to the questions po sed by the DOC, so it was unreasonable to conclude 
that India had failed to cooperate.  India urged the US  to modify the subsidy rates to take into account 
all the submissions made by Indian parties. 
13. The US stated that both the DOC's decision to resort to facts available and the manner in 
which adverse inferences were a pplied were appropriate and consis tent with the SCM Agreement.  
The DOC had taken into account the information pr ovided by India, but neither of the mandatory 
respondents had cooperated with the DOC to the best of its ability.  India had not submitted 
information requested by the DOC regarding a number of subsidy programmes.  In this situation, the 
DOC was allowed under US law to make adverse infere nces.  The US added that interested parties in 
this investigation could make comment s on the preliminary determination. 
D. NOTIFICATIONS OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL COUNTERVAILING DUTY ACTIONS  
14. Since the last regular meeting of the Committee, Australia, Brazil, Canada, the 
European Union, Mexico, Pakistan and the United States had submitted notifications under 
Article 25.11 of the SCM Agreement of preliminary and/ or final actions taken.  Lists of such actions 
had been circulated in documents G/SCM/N/233-234 and 236-239. 
15. No comments were made with respect to these notifications. 
E. CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSIONS "ON WAYS TO IMPROVE THE TIMELINESS AND 
COMPLETENESS OF NOTIFICATIONS AND OTHE R INFORMATION FLOWS ON TRADE MEASURES " 
UNDER THE SCM AGREEMENT  
16. The Chair recalled that following a March 2009 request from the Chair of the Trade Policy 
Review Body to discuss "ways to improve the timelin ess and completeness of notifications and other 
information flows on trade measures" in the c ontext of the SCM Agreement, the Committee had 
discussed this issue at various informal and regular meetings.  He also noted the steps taken in the 
Committee as a result of such discussions.  He under lined the importance of subsidy notifications and 
stated that 80 Members had not yet made their 2011 new and full subsidy no tifications which were 
due almost a year ago.  A number of these Members had not observed their previous subsidy 
notification obligations either. 
17. The Chair invited Members that had not yet made their 2011 new and full subsidy 
notifications to explain the reasons that had prev ented them from making timely subsidy notifications.  
The following Members were invited to make explanations: 
Angola 
Bangladesh 
Benin Guinea, Rep. of 
Guyana 
Haiti Pakistan 
Panama 
Papua New Guinea G/SCM/M/81 
Page 4  
 
  Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela 
Bolivia, Plurinational State of Botswana Brunei Darussalam Burundi 
Cambodia 
Cameroon Cape Verde Central African Rep. Chad 
China 
Congo Congo, Dem. Rep. Côte d'Ivoire Djibouti 
Dominica 
Egypt European Union (Austria, Greece) Fiji FYR of Macedonia Gabon 
Gambia 
Georgia Ghana   Iceland 
India Guinea Bissau Indonesia Kenya 
Kuwait 
Kyrgyz Republic Lesotho Madagascar Malawi 
Maldives 
Mali Mauritania Moldova Mongolia 
Morocco 
Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nepal Nicaragua 
Niger 
Nigeria Oman Paraguay 
Peru Philippines Rwanda St. Kitts & Nevis 
St. Vincent & Grenadines 
Senegal Sierra Leone Singapore Solomon Islands 
South Africa 
Sri Lanka Suriname Swaziland Tanzania 
Thailand 
Togo Trinidad & Tobago Tunisia Uganda United Arab Emirates 
Viet Nam 
Zimbabwe   
18. In response, China stated that it had submitted a new notification in October 2011, that it was 
working on the next notification and that it faced various technical and capacity constraints in the 
preparation of its notifications.  Cote d'Ivoire stat ed that it was working on its notification and, once 
completed, would notify it.  Dominica, Egypt, Mo rocco, Nicaragua, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint 
Vincent and Grenadines, Senegal and South Africa stat ed that they would cont act their capitals.  The 
EU stated that certain coordination matters and r esource limitations had delayed the submission of the 
notifications of some of its member States; Aust ria's notification was being finalized and would be 
submitted shortly, and it was making best efforts to s ubmit Greece's notification.  India stated that as a 
developing country it faced certain problems and that  it was working with the stakeholders and its 
relevant ministries on this issue.  The Philippines echoed India's concerns and further informed the 
Committee that it was taking stock of its notificati on obligations and would su bmit its notification in 
due course. Indonesia stated that it faced certain internal coordinati on problems and capacity restraints 
but would talk to capital to speed up the process.  Oman and Pakistan stated they had no instructions 
from their capitals.  Paraguay and Peru stated they  were working on their notifications.  Viet Nam 
stated that it was in the process of finalizing its subsidies notification. 
19. The Chair then turned to the US paper in document G/SCM/W/557, whic h followed an earlier 
US paper discussed at the Committee's regular me eting in October 2011.  In this paper, the US 
proposed a text for adoption by the Committee regard ing procedures for the handling of questions and 
answers under Articles 25.8 and 25.9 of the SCM Agre ement.  Although the paper had been submitted 
shortly before the meeting the Chai r suggested to start discussing it. 
20. The US stated that the compendium on notifications (G/SCM/W/546/Rev.3) was very useful 
and that the Secretariat should continue updating it.   The compendium showed that compliance with 
subsidy notification obligations was not improvi ng and that only 41 per cent of Members had 
submitted a 2011 new and full notification.  It w ould be helpful to add another chart to the 
compendium indicating Members that had notified s ubsidies provided by sub-central authorities.  The 
re-formatting of Annex C containi ng questions posed under Article 25.8 of the SCM Agreement was  G/SCM/M/81 
 Page 5 
 
 
  positive but needed further improvements, as it was not really a question of what notification had been 
provided, but rather the questions raised and r esponses received, if any.  The US also proposed 
introducing a new column citing replies or lack th ereof provided by the Member receiving questions. 
21. With respect to its proposal in document G/SCM/W/ 557, the US stated that its content closely 
followed Articles 25.8 and 25.9 of SCM Agreement.  The paper intended to add further specificity 
and clarity to these two provisions and related to f our points.  First, it proposed a written process.  
Second, it proposed time-limits for the submission of replies to questions received under Article 25.8.  
Third, it proposed time-limits for the submission of  written replies to follow-up questions.  Fourth, it 
proposed that all pending questions under Article 25. 8 remain in the Committee's agenda until a reply 
was provided. 
22. Australia shared US concerns on Annex C of th e compendium.  In the past when Australia 
had received questions under Article 25.8 it had provided replies promptly as required by Article 25.9.  
Australia agreed that there had to be a wr itten process for handling questions presented under 
Article 25.8.  Members had to give meaning to Ar ticle 25.8 in terms of timing.  Where there were 
follow-up questions in writing it would be useful to clarify when written answers had to be furnished. 
23. The EU agreed that status of notifications refl ected in the compendium was not encouraging.  
51 per cent of Members, including some large e xporters, had not yet made their 2011 new and full 
subsidy notifications.  It was t hus essential to develop guidelin es under Article 25.8 regarding the 
timing of questions and answers. The procedure proposed in the US paper would complement the 
procedure regarding the questions a nd answers on subsidy notifications. 
24.  Japan, New Zealand and Turkey expressed suppor t for the US proposal, while Canada stated 
that the US proposal constituted a reasonable basi s for discussion.  Japan also supported the US 
suggestion to insert a new column into Annex C of the compendium prepared by the Secretariat.  
Hong Kong, China supported the rationale of the US proposal and had referred it to capital for further 
consideration. 
25. Brazil, China, South Africa and India needed ti me to examine the US proposal.  China further 
noted that although the US paper proposed that writ ten answers be given to questions posed by other 
Members, no such obligation could be found in Ar ticle 25.9 of SCM Agreement.  These delegations 
also invited the US to submit in writing its proposal  to modify the tables annexed to the compendium 
so that the capitals could examine these in detail. 
26. Mexico stated it would convey the US proposal to capital and participate in future discussions 
on this issue. 
27. The Chair stated that the Committee would at its next meeting revert to the US proposal. 
28. The Committee agreed to maintain the issue of  timeliness and completeness on the agenda of 
the next Committee meeting. 
F. CONSTANT DOLLAR METHODOLOGY FOR GRADUATION FROM SCM ANNEX VII(B) 
29. The Chair informed Members that when the n ecessary World Bank data became available the 
Secretariat would circulate new updated calculations  regarding the list of Members in Annex VII(b) 
of the SCM Agreement.1 
                                                      
1 These calculations were circulated in document G/SCM/110/Add.9 dated 20 June 2012. G/SCM/M/81 
Page 6  
 
  G. PERMANENT GROUP OF EXPERTS  
30. The Chair explained the background to the electi on process for the two vacant positions in the 
Permanent Group of Experts ("PGE"), in particular th e consultations that he had had with delegations 
that had expressed an interest in the process.  He noted that one Member had raised concerns not on 
particular names proposed by other Members but  over the process of election.  Following his 
consultations the Chair proposed for election by the Committee the two names identified in document 
G/SCM/144. 
31. Australia stated that it would not block con sensus on the election of the two names proposed 
by the Chair but nevertheless had concerns regard ing the process of election of PGE members.  It 
proposed to discuss some broader issues relating to  the process and procedures for the election of 
PGE members.  Australia wanted to ensure that  the process of election proceeded as smoothly as 
possible in the future.  Problems had arisen on the election of PGE members on several occasions in the past, most recently in 2011 wh en one position had been left vacant.   It was important for Members 
to acknowledge the importance of th ese problems and their potential to arise again.  To reduce the 
potential for such complications to arise again it w ould be useful to undertake informal consultations 
in the Committee over the coming period.  This could increase Members' understanding of the 
required qualifications for election to the PGE and give increased confidence to the process. 
32. Brazil supported Australia's proposal to hold in formal consultations.  These consultations 
should focus on: (a) the transparency of the electio n process, and (b) the criteria, apart from those 
already stated in the SCM Agreement, to be take n into consideration by Members when deciding 
which candidate was bette r suited for the position. 
33. Korea supported the election of the two candidates proposed by the Chair. 
34. China supported Australia's proposal to hold info rmal consultations on the process of election 
of PGE members. 
35. Turkey expressed appreciation for the Ch air's efforts in the election process. 
36. The United States supported the election of th e two candidates proposed by the Chair and 
expressed readiness to engage in the informal consu ltations along the lines suggested by Brazil.  It 
also underlined the importance of observing the requ ired qualifications under the SCM Agreement in 
deciding whether to support or oppose a proposed candidate for the PGE. 
37. India supported the election of the two candidates proposed by the Chair and expressed 
readiness to engage in the pr oposed informal consultations. 
38. Japan supported the election of the two candidates proposed by the Chair and expressed 
readiness to engage in the informal consu ltations proposed by Australia and Brazil. 
39. The Separate Customs Territory of Taiw an, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu expressed 
appreciation for the support extended to its candidate for the PGE. 
40. The Chair stated that there seemed to be a need  to discuss certain systemic issues relating to 
the process of election of PGE members and urged the new chair to start these consultations after this 
meeting. 
41. The Committee elected Mr Zhang Yuqing to replace Dr Manzoor Ahmad as from 
Spring 2011 and Mr Welber Barral to replace Mr  Zhang Yuqing as from Spring 2012 as members of 
the Permanent Group of Experts.  G/SCM/M/81 
 Page 7 
 
 
  H. ANNUAL UPDATING NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PROCEDURES FOR THE 
CONTINUATION OF EXTENSIONS OF THE TRANS ITION PERIOD FOR THE ELIMINATION OF 
EXPORT SUBSIDIES SET OUT UNDER ARTICLE 27.4  OF THE SCM AGREEMENT  
42. The Chair recalled that the last review on the extension of transition periods for the 
elimination of certain export subsidy programmes in accordance with the General Council Decision in 
document WT/L/691 would be conducted at the Co mmittee's regular meeting in October 2012 and 
urged beneficiaries to make their annual updating notifications by the deadline of 30 June 2012. 
I. ELIMINATION OF EXPORT SUBSIDIES FOR TEXTI LES AND APPAREL BY INDIA PURSUANT TO 
ARTICLE 27.5  OF THE SCM AGREEMENT  
43. Turkey stated that the calculations made by the Secretariat showed that India had reached 
export competitiveness on textile and a pparel products at least in 2007.  Therefore, India had to phase 
out its export subsidies in this sector within eight years from 2007.  However, rather than phasing out its existing subsidies, India was granting new subsidies in this field, contrary to its obligations under 
the SCM Agreement.  Turkey registered its system ic and commercial interest in this issue since 
Turkish textile and apparel producers were competing with Indian tex tile and apparel exporters in the 
domestic and export markets and underscored its c oncerns regarding the significant increase of 
imports of those products from India in recent years. 
44. The US stated that the Secretariat's calcula tions had shown that India had reached export 
competitiveness in textiles and apparel no later th an 2007 and was required to phase out its export 
subsidies in this industry.  However, India had not  done that and had even started implementing new 
or extending existing export incentives to this sect or.  Article 27.5 of the SCM Agreement at least 
required that a Member gaining export compe titiveness not grant new export incentives for the 
relevant sector.  The US expressed concern over India' s view that certain technical legal issues had to 
be resolved by the Committee befo re India would be required to phase out its export subsidies in 
textiles and apparel.  Such an approach, in the US view, raised systemic issues as to Members' 
adherence to their obligations.  The US was ready to have bilateral discussions with India on this 
issue. 
45. The EU stated that India had to phase out its export subsidies on textil es and apparel by 2015, 
i.e. eight years from 2007 where it had reached expor t competitiveness.  Since five years had elapsed 
since 2007, the EU invited India to provide inform ation on any steps taken towards the phasing out of 
the relevant subsidy programmes. 
46. Japan underlined the importance of the obligation contained in Article 27.5 of the SCM 
Agreement. 
47. India stated that it was committed to meeti ng its obligations under the SCM Agreement but 
clarity and a common understanding on certain issues had to be achieved before  it could implement its 
obligations.  The issue of when the phase-out obligati on began also needed to be clarified.  Many of 
the subsidy programmes allegedly used by India did not constitute export subsidies.  For instance, the 
Duty Entitlement Passbook scheme, cited by Turkey, was in the nature of remission or refund of 
duties on inputs used in exported goods and was discontinued as from October 2011.  Indian officials had explained to US officials, during an official visit to the US, that many of the programmes included in the US request did not  constitute export subsidies under the SCM Agreement.  India was 
ready to remain constructively engaged in th e Committee to further develop clarity on the 
interpretation of the obligations under Ar ticles 27.5 and 27.6 of the SCM Agreement. 
48. The US stated that in official  talks between Indian and US officials only three export subsidy 
programmes had been discussed although the US request had listed close to a dozen such G/SCM/M/81 
Page 8  
 
  programmes.  Even under the most conservative interp retation of Article 27.5 India was well into the 
phase-out period. 
49. India disagreed that India's export subsidies in this sector had increased.  It was willing to 
work with the Committee to develop a better unde rstanding of the systemic issues involved. 
50. The US was ready to discuss this issue both b ilaterally with India and in the Committee. 
J. NON-NOTIFICATION BY CHINA OF ALLEGED SUBSID IES CONTAINED IN THE REQUEST BY THE 
UNITED STATES UNDER ARTICLE 25.10  OF THE SCM AGREEMENT  
51. The US recalled that on 6 October 2011 it had submitted a request to China under 
Article 25.10 of the SCM Agreement listing approx imately 200 subsidy programmes that China had 
not notified and had requested that China promp tly notify these programmes.  The US request was 
based on information from certain WTO dispute settlement proceedings, CVD investigations 
conducted by the US against China and other info rmation.  190 of the 200 programmes identified in 
the US notification were not included in China's new and full subsidy notification made in Autumn 
2011.   In the view of the US, the totality of China's subsidy programmes had to go well beyond the 200 programmes notified by the US.  The US then made  five specific observations with respect to its 
request under Article 25.10.  First, programmes main tained at sub-central level were prevalent.  
Second, the five-year plans played a key role in establishing the policy framework for the granting of 
subsidies by China.  Third, the fact that certain  subsidy programmes were kept in effect for short 
periods and then replaced by other measures under lined the importance of the timeliness of China's 
subsidy notifications.  Fourth, Ch ina's subsidy programmes were pr ohibited or actionable subsidies 
that caused significant harm to US industries.  Fifth, the fact that the US had been able to collect the 
information on China's subsidy programmes invalidated  China's claims that it lacked the ability to 
collect and report the same informa tion.  Despite the US willingness, China was not prepared to meet 
bilaterally on the issues raised by the Article 25.10 request.  The US urged China to submit a subsidy 
notification that would present the full picture of its  subsidy regime in a clear and transparent manner. 
52. The EU raised concern about China's record on subsidy notifications.  Following the US 
request under Article 25.10, China was required to prom ptly notify the alleged subsidies.  Despite its 
statements underlining the importa nce of subsidy notifications, Ch ina had not undertaken sufficient 
action to observe its obligations in this regard.  China's 2011 notification was far from ideal since it 
was neither timely nor complete.  The notificati on only covered a limited number of programmes at 
central government level and only for the years 2007 a nd 2008.  The EU urged China to avoid further 
delays and to submit a complete and up-to-date notification by the next Committee meeting, if 
possible.  
53. Canada expressed support for the concerns raised  by the US and the EU and urged China to 
submit its notification in timely and complete a manner.  
54. Turkey supported the US request under Article 25.10.  China's last subsidy notification did 
not include programmes granted at sub-central governme nt level and this was particularly troubling.  
Turkey urged China to make a complete s ubsidy notification without further delay. 
55. Japan urged China to submit its 2011 new and full subsidy notification as soon as possible. 
56. China stated that the US misunderstood China's subsidy programmes and had failed to 
understand the interrelationship between the programme s notified by China and those contained in the 
US request under Article 25.10.  Many of the prog rammes contained in the US request had already 
been covered in China's subsidy notifications.  China was ready to discuss in the Committee what  G/SCM/M/81 
 Page 9 
 
 
  constituted a subsidy and which s ubsidies required notification and would continue its efforts to 
improve the work on its subsidy notifications. 
57. The US stated that China's last notification contained less than 100 programmes whereas the 
US counter-notification identified 200 programmes.  While there might be some overlap the fact 
remained that there were many un-notified programm es.  The US was ready to discuss this issue with 
China to reach a mutually agreeable solution. 
K. NON-NOTIFICATION BY INDIA OF ALLEGED SUBSID IES CONTAINED IN THE REQUEST BY THE 
UNITED STATES UNDER ARTICLE 25.10  OF THE SCM AGREEMENT  
58. The US stated that until its recent notifica tion covering the period 2003-2009 India had not 
submitted a subsidy notification in ten years.  Furt her, India's notification only covered three export 
subsidy programmes granted at central level.  On 6 October 2011, the US had submitted a request to 
India under Article 25.10 of the SCM Agreement wh ich listed approximately  50 subsidy programmes 
at both central and sub-central levels in India and requested that these programmes be promptly 
notified.  None of the programmes included in th e US notification appeared in India's subsidy 
notification.  India had not notified any programmes pursuant to the US request.  The US urged India 
to submit a subsidy notification that would present a full picture of its subsidy regime. 
59. The EU expressed concern that India had not ta ken any further action since October 2011 and 
invited India to make a complete and timely notification as soon as possible. 
60. Canada urged India to respond to the writte n communication by the US and to make a 
complete and timely notification. 
61. Japan urged India to make a 2011 new and full subsidy notification as soon as possible. 
62. Norway urged China and India to notify all their subsidy programmes. 
63. Turkey urged India to submit a complete notification without further delay.  
64. India stated that substantial components of some of the programmes included in the US 
notification under Article 25.10 had already been in cluded in India's previous subsidy notifications.  
Further, a number of measures identified in the US notification did not require notification under the 
SCM Agreement.  The Industrial Infrastructure Up gradation Scheme, the Steel Development Fund 
and the Wagon investment Scheme were examples of this.  With respect to other programmes listed in 
the US request, there was an on-going examination process by the relevant agencies but this was a 
time- consuming exercise.  Gathering information w ith respect to the state programmes listed in the 
US request was even more time-consuming.  The US thanked India for its thorough explanation and 
its efforts in responding to the US Article 25.10 request. 
L. OTHER BUSINESS  
65. The Chair stated that starting with the Oct ober 2012 meetings of the Committee, documents 
submitted after the issuance of the airgram would not be included in the agenda, unless the Chair 
decided otherwise due to exceptional circumstances. 
M. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING  
66. The Committee decided that the next regular me eting of the Committee would be held in the 
week of 22 October 2012, with the exact date to be confirmed in due course. G/SCM/M/81 
Page 10  
 
  N. ELECTION OF OFFICERS  
67. The Committee elected Mr Sam C.S. Hui of Hong Kong, China as Chair and 
Mr William Kendall of Canada as Vice-Chair. 
68. The meeting was adjourned. 
 
__________