RESTRICTED  
  
G/C/M/113  
 
2 July 2013  
(13-3439)  Page: 1/21  
Council for Trade in Goods    
 
 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF TH E COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS  
25 MARCH 2013 
 
CHAIRPERSON: H.E. AMBASSADOR MONCEF BAATI (TUNISIA) 
The meeting of the Council for Trade in Goods (CTG) was convened by airgram WTO/AIR/4100; 
the proposed agenda for the meeting was contained in document G/C/W/679.  The meeting 
proceeded on the basis of the following agenda: 
 
1   ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS ................. 2  
2   NOTIFICATION OF RE GIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS .................................................... 2  
3   STATUS OF NOTIFICATIONS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENTS 
IN ANNEX IA OF TH E WTO AGREEMENT ........................................................................... 3  
4   APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS TO TH E SUBSIDIARY BODIES OF THE COUNCIL 
FOR TRADE IN GOODS ...................................................................................................... 4  
5   ENLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION: PROCEDURES UNDER ARTICLE 
XXVIII:3 OF GATT 1994 ................................................................................................... 5  
5.1   Enlargement of the Euro pean Union on 1 May 2004  ........................................................ 5  
5.2   Enlargement of the European Union on 1 January 2007 ................................................... 6  
6   PHILIPPINES – REQUEST FOR A WAIVER RELATING TO SPECIAL TREATMENT 
FOR RICE OF THE PHILIPPI NES (G/C/W/665/ REV.1) ..................................................... 6  
7   UKRAINE'S ARTICLE XXVIII NOTIFI CATION - STATEMENTS BY ASEAN; 
AUSTRALIA; BRAZIL; CANADA; CHILE; COLOMBIA; CROATIA; EGYPT; EUROPEAN UNION; GUATEMALA; HONG KONG, CHINA; ICELAND; JAPAN; KOREA; MEXICO;  
NEW ZEALAND; NORWAY; TURKEY AND THE UNITED STATES .......................................... 7
 
8   RUSSIAN FEDERATION – IMPLEMENTATION OF WTO ACCESSION 
COMMITMENTS – REQUEST FROM  THE UNITED STATES ................................................. 12  
9   INDONESIA’S IMPORT RESTRICTING POLICIES AND PRACTICES – REQUEST 
FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE UNITED STATES ................................................ 13  
10   BRAZIL- INDIRECT TAXATION: COND ITIONS TO OBTAIN TAX BENEFITS IN 
VARIOUS SECTORS – STATEMENTS BY THE EUROPEAN UNION AND JAPAN ................... 16  
11   UKRAINE – IMPORT TARIFFS ON AUTOMOBILES – STATEMENT BY THE 
EUROPEAN UNION ......................................................................................................... 17  
12   WORK PROGRAMME ON ELECTRONIC CO MMERCE ................................................... 20  
13   OTHER BU SINESS .................................................................................................... 21  
13.1   Date of next meeting............................................................................................... 21 
 G/C/M/113 
 
- 2 - 
 
  As a result of the departure from Geneva of CTG Chairperson Ambassador Tom Mboya Okeyo 
(Kenya),the outgoing Chairperson of the General Council, Ambassador Elin Østebø Johansen (Norway), opened the meeting and proceeded with the adoption of the agenda.   
The Council so agreed. 
 
1  ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS 
1.1.  Ambassador Johansen recalled that Rule 14 of the Rules of Procedure for Meetings of the 
Council for Trade in Goods (CTG) provided that "If the Chairperson can no longer perform the functions of the office, the Council for Trade in Goods shall designate the Vice-Chairperson referred 
to in Rule 12 or, if no Vice-Chairperson was elected it shall elect an interim Chairperson to perform 
those functions pending the election of a new Ch airperson".  She also recalled that she, as 
Chairperson of the General Council, had carried out consultations on a slate of names for Chairpersons of the different WTO standing bodies  in accordance with the established Guidelines 
for Appointment of Officers contained in docume nts WT/L/510 and in JOB/GC/22. She furthered 
that the proposed nominations were approved by the General Council at its meeting on 25 February 2013, and that H.E. Ambassador Moncef  BAATI of Tunisia had been proposed as the 
Chairperson of this Council.   
1.2.  Instead of electing an interim Chairper son to conduct this meeting, and electing the 
Chairperson of this Council at the end of the meet ing, she proposed that the Council elect at this 
point, Ambassador Moncef BAATI by acclamation,  therefore allowing him to conduct the meeting 
from the beginning.  
1.3.  The Council so agreed.  
1.4.  Ambassador Baati took over as Chairperso n of the CTG, thanked the Council for having 
elected him, and continued with the meeting. 
2  NOTIFICATION OF REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS 2.1.  The Chairperson recalled that, under the wo rking procedures agreed by the Committee on 
Regional Trade Agreements (CRTA), following adopti on by the General Council of the Transparency 
M e c h a n i s m ,  t h e   C T G  w a s  t o  b e  k e p t  i n f o r m e d  o f  Members' notifications of new regional trade 
agreements.1  He informed the CTG that the following regional trade agreements had been notified 
to the CRTA: 
 Customs Union between the Russian Federation, Belarus and Kazakhstan (WT/REG325/N/1) 
 Free Trade Agreement between the Russian Federation and Serbia (WT/REG326/N/1) 
 Free Trade Agreement between the Russian Fe deration and Uzbekistan (WT/REG327/N/1) 
 Free Trade Agreement between the Russian Fede ration and Turkmenistan (WT/REG328/N/1) 
 Free Trade Agreement between Chil e and Malaysia (WT/REG330/N/1) 
 Free Trade Agreement between Nicaragua and Panama (WT/REG331/N/1) 
 Association Agreement between the European Union (EU) and Central America 
(WT/REG332/N/1) 
 Trade Agreement between the European Union and Colombia and Peru (WT/REG333/N/1) 
2.2.  The delegate of El Salvador referred to th e notification made by the EU on the Association 
Agreement between the EU and Central America; she informed the Council that her authorities 
were coordinating with the EU and Panama on a revised notification and it would shortly be available.  
                                               
1 See documents WT/REG16, WT/L/671 and G/C/M/88. G/C/M/113 
 
- 3 - 
 
  2.3.  The delegates of Nicaragua and Panama conf irmed the information provided by El Salvador.  
2.4.  The delegate of Peru stated that with rega rd to the EU notification on the Trade Agreement 
between the EU, Colombia and Peru, the three Memb er parties to this Agreement were preparing a 
corrigendum of the notification, which would have a different document symbol. In this regard the 
delegate of Colombia informed the Council that the revised version was already available on 
Members’ website as document WT/REG333/N/1/Rev.1 
2.5.  The delegate of the European Union conf irmed the information provided by the previous 
speakers that revised notifications were being prepared. 
2.6.  The Council took note of the in formation and of the statements made. 
3  STATUS OF NOTIFICATIONS UNDER THE PR OVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENTS IN ANNEX 
IA OF THE WTO AGREEMENT 
3.1.  The Chairman drew Members' attention to document G/L/223/Rev.20 containing the status of 
notifications under the provisions of the Agreemen ts in Annex 1A of the WTO Agreement. Before 
considering the document, he recalled that at th e last meeting of the Council, his predecessor had 
reported on the informal consultations he had carried out in respect of Room Document RD/CTG/1 
containing the revised format of the "Updating of the listing of notification obligations and the compliance therewith as set out in Annex III of the Report of the Working Group on Notification 
Obligations and Procedures".  
3.2.  At these consultations, the then Chairperso n had indicated that the revised format preserved 
the current structure as well as the explanatory notes currently contained in document G/L/223 and Revisions thereof, and  now only contained notifications for the preceding three years. The 
only exceptions concerning annual notifications, referred to the ones made to the Working Party on 
State Trade Enterprises and the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures which were notified every two years. The then Chairperson had also reported that during the informal meeting, 
one delegation had pointed out on the importance of  preserving the overall picture of notifications 
so as to track, in a single document, Members' compliance with transparency provisions under each of the Agreements in Annex IA of the WTO Agreement. He had therefore proposed to hold 
informal consultations with all interested Members, and had invited delegations to inform the 
Secretariat, before 30 January 2013, of their interest in these consultations. No delegation had expressed interest in participating in those consultations, but he had been informed that there were some delegations who wished to explore ways  to maintain the balance between transparency 
and the austerity measures recommended by the General Council in November 2011.   
3.3.  The delegate of Australia thanked the Secretariat for preparing the revised format. Australia 
attached significant importance to transparency issues, was interested in exploring ways to 
improve the format of the document to more effectively assist Members in monitoring compliance 
with notification obligations, and was also aware of the length of the current document. In this vein Australia was interested in maintaining an easy access to and an overall view on notification 
compliance.  The three year period proposed in the draft format in some cases, would not cover 
the last notifications submitted by Members, beyond such period.  His delegation was ready to discuss this issue in a constructive manner with interested Members to assess possible, feasible and practical options, and would keep the Chai r and the Council informed of the discussions. 
3.4.  The delegate of Japan supported Australi a's statement; Japan believed that accountability 
and transparency in notifications performance we r e  i n  t h e  i n t e r e s t  o f  a l l  W T O  M e m b e r s .   H e r  
delegation would engage in the discussion amon g Members to achieve a right balance between 
transparency and the cost-saving recommendations. 
3.5.  The Chairperson thanked Australia and Japan for their statements and interest in this issue, 
and invited them to keep him informed of the de velopments.  He would convene, if necessary, an 
informal meeting of the Council to discuss the way forward for adoption of the cost-saving 
recommendations made by the General Council. He also invited the Council to take note of document G/L/223/Rev.20 and of the statements made. 
3.6.  The Council so agreed.    G/C/M/113 
 
- 4 - 
 
  4  APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS TO THE SU BSIDIARY BODIES OF  THE COUNCIL FOR 
TRADE IN GOODS 
4.1.  The Chairperson recalled delegations that th e Guidelines for Appointment of Officers to the 
WTO (WT/L/510) adopted by the General Counci l on 11 December 2002, provided that the 
Chairperson of the CTG would conduct consultations on the appointment of the Chairpersons of the 
subsidiary bodies of this Council. However, in the absence of his predecessor  Ambassador Mboya Okeyo, the outgoing Chairperson of the General Council, Ambassador 
Johansen (Norway), had conducted the consultation s on the appointment of the Chairpersons of 
the CTG's subsidiary bodies.  
4.2.  In this regard, at the General Council  meeting of 25 February 2013, she had read a 
statement on behalf of the then Chairman of the CTG, regarding the consultation process on 
appointment of officers of the CTG's subsidiary  bodies; and on 6 March 2013 she had sent out a 
fax to delegations proposing that in the absence of the  CTG Chair,, she would, unless she heard to the contrary from Members, conduct the consultations on his behalf in her capacity as outgoing 
Chairperson of the General Council.   
4.3.  He also recalled delegations that Ambassador Johansen had held consultations on 11 and 12 
March 2013 beginning with group coordinators followed by delegations who had requested for 
consultations.  Based on the proposals and sugg estions from Members, she had drawn up a draft 
slate of names which she conveyed to delegations by fax dated 18 March. No objections were filed 
by the deadline of Wednesday 20 March. She had th erefore, before the start of this meeting held 
an informal open-ended meeting on the proposed slate of names which Members agreed to.   
4.4.  He therefore believed that he was in a position to propose to this Council an agreed slate of 
names for the Chairs of the subsidiary bodies.  This slate reflected the open and transparent 
manner in which the consultations were carried out, as well as the wide diversity of the WTO 
membership.  
4.5.  The names of Chairpersons for the subsidiary bodies were as follows: 
Market Access Mr Krzysztof TREPCZYNSKI (Poland) 
Agriculture Mr Guilherme MARQUARDT BAYER (Brazil)  
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Ms  Maria Araceli ALBARECE (Philippines) 
Technical Barriers to Trade Mr Jingo KIKUKAWA (Japan) 
TRIMs Mr Tsotetsi MAKONG (Lesotho) 
Anti-Dumping Practices Ms Parima DAMRITHAMANIJ (Thailand) 
Subsidies and Countervailin g Measures Mr Marcus BARTLEY JOHNS (Australia) 
Safeguards Mr Alex Yun-hsing NI 
(Chinese Taipei) 
Import Licensing Mr Xiankun LU (China) 
Rules of Origin Mr Marhijn VISSER (Netherlands) 
Customs Valuation Mr Pierre-Emmanuel BRUSSELMANS (Belgium) 
State Trading Enterprises Mr Humberto JIMENEZ TORRES (Ecuador) 
Committee of Participants on the Expansion of 
Trade in Information Technology Products (ITA Committee) Mr Aaron FOWLER (Canada) 
 
4.6.  He proposed that the Council agree with the nominations read out.  G/C/M/113 
 
- 5 - 
 
  4.7.  The Council so agreed. 
4.8.  The Chairperson recalled that while all the other subsidiary bodies of the Council had 
provisions in their respective Agreement or rules of procedure requiring them to elect 
Chairpersons, Working Parties did not have any.  As a result, for the Working Party on State 
Trading Enterprises, he proposed that the Council appoint the nominated Chairperson.  For all the 
other subsidiary bodies, he proposed that the Council take note of his proposals.  
4.9.  The Council so agreed. 
4.10.  The Chairperson added that, on the question of Vice-Chairpersons, it was his understanding 
that it would be for the subsidiary bodies to deci de if they needed a Vice-Chair in cases where the 
option existed under the Agreement or rules of pr ocedure and that it was for the respective Chair 
to hold the necessary consultations.  He aske d if the Council could proceed on this basis. 
4.11.  The Council so agreed.   
4.12.  The Chairperson thanked Ambassador Johansen for the consultation process she had carried 
out. He also thanked the outgoing Chairpersons of the various subsidiary bodies of this Council for 
their hard work and dedication in2012. 
5  ENLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION: PROCEDURES UNDER ARTICLE XXVIII:3 OF 
GATT 1994 
5.1.  The Chairperson informed Members that under this agenda item, the Council was to consider 
a request for an extension of the time period for the withdrawal of concessions for the two 
enlargements of the European Union that t ook place on 1 May 2004 and on 1 January 2007, 
respectively.   
5.1  Enlargement of the European Union on 1 May 2004  
5.2.  The Chairperson drew Members' attention to document G/L/695/Add.17 concerning the 
accession to the European Union on 1 May 2004 of Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, 
Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia.  In this document, the EU 
indicated that it would not assert that Members who had submitted a claim pursuant to Article XXIV:6 of GATT 1994 were precluded from withdrawing substantially equivalent concessions 
under Article XXVIII:3 of GATT 1994 because this wi thdrawal occurred later than six months after 
the EU's withdrawal of concessions, provided th at the claiming WTO Member withdrew concessions 
no later than 117 months after the EU's modification of concessions.  He recalled that the General Council had on four earlier occasions, on the basis of similar communications from the EU, 
extended the deadline for withdrawal of concessi ons referred to in Article XXVIII:3 of GATT 1994, 
namely, at its meetings in October 2004; and in March, June, and December 2005.  Similarly, the CTG had extended the deadlines on fourteen occasions:  at its meetings of 12 July 2006; 30 
January 2007, 21 May and 23 November 2007; 22 May and 18 November 2008; 29 June and 30 
October 2009; 21 May and 30 November 2010; 26 May and 7 November 2011; and 30 March and 26 November 2012.  
5.3.  The representative of the European Union stated that the EU was close to finalizing the 
procedures pursuant to Article XXIV:6 and Articl e XXVIII of GATT/94, followi ng its enlargement in 
2004.  A few steps remained that would be completed in the coming  few months, particularly the circulation of certification of the EU-25 Schedule of Concessions.  His delegation had therefore 
circulated a message aimed at extending the period in which Members were allowed to withdraw 
substantially equivalent concessions.  The message was identical to the one which the CTG endorsed when extending the period for withdrawal at its meeting on 26 November 2012.   
5.4.  The Council took note of the statement made  and also of the EU communication contained in 
document G/L/695/Add.17 and agreed on the extension of the deadline as set out in the EU 
document G/L/695/Add.17. G/C/M/113 
 
- 6 - 
 
  5.2  Enlargement of the European Union on 1 January 2007 
5.5.  The Chairperson drew Members' attention to document G/L/821/Add.12 concerning the 
accession to the European Union on 1 January 2007 of Bulgaria and Romania.  In this 
communication, the EU indicated that it would not assert that Members who had submitted a claim 
pursuant to Article XXIV:6 of GATT 1994 were prec luded from withdrawing substantially equivalent 
concessions under Article XXVIII:3 of GATT 1994 because this withdrawal occurred later than six months after the EU's withdrawal of conce ssions, provided that the claiming WTO Member 
withdrew concessions no later than 84 months after the EU's modification of concessions.  He 
recalled that the CTG had extended the deadline on twelve occasions, namely at its meetings of 21 May and 23 November 2007; 22 May and 18 November 2008; 29 June and 30 October 2009; 21 May and 30 November 2010; 26 May and 7 November 2011; and 30 March and 26 November 
2012. 
5.6.  The representative of the European Union informed the Council that the negotiations 
following the EU's 2007 enlargement had been finalized.  The agreement with the US had recently 
been concluded and would shortly enter into force. The agreement with China was now at 
signature stage. As more time was required to finalize all the procedures, another extension to the period in which Members were allowed to withdraw substantially equivalent concessions was 
necessary. His delegation had therefore circulated a message aimed at extending the period in 
which Members were allowed to withdraw substantially equivalent concessions. The message was similar to the one endorsed by this Council wh en extending the period for withdrawal at its 
meeting of 26 November 2012. 
5.7.  The Council took note of the statement made  and also of the EU communication contained in 
document G/L/821/Add.12 and agreed on the extension of the deadline, as set out in the EU 
document G/L/821/Add.12.  
6  PHILIPPINES – REQUEST FOR A WAIVER  RELATING TO SPECIAL TREATMENT FOR 
RICE OF THE PHILIPPINES (G/C/W/665/REV.1) 
6.1.  The Chairperson recalled that at its meeting of 26 November 2012, the Council had agreed to 
revert to document G/C/W/665/Rev.1 containing a revised waiver request and a revised draft 
decision concerning the special treatment for rice of the Philippines. 
6.2.  The delegate of the Philippines emphasized the importance of the waiver to continue the 
special treatment for rice, for food security of about 100 million consumers and the livelihood 
security of some 2.4 million rice farmers in his country, most of whom were poor small-holder 
farmers.  Immediately after the Council meeting in March 2012, the Philippines had initiated bilateral and plurilateral engagements, both at po litical and technical levels, in Geneva and in 
capitals aimed at bringing a prompt solution to  the issues raised by Members on the waiver 
request. In this vein, no less than two to four senior officials from Manila had been participating in the Council meetings since March 2012; this proved the importance of this issue to the Philippines.  
6.3.  He also stated that at the last meeting it  had been agreed to continue with the discussions, 
take stock of the progress made, and keep inte rested Members engaged towards the endorsement 
of the waiver by the CTG and subsequent approval and adoption by the General Council. Various agreements had been reached with some Members; however, they were not sufficient to obtain 
consensus at the current meeting. The Philippines hoped to continue working expeditiously in this 
regard, and thanked Australia, China, India, Indo nesia, El Salvador, the European Union, Japan, 
Pakistan, Vietnam and Thailand who,  from the beginning, had understood the food security 
imperatives of the Philippines which were the basi s for the waiver request. His delegation would 
resume bilateral consultations with those interested Members who had outstanding concerns.  
6.4.  The delegate of Australia thanked the Phili ppines for the updates on the negotiations it had 
carried out on its request for a waiver. Australia was, however concerned that the Philippines' 
special treatment for rice under Annex 5 of the Agreement on Agriculture had expired in June 2012. Therefore, maintaining its treatment for rice  without the approval of the waiver, put the 
Philippines' measure under a legal cloud.  This was not an ideal situation for the WTO membership 
or for the Philippines.  He urged the Philippines to expedite its efforts to conclude its negotiations 
with Members, including Australia.  G/C/M/113 
 
- 7 - 
 
  6.5.  The delegate of Canada stated that his auth orities recognized the importance of this issue to 
the Philippines, and remained prepared to engage in bilateral negotiations with a view to finding a 
mutually acceptable solution in a timely manner.  He encouraged the Philippines to intensify its level of engagement with Canada and to give greater reflection to outstanding key issues.  Canada 
was not and would not be in a position to support the adoption of the waiver until the bilateral 
negotiations had been concluded. 
6.6.  The delegate of Thailand welcomed the posi tive development of the negotiations between the 
Philippines and interested Members. Several Members including Thailand still had remaining 
bilateral issues which required additional time to be solved.  Thailand would be ready to discuss the draft waiver request with the Philippines and other Members after bilateral negotiations had taken place.  His delegation supported the Philippine s' course of action in pursuing the waiver until 
agreement. 
6.7.  The delegate of China stated that his auth orities recognized the importance of the waiver 
request for the Philippines' food security, livelihood and rural development.  The Philippines had 
conducted extensive bilateral consultations with a number of Members including China, and had 
provided explanations in previous CTG meetings. China recognized the positive progress and agreements that had taken place, and the Philippines' position to find a solution to domestic 
production and food security; but hoped to see improvements towards more trade liberalization, 
which would help to find a final solution to the issue.   
6.8.  The delegate of Indonesia thanked the Ph ilippines for the update on the discussions and 
encouraged Members to accelerate these with a view to finding a solution that would fit all 
interested Members.  
6.9.  The delegate of El Salvador informed th e Council that the bilateral discussions with the 
Philippines were in at an advanced stage. El Salvador hoped to redouble efforts aimed at building 
consensus on the waiver request.  
6.10.  The delegate of India stated that his auth orities supported the right of the Philippines to 
seek this specific waiver as they considered food security to be of paramount importance for 
Members like Philippines.  He encouraged other Members to be constructive, and to see whether 
they had specific trade interests in commensurate with the requests they were making to the Philippines. 
6.11.  The Chairperson invited the Council to take note of the statements made and agreed to 
revert to this issue at the next meeting. 6.12.  The Council so agreed. 
7  UKRAINE'S ARTICLE XXVIII NOTIFICATION  - STATEMENTS BY ASEAN; AUSTRALIA; 
BRAZIL; CANADA; CHILE; COLOMBIA; CR OATIA; EGYPT; EUROPEAN UNION; 
GUATEMALA; HONG KONG, CHINA; ICELAND; JAPAN; KOREA; MEXICO;  NEW ZEALAND; NORWAY; TURKEY AND THE UNITED STATES 
7.1.  The Chairperson informed the Council that  in a communication dated 14 March 2013, Japan 
had requested, on its own behalf and that of the delegations of the ASEAN; Australia; Brazil; 
Canada; Chile; Colombia; Croatia; Egypt; Euro pean Union; Guatemala; Hong Kong, China; 
Iceland; Japan; Korea; Mexico; New Zealand; Norway; Turkey; and the United States, to include 
in the agenda of this meeting the following issue: "Ukraine's Article XXVIII Notification - 
Statements by ASEAN; Australia; Brazil; Canada ; Chile; Colombia; Croatia; Egypt; European 
Union; Guatemala; Hong Kong, China; Iceland; Japan; Korea; Mexico; New Zealand; Norway; 
Turkey; and the United States". 
7.2.  The delegate of Japan reiterated the co llective concern and disappointment regarding the 
notification by Ukraine and found it unnecessary to keep repeating their concern. Japan was not 
certain whether Ukraine had taken note of its previous statements and wished to reiterate that 
Ukraine's notification involving over 300 tariff line s entailed a serious challenge to the multilateral 
trading system based on mutual confidence am ong Members.  If Ukraine continued with its 
proposal, trust on the global trading system as a whole would be seriously affected; Ukraine G/C/M/113 
 
- 8 - 
 
  should be aware of that.  Japan was aware of Ukraine's recent intention to attract more foreign 
investment but Ukraine's notification would certainly endanger confidence to invest in that country.   
7.3.  The delegate of Colombia recalled that since Ukraine submitted its notification, many  
Members had repeatedly expressed their systemic  a n d  t r a d e  c o n c e r n s  o n  t h i s  i s s u e .   T h e s e  
referred to the extensive number of tariff lines in cluded which affected the delicate balance which 
was struck in the negotiations that defined Uk raine's accession to the WTO. A number of these 
lines affected a large share of the bilateral trade relations. Colombia had also highlighted the 
practical difficulties involved in finding adequate compensation for such a large number of tariff 
lines, and the risk that this could bring for the multilateral trading system.  To date, such concerns had not received a satisfactory response.  He urged Ukraine to reconsider its position which might have a significant impact on the stability and credibility of the multilateral trading system, and to 
withdraw its Article XXVIII notification. 
7.4.  The delegate of Chile stated that her de legation considered this issue with the highest 
importance, as already expressed in the General Council meetings. Chile believed that the way in 
which Ukraine was trying to renegotiate the long list of tariff lines went far beyond the scope of 
GATT Article XVIII.  This Article should not be used as an excuse to renegotiate the current level of 
commitments.  Chile's main concerns were of a systemic nature as such situation would undermine 
the predictability of the multilateral trading system as a whole and in particular in the case of 
developing countries. She furthered that Article XXVIII had an undesired and indirect effect if agreement was not reached between the parties, and if so the affected Member might withdraw initial concessions from the Member requesting renegotiation.  However, this might be done on an 
MFN basis; in other words, if there was no agr eement with Ukraine, Chile would also suffer the 
consequences.  Thus, Chile also joined others in  encouraging Ukraine to withdraw its request as 
currently submitted. 
7.5.  The delegate of Singapore on  behalf of the ASEAN reiterated the systemic concerns over this 
issue. Six months had passed since Ukraine had tabled its proposal and Members still did not know 
the objectives and rationale, the proposed new rates, or how Ukraine would compensate Members. 
The large number of tariff lines included in the notification affected some tariff lines in which 
ASEAN members had export interests.  It would be difficult, especially for developing country Members, to assess the impact of such changes. This was of particular concern for those Members 
without Initial Negotiating Rights (INRs) and Princi pal or Substantial Supplying Interests, as they 
would not have the possibility to follow the developments in Ukraine's consultations with Members 
with rights. WTO Members were part of an organization that thrived on transparency, inclusiveness and predictability, and where the binding of tariff reductions was one of its fundamental pillars to 
guarantee the security and predictability of the mult ilateral trading system. Thus, in the interest of 
the multilateral trading system and the global ec onomy, the ASEAN urged Uk raine to withdraw its 
notification. 
7.6.  The delegate of Canada recalled that his delegation had repeatedly raised its concerns over 
Ukraine’s notification in a number of WTO committees and Councils, including this one.  The 
notification which came so closely after Ukraine’s accession to the WTO was both excessively broad in scope and lacking in transparency.  Several months after submission of the notification, 
Members still did not know why Ukraine was s eeking these modifications or indeed what 
modifications had been proposed.  Canada had su bmitted its claim of interest to Ukraine in 
advance of the 12 December 2012 deadline and to date, the claim had not been acknowledged.  
Canada shared the view of several other Members that the notification submitted by Ukraine 
should be withdrawn or at minimum, reconsidered, but also considered that if Ukraine persisted with its intention to proceed with the Article XXVIII process, it should also proceed with 
negotiations with affected Members and share withou t further delay, its intentions in respect of the 
process it would pursue.  Canada would welcome any additional information from Ukraine. 
7.7.  The delegate of Guatemala stated that he r authorities were concerned that this exercise 
would affect their trade interests and the  multilateral trading system in general. Guatemala was 
not questioning the right of a Member, as it was the case of Ukraine, to make use of the rights and 
obligations contained in the WTO Agreements, but th e exercise of such rights should maintain a 
spirit of co-operation and compromise with the multilateral trading system.  On 11 December 2012 
her delegation had sent a communication to Ukraine expressing such concerns and reserving its 
rights.  However, to date, Guatemala had not received any response from Ukraine.  Guatemala G/C/M/113 
 
- 9 - 
 
  again urged Ukraine to; proceed with transparency, indicate its intentions to modify its tariff 
concessions, and reconsider the notification so as to respect its current WTO obligations. 
7.8.  The delegate of Hong Kong, China echoed the concerns on Ukraine's intention to modify its 
tariff concessions, and on the lack of clarity and transparency in the proposed modifications that 
Ukraine had filed more than six months ago.  Her delegation was also concerned about the 
systemic implications of such a large scale modification of tariff concessions by a Member which only had joined the WTO four years ago.  She urged Ukraine to reconsider its notification. 
7.9.  The delegate of Korea recalled that, Korea had expressed on many occasions its systemic and 
trade concerns on the issue. Korea believed that the notification would seriously undermine the 
predictability and credibility of the multilateral trading system and that reconsidering the notification would be the best means to address the concerns raised by Members.  
7.10.  The delegate of Australia reiterated the concerns raised by his delegation in the General 
Council and in this Council about Ukraine's notification. Australia was disappointed that Ukraine 
had failed to reconsider its notification despite the widespread expressions of concern by the WTO 
membership. The number of Members requesting inclusion of this issue on the agenda 
demonstrated that the level of concern had not subsided.  Ukraine's failure to respond to Members' concerns had left Australia with no choice but to  submit a claim of interest on 11 December 2012, 
without prejudice to its position on the legal validity of Ukraine's notification.  Ukraine's on-going 
disregard for the procedural requirements containe d in GATT Article XXVIII, and in particular its 
failure to circulate the required information to the relevant Members was also of concern for Australia calling into question the validity of Ukraine's notification and whether any further action 
by Ukraine based on that notification would be consistent with GATT Article XXVIII. 
7.11.  The delegate of Mexico regretted that after more than six months following Ukraine’s 
notification, and despite the reiterated requests and concerns expressed by his delegation along 
with some others, Mexico still could not understand the reasons that had prompted Ukraine to 
make this request. Ukraine had also failed to satisfactorily respond to the repeated appeals for reconsideration of its submission.  At times when economic forecasts were pointing to a new world 
economic recession, Ukraine's intention was running counter to the message which Mexico thought 
the WTO should be sending in response to such sce nario, particularly when an essential principle 
of the WTO was progressive liberalization but not regressive. Mexico reiterated the appeal to Ukraine to reconsider its decision to modify its bound tariffs. 
7.12.  The delegate of Norway shared the conc erns raised by Japan and a number of other 
delegations.  Norway had also submitted a claim of interest in December 2012, and had raised the 
issue bilaterally with Ukraine at the highest political level.  However, no further indication or 
information had been received from Ukraine on how it intended to move this matter forward. 
Ukraine’s intention raised a number of systemic concerns as regards the predictability of commitments in the multilateral trading system; thus, Norway not only urged Ukraine to 
reconsider its notification but also hoped that the systemic concerns would be considered in the 
next steps, and that Ukraine would demonstrate transparency, inclusiveness and responsibility.  
7.13.  The delegate of Turkey reiterated its concerns  over Ukraine's notification to modify its tariff 
commitments. Turkey like other Members, had under lined both its trade and systemic concerns on 
many occasions with the hope that Ukraine would reconsider its position. Turkey asked Ukraine to 
withdraw its notification in response to the calls from Members. 
7.14.  The delegate of Switzerland stated that his authorities continued to have serious concerns 
over the lack of transparency by Ukraine in respec t of its proposed modifications and the process it 
intended to pursue.  Ukraine had still not circulated any information about its proposed new rates or on how it intended to compensate Members. This was contrary to the procedures for 
negotiations under Article XXVIII. Ukraine's failure to provide adequate information also limited 
Members' ability to understand the impact that the steps it intended to follow would have on them. 
7.15.  The delegate of Uruguay reiterated the systemic and trade concerns of Uruguay over 
Ukraine's intention to modify a rather considerable part of its tariff concessions; this would affect 
the balance of rights and obligations which had been agreed when Ukraine acceded to the WTO in 
sectors such as meats, citrus fruits and other frui ts exported by Uruguay.  Uruguay also joined the G/C/M/113 
 
- 10 - 
 
  large number of Members that had appealed to Ukra ine to reconsider its position and withdraw its 
request. 
7.16.  The delegate of Iceland reiterated Icel and’s concerns regarding Ukraine's Article XXVIII 
notification.  Iceland continued to have questions about the intended scope of Ukraine’s 
notification, and the lack of clarity regarding Ukraine's proposed measures.  In the interests of the 
multilateral trading system, Iceland called on Ukraine to withdraw its notification. 
7.17.  The delegate of New Zealand indicated that, as had previously been mentioned by his 
delegation during the discussions on this issue in this Council as well as in the General Council and 
the Committee on Market Access, his authorities shared the systemic and legal concerns expressed by other delegations over Ukraine’s notification. Regarding the economic implications of the notification, he said that the range of tariff lines were of capital importance for exporters in his 
country, and also had serious implications for all WTO Members and the multilateral trading 
system.  New Zealand had also registered a claim of interest in December 2012 to reserve its rights on the number of tariff lines covered by the notification. He reiterated the call for Ukraine to 
withdraw its notification.   
7.18.  The delegate of Brazil stated that Brazil’s concerns, raised along with other Members' in 
various WTO fora, related not only to the possible commercial impact of Ukraine's modification of 
concessions but more importantly to the systemic consequences of such action.  Given the number 
of lines involved, it was not clear how Ukraine would be able to maintain a general level of reciprocal and mutually advantageous concessions not less favourable to trade as mandated by Article XXVIII of GATT.  In pursuance of their rights under GATT provisions, Members could not 
disregard the obligations imposed by those same provisions. 
7.19.  The delegate of the European Union on beha lf of his own delegation and that of Croatia, 
reiterated the concerns already expressed on this issue on different occasions. In line with the 
relevant WTO procedures, the EU had submitted a clai m of interest exclusively to preserve its right 
to negotiate and defend its interests.  However,  the EU believed that the extent of Ukraine's 
notification went beyond the intended scope of Ar ticle XXVIII. Binding of tariff levels was one of 
the basic WTO principles aimed at guaranteeing th e security and predictability of the multilateral 
trading system but Ukraine's notification, which came very soon after its WTO accession, challenged that principle and raised serious systemic concerns. Concerns also existed about the size of the tariff changes proposed which, in the view of the EU, would make it very difficult to 
maintain a general level of reciprocal and mutually advantageous concessions not less favourable 
to trade as required by Article XXVIII.  His delegation had been clear about the significant 
destabilisation that Ukraine’s procedure could bring to the multilateral trading system, notably by 
undermining the legal certainty and value of the commitments taken by Members upon their 
accession to the WTO.  The number of Members sh aring these concerns on different occasions, 
demonstrated the seriousness of this issue both to individual WTO Members and to the WTO as a 
whole.  He urged Ukraine in the interest of all WTO Members to withdraw its notification.   
7.20.  The delegate of Egypt recalled that his delegation had expressed its concerns on this issue 
on several occasions. Ukraine’s notification had systematic and commercial implications. Its scope 
would affect most of Egypt's exports to Ukraine; therefore, Egypt had submitted a claim of interest 
to participate in the renegotiation proceedings  under Article XXVIII of GATT 1994, and looked 
forward to hearing from Ukraine. Egypt urged Ukraine to withdraw its request. 
7.21.  The delegate of El Salvador indicated that her authorities were closely following Ukraine’s 
notification since it created both, trade and systemic concerns. El Salvador had submitted a claim 
of interest under Article XXVIII and had not received any response from Ukraine. She asked Ukraine to hold discussions with interested delegations, including El Salvador in order to provide 
clarity to its request. 
7.22.  The delegate of the United States recalled that during the last six months, an 
unprecedented number of Members had expressed co ncern about Ukraine's proposed action under 
Article XXVIII. The message to Ukraine had been ve ry clear however, it had been disregarded by 
officials in Kiev. Her delegation wanted to take the opportunity to respond to some of the points 
made by Ukraine in the February General Council meeting under the same agenda item.  G/C/M/113 
 
- 11 - 
 
  7.23.  Ukraine had argued that its Article XXVIII no tification only covered 3% of its tariff schedule; 
however, the 371 tariff lines covered were of critical importance to Ukraine and to those who exported to Ukraine. Thus, the issue was not of qu antity, but of quality.  Ukraine had also argued 
that it had not indicated its intention to withdraw any concession, and that it might not raise its 
bound duties to higher levels. The US doubted this  as firstly, Ukraine’s RADA had recently raised 
approximately a 100 applied tariffs to their bound levels; this was a clear indication that where Ukraine did have room within its bound tariff rates to raise them, it would do so.  Secondly, as it 
would be discussed under agenda item 11, Ukraine had recently announced its intention to raise 
two autos tariff lines to levels above their bound rates. These two lines had been covered in Ukraine's Article XXVIII notification which again indicated Ukraine's interest in raising its tariff bindings.  Finally, Article XXVIII's procedures state that "if a concession is to be modified, the 
proposed modification should be stated in the notification or circulated as soon as possible 
thereafter".  Notwithstanding the fact that Ukraine's notification was filed over six months ago and that the US had submitted a claim of interest, Ukraine had yet to meet the most basic 
requirements of Article XXVIII.  This lack of resp ect for the provisions of Article XXVIII only added 
to the fundamental reservations that the US ha d already expressed with respect to Ukraine's 
proposed actions.  
7.24.  The US had questioned why Ukraine had resorted to this legal instrument if it did not intend 
to raise its tariff bindings. Her delegation had also expressed that Ukraine's proposed action would have serious multilateral and bilateral conseque nces. However, Ukraine’s argument that other 
Members had used Article XXVIII to make much more widespread changes to their tariff schedules 
was misleading.  Members had certainly used Arti cle XXVIII to update their entire tariff schedule 
when the World Customs Organization (WCO) had periodically updated the Harmonized Tariff System.  However, these were technical exercises that did not strike at the basic balance of 
concessions reflected in Members’ tariff schedules. Instead, Ukraine had made it clear that it 
intended to use Article XXVIII to renegotiate the terms of its recent WTO accession.  Finally, the US had serious doubts as to whether Ukraine would be able to adequately compensate all of those 
Members who had submitted a claim of interest, as required under WTO rules. This could then lead 
to Members being authorized to retaliate agai nst Ukraine, which would leave all of the WTO 
membership worse off.  She therefore urged Ukraine’s new government to take heed of the outcry of concern from Members in Geneva, change the course of action, and abandon its notification 
under Article XXVIII.   
7.25.  The delegate of China shared concerns on this issue that had been raised in the General 
Council, the Committee on Market Access and also in this Council.  China believed that there was a 
serious concern by all Members regarding the maintenance of the value of the market access 
opportunities carefully negotiated among Members,  and the guarantee for security and credibility 
of the WTO.  Pursuant to the WTO procedures, China had made its claims of interest to Ukraine 
over more than 100 items that had significant co mmercial impact on China's various industries. 
After three months, China was still waiting for Ukraine's response; and again urged Ukraine to seriously and urgently address Members' concerns in a WTO consistent manner. 
7.26.  The delegate of Ecuador pointed out that , although Article XXVIII of GATT 94 established 
the right to renegotiate concessions, it did impo se substantive and procedural obligations. The 
notifying Member was to strictly comply with these obligations.  However, to date, Ukraine had not complied with these provisions. His authorities were concerned about this notification given the 
small size of the Ecuadorian economy with a high  degree of concentration in its export offers. 
7.27.  The delegate of Ukraine thanked Members for their statements and positions which Ukraine 
highly respected. His delegation was aware of the increased number of trade concerns that had 
been raised in different WTO meetings.  Ukraine was doing its best to try to restrain from the 
measures which might go outside the rules; and was also trying to preserve a level which would stay within and maintain its commitments. Ukraine believed that Article XXVIII, like any other WTO provision, served to establish the legitimate policy and purposes of a Member; thus, any 
Member was entitled to invoke it if it found it necessary for trade policy considerations. Ukraine 
would circulate its bilateral proposals based on the result of its internal procedure.  He indicated that the views expressed by Members at this m eeting would be conveyed to the capital.    
7.28.  The Council took note of the statements made. G/C/M/113 
 
- 12 - 
 
  8  RUSSIAN FEDERATION – IMPLEMENTATION OF WTO ACCESSION COMMITMENTS – 
REQUEST FROM THE UNITED STATES 
8.1.  The Chairperson informed the Council that, at the request of the United States, an item 
titled: "Russian Federation – Implementation of WTO Accession Commitments – Request from the 
United States", had been included on the agenda of this meeting.  
8.2.  The delegate of the United States recalled  that at the last CTG meeting in November 2012, 
her delegation had raised concerns over Russi a's automotive recycling fee and the possible 
discriminatory treatment of imports.  At that  meeting, the US had posed questions to the 
delegation of the Russian Federation on this programme, and was awaiting the written responses. In addition to these concerns, press reports had indicated that the Russian Federation authorities 
planned to extend the recycling fee to domestic automobiles.  She asked the Russian Federation 
delegation to clarify in particular, why it would take six months to extend the recycling fee to 
domestic producers. 
8.3.  With regard to the Information Technology Agreement (ITA), the US requested again that the 
Russian Federation take the final steps necessary to  join the Agreement. There were also concerns 
as to how the Russian Federation was implementing some of its SPS obligations, such as the harmonization of sanitary and phyto-sanitary measures with the relevant international standards, 
the adoption of inspection guidelines in accordance with the Codex Alimentarius , ensuring that SPS 
measures that were more restrictive than international standards were based on science and had an accompanying risk analysis, and the approval of establishments for export to the Russian Federation and Customs Union territory.  She indica ted that the US would continue engaging with 
Russia. 
8.4.  The delegate of the European Union stated that his delegation had supported Russia's 
accession to the WTO which, in its view, would further promote integration of Russia's economy 
into world markets., The EU had witnessed a su rge of protectionist measures which had been 
recently adopted by Russia.  These measures coul d undermine the positive effects of its accession 
as they were not in line with its WTO commitments.  
8.5.  He recalled that at the last meeting of this Council, the EU had raised concerns over Russia's 
recycling fees for motor vehicles, and a number of restrictive SPS measures which seemed not to be WTO consistent. The EU was holding consultations with Russia to resolve these issues. Though there had been some progresses on the recycling f ee issue, concerns remained that after almost 
one year of bilateral discussions, no solutions ha d been found and the same applied with respect 
to some SPS measures.  
8.6.  The EU had been particularly concerned by the recent multiplication of SPS measures which 
had hit against the EU products such as dairy and meat ready-to-eat products, seed potatoes, and 
chilled meat.  These were in addition to the already existing import ban on live animals, which had been in place for more than one year. 
8.7.  The recycling fee on imported motor vehicles had been in effect since 1 September 2012.  
This consisted of a fee of approximately €420 per vehicle for small cars to €150.000 per vehicle for heavy mining vehicles.  However, lo cally produced vehicles with a certain level of localization were 
exempt from this fee while importers of vehicles  into Russia had paid more than 500 million euros 
in recycling fees since Russia joined the WTO. 
8.8.  Russia had recently proposed to apply the same fee for all vehicles (imported and locally 
produced).  An announcement had however been made that Russia would provide compensation to 
local producers under the assembly regime.  The EU was of the view that no recycling fee was 
required as recycling was a profitable business. He indicated that if Russia wished to apply a fee, it 
would have to be done on a non-discriminatory basis. He asked Russia to remove the 
discriminatory elements of this measure.   
8.9.  The EU also had questions or doubts conc erning the faithful implementation of Russia's 
obligations under the WTO, such as the wood ex port regime. The EU asked Russia to clarify the 
situation and remove any potential inconsistencies with its multilateral commitments. G/C/M/113 
 
- 13 - 
 
  8.10.  The delegate of Japan expressed the continuing concern of his delegation over the 
imposition of recycling fees which were discriminatory against foreign companies.  Exemption from 
the requirement to pay a vehicle recycling fee was exclusively applied to domestic-manufactured vehicles.  Japan had been requesting Russia to make its utmost effort to redress the discriminatory 
framework so that imported vehicles could be treated under equal conditions.  Japan understood 
that the government of Russia was working on a revision of the measure.  He stated that his authorities expected Russia to implement without delay, a new non-discriminatory measure fully 
consistent with the WTO Agreements.  Japan's in dustry had reported that Russia was apparently 
imposing import tariffs which exceeded its bound rates. He urged Russia to fully meet its WTO obligations, including its tariff schedule of concessions. 
8.11.  The delegate of the Russian Federation, in response to the statements made, informed the 
Council that a draft law amending the utilisation of the fee regulation was under preparation and 
would be introduced to the Russian parliament.  It  was hoped that the Duma would consider it at 
its spring session. His authorities would make it available to Members as soon as it would have 
been finalized. Russia hoped that the law would address the questions and concerns regarding the 
recycling fee.  Regarding the ITA, he informed the Council that his delegation had recently reported to the ITA Committee on the state of play of Russia's schedule, and other questions 
raised by other Members. His delegation would remain engaged in constructive discussions on all 
of the issues that had been raised. 
8.12.  The Council took note of the statements made. 
9  INDONESIA’S IMPORT RESTRICTING POLI CIES AND PRACTICES – REQUEST FROM THE 
EUROPEAN UNION AND THE UNITED STATES 
9.1.  The Chairperson informed the Council that the European Union and the United States had 
requested the inclusion in the agenda of this m eeting of an item titled “Indonesia's Import 
Restricting Policies and Practices - Request by the European Union and the United States”. 
9.2.  The delegate of the United States apprec iated the opportunity to once again convey the 
continuing and deepening concerns on the trade poli cy trends in Indonesia, especially the growing 
number of laws and regulations which had syst emic consequences for accessing Indonesia's 
market, its attractiveness as a trading partner, and its ability to fulfil its WTO commitments. 
9.3.  Despite its impressive economic performa nce, Indonesia's government and legislature had 
introduced and were implementing a large number of new trade and investment restrictions 
including import licensing requirements, trading rights limitations, pre-shipment inspection 
requirements, local content and domestic manufacturing requirements including those in the energy sector, and export restrictions including taxes and prohibitions. Individually, each policy 
was a burden to traders; creating a complex web of approvals that were disruptive and made 
Indonesia's market impenetrable. 
9.4.  These concerns had not only been discussed during the CTG meetings in June and November 
2012 but also in the appropriate WTO committees, including Import Licensing, Agriculture and 
TRIMs Committees.  Despite repeated requests in  the Committee on Customs Valuation, Indonesia 
had failed to notify its pre-shipment inspection requirements to the WTO as it was required by the Agreement on Pre-shipment Inspection.  Rather th an addressing all of these concerns, Indonesia 
had made its regulations more complicated, disrup tive, trade restrictive, and expansive, affecting 
more and more sectors of the economy.  
9.5.  The US continued to have more concerns on  the ILPs beyond those  related to the measures 
already under the dispute settlement consultations and the whole regime's relationship to the 
Agreement. These new concerns as well as previous ones, would be raised at the next meeting of the Committee on ILPs at the end of April 2013.  Doubts remained as to how Indonesia's 
complicated system-wide licensing requirements or the underlying measures , were consistent with 
the GATT 1994, as required by the Agreement on ILPs. 
9.6.  Despite recent amendments, the Ministry of Trade's regulation remained complex and once 
fully implemented by the end of March 2013, could make trade more difficult for companies. The 
current regulation did not permit companies to act as both producer-importers and general-G/C/M/113 
 
- 14 - 
 
  importers. This requirement would be a considerable problem for companies with global production 
operations that relied on trade to serve cu stomers in different countries.       
9.7.  Concerns also remained about the local content requirements in a growing number of 
sectors, including telecommunications, mining, oil and gas.  The US and many other Members had 
expressed their concerns in the Committee on Tr ade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs), and 
were still trying to understand Indonesia's view of how such measures were consistent with its obligations under the TRIMs agreement.  Her delegation had expressed on several occasions that 
such measures distorted trade and sent a negative signal to potential investors in Indonesia.   
9.8.  Furthermore, the new Indonesian Law on  Food seemed to allow imports of food and 
agriculture into Indonesia only when national demand could not be met domestically and Indonesian exports when demand had already been met.  This law seemed to expand to all food 
products using policies similar to those that had already been mentioned when the WTO 
membership expressed concerns in the horticultu re and livestock areas. The US would follow-up 
Indonesia’s implementation of th is law in the following weeks. 
9.9.  Indonesian officials had openly acknowledged that the government's policies were intended 
to promote domestic production, create jobs, and move the Indonesian economy up the value chain to a higher level of development.  Her delegation had understood these objectives but, 
closing the market would not be the best way to achieve them.  Indonesia's trade policy regime 
could become inconsistent with its WTO commitments and G-20 pledge to refrain from trade-distorting policies at this important time for th e global economy. Deep concerns remained about 
Indonesia's unwillingness to realise that its import substitution policy regime had not only 
commercial consequences for a number of Members,  but also systemic consequences for the WTO 
as a whole.  
9.10.  The delegate of the European Union reiterated his delegation's continued concern over 
Indonesia's extensive use of import restrictions, many of which were in the form of import 
licensing requirements but presented as "emergen cy measures" or "food-safety" related policies 
which had turned into trade restrictions. In part icular, the EU expressed  concerns and sought 
clarifications on the following measures:  
9.11.  The Ministry of Trade Regulation 27/2012 wh ich imposed new licences for imports, on one 
hand, related to production ("API-P") and on the ot her related to distribution ("API-U"). This was 
burdensome and restricted trade thus he requested that Indonesia change its licensing regime to 
an automatic one which would take less time and money for importers. The Indonesian Ministry of 
Trade had indicated that since the implementation of the regulation on 1 April 2013, only 54% of 
importers had obtained a new licence. He asked what Indonesia would do to ensure that trade – 
which often supported Indonesian production – would  continue undisrupted by this import 
licensing system if not all economic operators had obtained a new licence. As well, in order to continue imports for distribution, the regulation also required evidence that there was a "special 
relationship" with the exporter, and established that Indonesian embassies around the world 
should approve such evidence. Reports existed that  different Indonesian embassies in the EU not 
only charged different rates but also followed different procedures. Indonesia was requested to clarify the amount of the fees and what the pr ocedures were to obtain such an approval. 
9.12.  As regards the Ministry of Trade Regulati on 83/2012 extending pre-shipment controls, port 
restrictions and import licenses for over 500 categories of products, an "emergency measure" introduced three years ago, he asked that Indone sia explain why an "emergency measure" needed 
to be extended, and what the reasons were for  not allowing anymore, European companies from 
benefitting from a priority lane status, as it had been the case under the previous two regulations on these issues. 
9.13.  With regard to the Ministry of Agriculture Regulations 42 and 43 which restricted imports of 
horticulture to a limited number of ports and excluded Jakarta; Indonesia was asked to clarify when the capacity of the Jakarta Tanjung Priok Port would be considered appropriate to again import  directly from Europe. Explanations were also required as to the ban on a number of food 
products from the EU, particularly when Indonesia had not yet found a single EU food product that 
had not met Indonesian food safety requirements. G/C/M/113 
 
- 15 - 
 
  9.14.  Concerns also existed over the new Food Law adopted in November 2012 containing 
provisions which could negatively impact EU expo rts of food products to Indonesia. To be WTO 
consistent, import conditions would have to be transparent and aimed at preventing trade distortions. However, the new legislation introduced several burdensome requirements that could 
potentially have a negative impact on trade. Indonesia was asked to clarify in particular: (i) 
according to Art. 36 of the Law, imports of food products were authorised only if the domestic 
production was insufficient or if the product co uld not be produced domestically. How Indonesia 
intended to respect its WTO obligations, in particular the commitment not to maintain, resort to, or 
revert to any measures including quantitative import restrictions provided for in Art. 4.2 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture and in GATT Art. XI ? (ii) Articles 96 and 97 provided that food 
labels, including detailed and specific information, could be affixed on imported food products 
when entering into the territory of Indonesia. However, many of these information requirements 
were only expressed in vague terms. i.e. "origin of certain food"; "halal for those required", etc. This created uncertainty and unpredictability particularly considering that Article 98 of the law 
appeared to exempt from these requirements "cer tain food wrapped in front of shoppers", which 
might result in treating differently imported and domestic products. He requested that  Indonesia explain how it intended to respect its WTO obligations, in particular the commitment that technical 
regulations were not prepared, adopted or applied with a view to or with the effect of creating 
unnecessary obstacles to international trade as prov ided for by the TBT Agreement.  He wanted to 
know if Indonesia's  import licensing woul d be used to implement the new food law. 
9.15.  He indicated that the EU would submit these and other questions in writing to Indonesia and 
hoped  for some clarification from Indonesia given that these burdensome import requirements 
had led to the halting by EU Industry, of exports to  Indonesia. This did not benefit Indonesia or the 
EU, and went against the G-20 pledge to keep trade as open as possible and refrain from 
introducing trade protectionist measures. The EU hoped that Indonesia would ensure that 
unjustified and excessive import requirements would be removed. 
9.16.  The delegate of Thailand echoed the previous statements, and recalled that at the last CTG 
meeting in November 2012 his delegation had indicated that such measures had hindered imports 
of fresh fruits and vegetables as well as hort icultural products from Thailand by imposing 
unnecessary burden on Thai exporters in terms of complexity, lengthy procedures and  high transaction costs. Furthermore, according to an Indonesian local newspaper, a possibility existed 
that Indonesia would suspend the importation of more than 13 types of fruits, vegetables and 
horticultural products  which included Thailand’s major exports of fruits.  Thailand had raised its concerns in bilateral, plurilateral and multilateral discussions, and had seen some positive signs.  
He urged Indonesia to provide the timeline of its action plan to remove these obstacles to trade, 
and indicated that his delegation would work closely with Indonesia, along with other interested Members, in solving these issues.  
9.17.  The delegate of Argentina stated that, as this was not the first time that export duties had 
been mentioned in this context, Argentina would again, and would do so as many times as 
necessary, express that these were legitimate measures within the WTO. 
9.18.  The delegate of Japan recalled that his dele gation had repeatedly raised its concerns over 
Indonesia's restrictions on import licensing for industrial products and import restrictions on 
agricultural products.  Japan continued to follow developments on these issues, and encouraged the Indonesian authorities to improve the proced ures and ensure consistency with relevant WTO 
Agreements. 
9.19.  The delegate of Australia stated that his authorities were concerned by Indonesia's import 
restricting policies and practices.  These policies were of a significant interest to Australian 
exporters and he looked forward to workin g with Indonesia to resolve these issues. 
9.20.  The delegate of Canada stated that, as an exporter of high quality agriculture and agro-food 
products, Canada had a systemic interest in the introduction and maintenance of measures that 
impeded or inhibited imports.  In addition to the concerns already expressed by other delegations, 
Canada was also disappointed with Indonesia's refusal to allow Canada to participate as a third 
party in its consultations with the US and in its proposal to instead conduct separate consultations.  Canada’s participation as a third party in the consultations would have helped it to better 
understand Indonesia's import measures and their justification.  Canada therefore expressed its 
reservations with Indonesia's approach in conducting consultations since this approach raised G/C/M/113 
 
- 16 - 
 
  significant and systemic concerns, as it did not respect the letter and spirit of Indonesia's 
obligations under the DSU, and consequently did not respect the corresponding rights of third party requesting Members. 
9.21.  The delegate of Indonesia thanked Member s for their statements which would be conveyed 
to his capital. In the meantime he provided the following preliminary responses: regarding the 
concern on Indonesia’s agricultural policies, Jakarta was considering revision of some of the regulations that were of concern to many Member s.  Bilateral consultations to address Members’ 
concerns while securing Indonesia’s legitimate interests were underway.  On the issue of 
investment, his delegation shared Argentina’s view that the WTO did not prohibit export taxes. With regard to the issues related to petroleum an d gas, his authorities, following the decision of 
the Constitutional Court, had already dissolved the BPMIGAS institution that was in charge of 
monitoring gas and petroleum business activities and a temporary task force to oversee the gas 
and petroleum business activities had been established. Indonesia would however, assess to what extent this dissolution would impact investment in practice.  In relation to the restrictive nature of 
Indonesia’s policies, he indicated that during the last two years, the import deficit had increased 
quite rapidly, and in 2012 it was up to $2 billion; so while Members voiced concerns that Indonesia’s trade policy was becoming more and more restrictive, in fact imports had increased in 
numbers. 
9.22.  The Council took note of the statements made. 
10  BRAZIL- INDIRECT TAXATION: CONDITIONS  TO OBTAIN TAX BENEFITS IN VARIOUS 
SECTORS – STATEMENTS BY THE EUROPEAN UNION AND JAPAN 
10.1.  The Chairperson informed the Council that in a communication dated 14 March 2013, the 
delegations of the European Union and Japan ha d requested the Secretariat to include in the 
agenda of this meeting the following item: "Brazil – Indirect Taxation: Conditions to Obtain Tax 
Benefits in Various Sectors - Statements by the European Union and Japan". 
10.2.  The delegate of the European Union said that  Brazil's recourse to indirect taxes as a means 
to protect and promote domestic manufacturing, notably through domestic content requirements 
was a matter of concern to his authorities. The EU  had raised the issue of Industrial Product Tax 
(IPI) applied by Brazil to the automotive sector at previous meetings of this Council, at the October 2012 meeting of the TRIMs Committee, an d at the meeting of the Committee on Market 
Access in October 2011. Brazil had assured Members that these measures, applied throughout 
2012, would lapse at the end of 2012.  However, at the CTG meeting in June 2012 Brazil had 
informed Members about the introduction of a new programme adopted in April 2012, the "INOVAR-AUTO"; this programme was according tax advantages in a manner that appeared to 
favour domestic manufacturing of motor vehicles and components, and/or related business, 
engineering and research and development operations. Moreover, the law of 17 September 2012 that had introduced the "INOVAR-AUTO" regime established  a comparable regime for 
telecommunication network equipment, provided for a tax regime on certain digital goods that 
appeared to discriminate against imported goods, and reinforced a tax scheme on semiconductors and related goods along the same lines. It also broadened existing tax exemptions systems for Brazilian exporting companies by enlarging the number of potential beneficiaries.  
10.3.  The EU was concerned that the law of Sept ember 2012 could be part of a policy for an even 
broader use of indirect taxes to afford protecti on to domestic goods and to provide prohibited 
support to exporters. Three days after the adop tion of the law, the Brazilian government had 
issued an executive measure (Decreto 7819) foreseeing exemptions from indirect taxes to 
fertilizers, linked to local content requirements. There were also reports about possible plans to set 
up special tax regimes modelled on "INOVAR-AUTO" for the chemicals and textiles sectors, 
something that also created concerns. The EU therefor e called on Brazil to refrain from adopting or 
implementing provisions that would create discrimination against imported goods with regard to indirect taxes, and requested that Brazil respond to the questions that were put forward concerning the consistency of these measures with the GATT and the TRIMs Agreements. The 
delegate of Japan reiterated the concerns that his delegation had already expressed at the last 
meetings of the TRIMS Committee and of this Council about the INOVAR-AUTO assistance 
programme for the automotive sector in Brazil.  After the announcement of the programme in April 
2012, Brazil had promulgated in October 2012, Decreto 7819 establishing the specific conditions G/C/M/113 
 
- 17 - 
 
  under which certain eligible companies would benefit from tax reduction incentives for industrial 
products.  
10.4.  With the implementation of the programme , companies meeting the conditions would enjoy 
a tax reduction advantage from the beginning of this year until the end of 2017. In Japan's view 
these measures were aimed at protecting domestic industry and would provide advantages 
pertaining to internal taxes on products from specific countries. Japan also considered that  implementation of the programme would be inconsis tent with Articles I and III of the GATT 1994 
and Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement.  Japan had a systemic interest  and would welcome Brazil's 
views on the background and objectives of the measures being implemented and their consistency 
with the WTO Agreements. Japan would follow-up this situation not only from a systemic point of view, but also from a possible negative impact on Japan's industry. 
10.5.  The delegate of the United States shared many of the concerns about Brazil's tax measures 
and would continue to monitor closely the developm ents.  The US believed that more work had to 
be undertaken at the committee level to enable Members to better understand these tax 
programmes.  The US looked forward to working with Brazil and other Members to that end. 
10.6.  The delegate of Canada recalled that his delegation had already raised in previous meetings 
of this Council and also in the Committee on Agriculture, its concerns regarding the IPI tax and the 
conditional tax benefits for certain sectors. Although Brazil had previously indicated that these 
measures were temporary, the INOVAR-AUTO scheme was not due to expire until December 2017, by which time it would have had an irreversible and negative impact on trade.  Canada was also 
concerned by what appeared to be an extension of these measures into other sectors, as 
announced by Brazil on 29
 January 2013 when it issued new tax rules for the chemical and textile 
industries. These appeared to be modelled on the INOVAR-AUTO programme.  Canada indicated that at the next meeting of the Committee on Agriculture, it would raise some questions 
concerning the "REINTEGRA Programme" which was another element of a bigger Brazilian plan. 
10.7.  The delegate of Hong Kong, China reiterated her delegation's systemic concerns over this 
issue.  Revisions had been introduced to the regime but her delegation would continue to monitor 
the issue closely. 
10.8.  The delegate of Australia recalled the co ncerns that his delegation had expressed at 
previous meetings on the INOVAR-AUTO regime. Australia was interested in hearing the latest 
developments of this issue and on the further sect ors that had been mentioned at this meeting by 
other Members. His delegation would also continue working with Brazil on these issues. 
10.9.  The delegate of Brazil said that the statem ents that had been made at this meeting referred 
to concerns over a series of measures of a diffe rent nature that served different purposes.  He 
reiterated that these measures, most of them pa rt of the bigger Brazil's Governmental Plan, had 
been designed to promote technological innovation, protect the environment and promote development.  Brazil considered that these measures were of a non-discriminatory nature, were 
WTO consistent and beneficial to both domestic  and foreign companies.  Over the years, the 
Brazilian tax system had been identified by both domestic and foreign companies as a complex system and one of the biggest hurdles or impediments for an increased investment, internal development and to an increase in productivity.  The Brazilian government in the past months or 
years, had been making an effort to simplify and rationalize its tax structure that, to some extent, 
had been hindering its development.  Part of th e motivation for some of these measures was to 
secure a treatment not less favourable - as regarded taxation, to exported products. His 
delegation was ready to provide further information on these issues.  
10.10.  The Council took note of the statements made. 
11  UKRAINE – IMPORT TARIFFS ON AUTOMOBILES – STATEMENT BY THE EUROPEAN 
UNION 
11.1.  The Chairperson informed the Council that in a communication dated 14 March 2013, the 
European Union had requested the Secretariat to include in the agenda of this meeting the 
following item: "Ukraine – Import Tariffs on Au tomobiles – Statement by the European Union" G/C/M/113 
 
- 18 - 
 
  11.2.  The delegate of the European Union stated that his delegation was concerned about 
Ukraine's recent publication on the imposition of safeguard measures against imports of certain 
cars. As The imposition of such measures at this stage was questionable as it had been based on data collected over a period from 2008 - 2010, therefore the data was obsolete.  
11.3.  As regards the substance of the measures, the EU also had concerns about the fulfilment of 
the WTO necessary requirements, particularly given that the investigation had only been based on few elements that had been be obtained at that ti me. Additionally, the results of this investigation 
had never been notified to the WTO; therefore, the EU had been unable to hold the prior 
consultations foreseen in the WTO Agreement on Safeguards. The EU had raised these issues in 
due time and believed that the most essential procedural WTO requirements had not been respected.  
11.4.  The EU urged Ukraine to suspend the entr y into force of the measures; provide all the 
pertinent information necessary to analyse the legal basis of the measures; afford the EU and all other Members concerned to hold meaningful consultations before the introduction of any 
measure; and abide by the basic and e ssential procedural WTO conditions.  
11.5.   The delegate of the United States shared many of the EU’s concerns on the recent actions 
taken by Ukraine in relation to this investigation. In its view, Ukraine had failed to comply with the 
procedural requirements contained in the WTO Ag reement on Safeguards, and had only notified 
the initiation of the investigation but not  the other procedural steps it had taken. In addition, the results of the investigation had never been notified to Members.  Therefore, Members had not received any notice as to the evidence that had been examined, or the analytical basis for any 
finding that imports entered into Ukraine in such increased quantities had caused or threatened to 
cause serious injury to its domestic industry.  
11.6.  Given this failure, the US had concerns as to whether Ukraine had met its obligation under 
the Safeguards Agreement to provide an adequate opportunity for consultations prior to the 
application of a safeguard measure. These were fundamental legal obligations by which every WTO Member had to abide by before application of such measures. She requested Ukraine to withdraw 
or suspend the entry into force of these measures, disclose all the pertinent information to WTO 
Members, and provide an opportunity to hold mean ingful consultations before the introduction of 
any safeguard measure. 
11.7.  The delegate of Japan shared the concer ns expressed by the EU and urged Ukraine to 
reconsider and withdraw its decision of 14 March 2013 to impose a safeguard measure on 
automobiles. As a consequence of the application of such measures, the Japanese automobile manufacturers as well as Ukraine's car dealers would be negatively affected at a large scale. Japan 
had previously stated in various meetings of the Committee on Safeguards that the information 
provided by the Japanese industry showed that the total imports of automobiles to Ukraine from all over the world had decreased significantly during the period 2008 to 2010.  In fact, relevant 
data indicated that imports of automobiles from all over the world to Ukraine amounted to 376000 
vehicles in 2008, but had decreased to 107000 in 2010; this meant that imports had decreased by 71.5% from 2008 to 2010. Thus, there was no doub t about the trend of significant decrease of 
imports during the investigation period. 
11.8.  With regard to imports from Japan, the figure for 2008 was 51561 units, which had dropped 
sharply to 9008 units in 2010.  Thus, imports from Japan had decreased by 82.5% from 2008 to 2010; this was the larger decrease when compared with imports from the rest of the world. 
Additionally, there had been no increase of imports from Japan in either relative or absolute terms 
during the period of investigation.  
11.9.  Japan considered that the imposition of safeguard measures could only be justified "as a 
result of unforeseen developments".  Moreover, the Appellate Body had ruled that "the increase in 
inputs must have been recent enough, sudden en ough, sharp enough and significant enough, both 
quantitatively and qualitatively", and that injury ca used by other factors "shall not be attributed to 
increased imports". Japan doubted that such re quirements had all been met in this case.  
Furthermore, Japan recalled that pursuant to Article 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards, a WTO 
Member should immediately notify the Committee on Safeguards upon an initiation of an investigation; subsequently notify any findings of serious injury or threat; and thereafter, notify G/C/M/113 
 
- 19 - 
 
  any decision to impose a safeguard measure.  In this case, Ukraine had notified the Committee 
only of the initiation of investigation in July 2011. 
11.10.  Japan also noted that to date, the sufficient information required to impose a safeguard 
measure had not been made available to Members, and asked Ukraine to provide an opportunity 
to discuss or exchange views on this matter and to provide further information on its measure. 
She urged Ukraine to withdraw its safeguar d measures on automobiles without delay. 
11.11.  The delegate of Canada stated that Canada was concerned that, despite the numerous 
concerns registered by WTO Members in the Committee on Safeguards, Ukraine insisted on 
imposing safeguard measures on the imports of au tomobiles.  Canada also believed that Ukraine 
had not fulfilled the basic standards in conducting the safeguard investigations, nor for the imposition and notification of the safeguard me asures. Safeguards were unique among the trade 
remedies measures in that they targeted fairly traded imports, and as such, due care had to be 
t a k e n  a t  a l l  t i m e s .   C a n a d a  e n c o u r a g e d  U k r a i n e  t o  b e  e s p e c i a l l y  d i l i g e n t  i n  f o l l o w i n g  t h e  established rules governing the use of such measures. 
11.12.  The delegate of Korea echoed the concerns expressed by previous speakers; Korea was 
reviewing Ukraine's measure from different angles  including the related procedure and economic 
impacts. Korea not only expected that these co ncerns would be addressed by Ukraine in a WTO 
consistent manner but would also continue co-operating with Ukraine towards a reasonable 
solution. 
11.13.  The delegate of Ukraine informed the Council that the Interdepartmental Commission of 
Foreign Trade had adopted a decision concerning the determination of threats and serious injury 
caused by increased imports of automobiles as well as the application of safeguards measures 
applied to imports of motor vehicles. The investigation, had been carried out in due form by the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade an d had determined that increased imports of 
automobiles into Ukraine, irrespective of the country of origin and/or export, had caused threats 
and serious injury to the domestic industry of automobiles.   
11.14.  This decision had been published on 14 March 2013 in the Official Newspaper indicating 
that the safeguard measure would come into force 30 days after that publication i.e. 14 April 
2013.  The respective notification had been submitted to the Committee on Safeguards on 21 March 2013 in document G/SG/N/6/UKR/9 and referred to motor cars classified under the HS codes 8703221000 and 8703231910.  The safeguard me asures would be applied for a three year 
period in the form of a special duty as follow s: for automobiles with motors between 1000 cm
3 and 
1500 cm3 cylinder capacity, 6.46%; and for au tomobiles with motors between 1500cm3 and 2200 
cm3 cylinder capacity, 12.95%.  
11.15.  The data to measure the negative effect of imports on the domestic industry had been 
processed in 2010 but pertained to year 2008; accord ingly, there had been a decrease of 78.9% in 
the  domestic industry production; a decrease of 74.86% of domestic production capacity; a 
decrease of 86.33% in sales in the domestic market of like domestic products; an income decrease 
of 89.9% in the operational activity; and a decrea se of employment of 51.56% in the domestic 
industry. Concerning imports of motor cars in 2010 when compared to 2008, there had been a general decrease of 71% of imports; however, this corresponded to an increase of 38% with 
regard to domestically produced like products.  This trend had continued in 2011 and 2012. 
Therefore, the necessary actions had been required in order to remedy the difficult situation in the 
automobile sector. 
11.16.  Ukraine believed that the multilateral trad ing system provided Members with the possibility 
and pertinent legal instruments to be used in unforeseen situations which affected their domestic market. Given the importance of imports and the significant drop in the domestic automobile 
industry, Ukraine had been forced to take su ch measures under the Safeguards Agreement. 
Ukraine also believed that these measures would have a positive effect on the financial and commercial situation of the domestic automobile industry as these would ease an economic adjustment towards better competition conditions, and would also eliminate trade disproportions. 
11.17.  The proposed safeguard duty would not limit consumers' interests or their free choice, and 
could not be considered as a prohibition of the concerned products in Ukraine.  The measure was G/C/M/113 
 
- 20 - 
 
  temporary, would be applied irrespective of the exporting country, and was aimed at helping 
Ukraine’s domestic industry to adjust itself to the changes in the current global economic situation and to face the intensified competition in the sector. The measures were also envisaged at facilitating social adjustments in the auto sector and alleviate social tensions in the regions where 
car-making factories were present and generated revenues, particularly given that thousands of 
workers depended on the performance of this in dustry, and that Ukraine lacked the budgetary 
means to implement adjustment programmes to labour. This had become an acute issue given the 
long-term deficit in the balance of payments. 
11.18.  The industry had been shocked and had trie d to resuscitate itself without such measures, 
however, the government had found it necessary to intervene and remedy a complex situation by 
introducing what it considered a legitimate measure for a legitimate purpose and for a reasonable 
period of time.  Ukraine believed that the measure did not have any trade damaging effects or  a 
limiting effect on consumers' preference and choice. 
11.19.  The Council took note of the statements made. 
12  WORK PROGRAMME ON ELECTRONIC COMMERCE  
12.1.  The Chairperson recalled that at the last meeting of this Council it had been agreed to 
include again the issue of the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce as an agenda item of this 
meeting, in order to fulfil the mandate of the Ministerial Decision contained in document WT/L/843 
where Ministers had decided: 
12.2.   “To further instruct the General Council to hold periodic reviews in its sessions of July and 
December 2012 and July 2013, based on the report s submitted by the WTO bodies entrusted with 
the implementation of the Work Programme, to assess its progress and consider any 
recommendations on possible measures related to electronic commerce in the next session of the Ministerial Conference”. 
12.3.  The delegate of Ecuador recalled that a workshop on “E-Commerce, Development and Small 
and Medium Size Enterprises (SMEs)” had been scheduled to take place from 8 to 9 April 2013. 
This had been agreed in the framework of the Committee on Trade and Development in 
accordance with the last Ministerial Conference. 
12.4.  The delegate of Cuba highlighted the efforts of this Council aimed at reinvigorating the Work 
Programme on E-commerce. As a result of the coordinated work that had taken place in the 
Committee on Trade and Development, and following an initiative presented by Cuba and Ecuador, 
the workshop on “E-Commerce, Development and Small and Medium Size Enterprises (SMEs)” 
would take place on the 8 - 9 April. Cuba appealed to this Council, as well as the Committee on Trade and Development (CTD), to continue coordi nating the existing guidelines with especial 
emphasis in the developmental aspects of electronic commerce.  
12.5.  The delegate of the United States indica ted that her delegation looked forward to the 
upcoming workshop that had been planned in the context of the CTD and the Council for Trade in 
Services (CTS) on relevant e-commerce issues.  So me of these issues could have an impact on 
trade in goods and as such, this Council might have to revisit them in the future. 
12.6.  The delegate of the European Union expr essed his delegation's satisfaction with the 
reinvigoration of the WTO Work Programme on E-commerce and welcomed the initiatives in this 
regard.  He also recalled that the EU had supported the April workshop on E-commerce and 
development, and that his delegation, together with other co-sponsors, had proposed to hold an additional workshop in June 2013 which woul d deal with a wide-range of issues.   
12.7.  The Chairperson thanked delegations for their statements. He proposed to report, on his 
own responsibility, to the General Council in July on the discussions held in this Council during 
2012 and 2013.  He also proposed to revert to this issue at the next meeting of the Council.  
12.8.  The Council so agreed. G/C/M/113 
 
- 21 - 
 
  13  OTHER BUSINESS 
13.1  Date of next meeting 13.1.  The Chairperson informed the Council that the next  meeting of the Council was scheduled 
to take place on Friday 18 October 2013, and th at the agenda would close on Monday, 7 October2. 
Additional meetings would be convened   if necessary. 
13.2.  The meeting was adjourned.  
__________  
 
                                               
2 Another meeting of the Council was scheduled for 11 July 2013.