RESTRICTED  
  
G/C/M/127  
 
13 March  2017 
(17-1451) Page: 1/41 
Council for Trade in Goods    
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETI NG OF THE COUNCIL FO R TRADE IN GOODS  
17 NOVEMBER  2016  
CHAIRPERSON:  HE MR HAMISH M cCORMICK  
The meeting of the Council for Trade in Goods (CTG, or the Council) was convened by 
Airgram  WTO/AIR/CTG/ 6; the proposed agenda for the meeting was  circulated in 
document  G/C/W/ 736. The meeting proceeded on the basis of the following agenda : 
1   NOTIFICATION OF REGI ONAL TRADE AGREEMENT S ................................ ....................  2 
2   ACCESSION OF THE REP UBLIC OF ARMENIA TO THE EU RASIAN ECONOMIC 
UNION: PROCEDURES UN DER ARTICLE  XXVIII:3 OF GATT  1994 – REQUEST 
FROM THE REPUBLIC OF  ARMENIA (G/L/1110/AD D.2) ................................ ...................  3 
3   ACCESSION OF THE KYR GYZ REPUBLIC TO THE EURASIAN ECONOMIC 
UNION: PROCEDURES UN DER ARTICLE  XXVI II:3 OF GATT  1994 – REQUEST 
FROM THE KYRGYZ REPU BLIC  ................................ ................................ ..........................  5 
4   ENLARGEMENT OF THE E UROPEAN UNION: PROCE DURES UNDER 
ARTICLE  XXVIII:3 OF GATT  1994 – REQUEST FROM THE EUR OPEAN UNION 
(G/L/1051/ADD.6)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  6 
5   MARKET ACCESS ISSUES  ................................ ................................ .............................  7 
5.1   DRAFT DECISION ON THE PROCEDURE FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF HS  2017 
CHANGES TO SCHEDULES OF CONCESSIONS USING THE TARIFF SCHEDULES (CTS) 
DATABASE (G/C/W/732)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 7 
5.2   INTRODUCTION OF HARMONIZED SYSTEM CHANGES INTO THE WTO  SCHEDULES 
OF CONCESSIONS – COLLECTIVE REQUESTS FOR WAIVER EXTENSIONS  ................................ ... 7 
5.2.1    INTRODUCTION OF HARMONIZED SYSTEM 2002  CHANGES INTO THE 
WTO SCHEDULES OF TARIFF CONCESSIONS – DRAFT WAIVER DECISION (G/C/W/728)  ..............  7 
5.2.2    INTRODUCTION OF HARMONIZED SYSTEM 2007  CHANGES INTO THE 
WTO SCHEDULES OF TARIFF CONCESSIONS – DRAFT WAIVER DECISION (G/C/W/729)  ..............  7 
5.2.3    INTRODUCTION OF  HARMONIZED SYSTEM 2012 CHANGES INTO THE WTO 
SCHEDULES OF TARIFF CONCESSIONS – DRAFT WAIVER DECISION (G/C/W/730)  .....................  8 
5.2.4    INTRODUCTION OF HARMONIZED SYSTEM 2017  CHANGES INTO THE 
WTO SCHEDULES OF TARIFF CONCESSIONS – DRAFT WAI VER DECISION (G/C/W/733)  ..............  8 
6   JORDAN – REQUEST FOR A WAIVER  RELATING TO THE TRAN SITIONAL 
PERIOD FOR THE ELIMI NATION OF THE EXPORT  SUBSIDY PROGRAM FOR 
JORDAN (G/C/W/705, G /C/W/705/CORR.1, G/C /W/705/REV.1 AND 
G/C/W/705/REV.2)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  8 
7   UNITED STATES – REQUEST FOR A WAIVER  EXTENSION – FORMER TRUST 
TERRITORY OF THE PAC IFIC ISLANDS (G/C/W/ 721)  ................................ ....................  10 
8   UNITED STATES – REQUEST FOR A WAIVER : TRADE PREFERENCES GRANTED 
TO NEPAL (G/C /W/724)  ................................ ................................ ................................  10 
9   EUROPEAN UNION – REQUEST FOR A WAIVER  EXTENSION – APPLICATION 
OF AUTONOMOUS PREFER ENTIAL TREATMENT TO THE WESTERN BALKANS 
(G/C/W/731)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  11 G/C/M/127  
 
- 2 - 
 
  10   CUBA – REQUEST FOR AN EXTEN SION OF THE WAIVER CONCERNING 
ARTICLE  XV:6 OF THE GATT  1994 CONTAINED IN TH E DECISION OF 
14 FEBRUARY  2012 (WT/L/850) – (G/C/W/734)  ................................ .........................  11 
11   CROATIA – REGULATION OF IMPORT  AND SALE OF CERTAIN OIL PRODUCTS 
– REQUEST FROM THE RUS SIAN FEDERATI ON ................................ ...............................  13 
12   UNITED STATES – SEAFOOD IMPORT MONIT ORING PROGRAMME – REQUEST 
FROM THE PEOPLE'S RE PUBLIC OF CHINA  ................................ ................................ ..... 14 
13   NIGERIA – IMPORT RESTRICTING M EASURES – REQUEST FROM THE 
EUROPEAN UNION, NORW AY, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND URUG UAY..........  15 
14   INDONESIA'S IMPORT A ND EXPORT RESTRICTIN G POLICIES AND 
PRACTICES – REQUEST FROM THE EUR OPEAN UNION, JAPAN, AND THE UNITED 
STATES OF AMERICA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 17 
15   ECUADOR – IMPORT RESTRICTING M EASURES – REQUEST FROM JAPAN 
AND THE UNITED STATE S OF AMERICA  ................................ ................................ ..........  21 
16   INDIA – IMPORT RESTRICTING M EASURES – REQUEST FROM THE 
EUROPEAN UNION, JAPA N, NEW ZEALAND, AND THE UNITED STATES OF  
AMERIC A ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  22 
17   CHINA – IMPORT TAX ON PERSON AL EFFECTS AT THE BO RDER – REQUEST 
FROM JAPAN  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  26 
18   CHINA – ISSUES RELATED TO TR ADE IN SEAFOOD – REQUEST FROM 
NORWAY  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  26 
19   WORK PROGRAMME ON ELE CTRONIC COMMERCE  ................................ ...................  28 
20   CONSIDERATION OF ANN UAL REPORTS OF THE S UBSIDIARY BODIES OF 
THE COUNCIL FOR TRAD E IN GOODS  ................................ ................................ .............  36 
21   ADOPTION OF THE ANNU AL REPORT OF THE COU NCIL FOR TRA DE IN 
GOODS TO THE GENERAL  COUNCIL (G/C/W/735)  ................................ .........................  36 
22   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 37 
22.1   Section  15(a)(ii) of China's Protocol of Accession  ................................ .......................... 37 
22.2   Turkey – Measures Regardi ng Additional Customs Duties on Imported Tyres  .................... 38 
22.3   Members' Notification Performance  ................................ ................................ ............. 39 
22.4   Russian Federation – Certification Requirements for Cement  ................................ .......... 40 
22.5   Date of the next meeting  ................................ ................................ ........................... 41 
 
At the start of the meeting, the delegate of China  informed the Council that, under agenda item  
"Other Business" , his delegation intended to  again  inform the Council of the expiry date of 
Section 15(a)(ii) of the Protocol on the Accession of the People's Republic of China; the delegate of 
Japan  indicated that , under the same agenda item , his delegation intended to raise an issue 
concerning Turkey's additional customs duties on imported tyres; t he delegate of the European 
Union  indicated that her delegation would also raise an issue concerning the Russian Federation's 
certification requirements for cement , and the delegate of New Zealand  informed the Council that 
his delegation would like to addr ess the issue of Members'  compliance with their notification 
obligations.  
 
The Chairperson  announced that he would refer to the date of the next CTG  meeting.  
 
The agenda was so agreed . 
 
1  NOTIFICATION OF REGI ONAL TRADE AGREEMENT S 
1.1.  The Chairperson  recall ed that, under the working procedures agreed by the Committee on 
Regional Trade Agreements  (CRTA), and  following adoption by the General Council of the 
Transparency Mechanism, the C TG was to be kept informed of Members' notifications of new G/C/M/127  
 
- 3 - 
 
  regional trade agreem ents.1 He informed the CTG that a Free Trade Agreement between the 
Republic of Korea and Colombia (WT/REG375/N/1) had been notified to the CRTA.  
1.2.  The delegate of the United States  thanked Korea and Colombia for their notification, and took 
the opportunity t o again encourage those Members that had not yet notified Free Trade 
Agreements (FTAs) they had signed to do so as quickly as possible so that Members could all 
benefit from the transparency mandated under the WTO  Transparency Mechanism for Regional 
Trade Agreements.  
1.3.  The Chairperson  proposed that the Council take note of the statement made and of the 
information provided . 
1.4.  The Council so agreed . 
2  ACCESSION OF THE REP UBLIC OF ARMENIA TO THE EURASIAN ECONOMI C UNION: 
PROCEDURES UNDER ART ICLE  XXVIII:3 OF GATT  1994 – REQUEST FROM THE REP UBLIC 
OF ARMENIA (G/L/1110 /ADD.2)  
2.1.  The Chairperson  informed the Council that , in a communication dated 27  October  2016, the 
delegation of the Republic of Armenia had requested the Secretariat to circulate 
document  G/L/1110/Add.2 rela ting to the extension of the time period for the withdrawal of 
concessions, in connexion with Armenia's accession to the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), until 
1 January  2018. In that document, Armenia indicated that Members who had submitted a claim 
pursua nt to Article  XXIV:6 of GATT  1994 were not precluded from withdrawing substantially 
equivalent concessions under Article  XXVIII:3 of GATT  1994, provided that the claiming 
WTO Member withdrew concessions no t later than 36 months after Armenia's modification  of 
concessions  (or 1 January  2018) . He also recalled that this Council had extended the deadline on 
two occasions, namely at its meetings of  26 March and 10  November  2015.  
2.2.  The delegate of Armenia  reminded delegations that, after completion of the ratifica tion 
procedures of the EAEU on 2  January  2015, Armenia became a full member of the EAEU  and since 
then had been applying the EAEU's Common External Tariff (CET). Following the notification 
procedures under Article  XXIV, it had received claims of interest f rom numerous interested 
Members and had entered with them into GATT  Articles  XXIV and XXVIII procedures, including 
tariff negotiations and consultations, to address the compensatory adjustments provided for under 
Article  XXIV.  
2.3.  After the extension granted to Armenia by the CTG in November  2015, Armenia had held 
various consultations and exchanged numerous communications and information with interested 
Members . He recalled that , in June  2015, an Armenian delegation, chaired by the Vice -Minister of 
Economy , and with the participa tion of delegates from the EAEU  members, had held a number of 
bilateral meetings in Geneva with representatives of almost all interested Members , including with 
Brazil, Canada, the EU, Japan, Switzerland,  Chinese Taipei, and Ukraine ; during those meetings 
some positions and views were clarified and agreement was reached on various technical details 
and next steps . He thanked delegations for th eir interest.  
2.4.  Following these meetings , Armenia had receiv ed further requests concerning technic al issues 
with regard to the statistics  already provided , as well as clarifications with regard to c ertain tariff 
line adjustments.  Almost all of the requests ha d since been addressed  and Armenia was curr ently 
working , together with the Secretariat , on the  remaining issues so as promptly to provide to 
interested Members the replies and clarifications  requested . In particular, Armenia was compiling a 
complete  reply, in agreement with all the other EAEU  members, to a request received from the EU.  
However, con sidering the number of interested Members involved in the process and the scope of 
the technical work still to be done, Armenia b elieve d that additional time would be necessary  to 
continue the ongoing consultations and negotiations  and to prepare the information  required . This 
explained Armenia's further request , contained in document  G/L/1110/Add.2 , to preserve 
Members' rights to withdraw substantially equivalent concessions under Art icle XXVIII:3 of the 
GATT  1994.  
                                                
1 See documents  WT/REG16, WT/L/671, and G/C/M/88.  G/C/M/127  
 
- 4 - 
 
  2.5.  The delegate of Ukraine  stated that  on 16  January  2015,  following Armenia's accession to the 
EAEU and in accordance with the procedures under GATT  Article  XXVIII , Ukraine had submitted its 
claim of interest to Armenia and had reserved its right to negotiate certain concessions with regard 
to Arme nia’s Schedule  CLV, including compensatory adjustments.  
2.6.  The delegate of the European Union  thanked Armenia for its report and indicated that , for the 
EU, the Armenian and Kyrgyz processes under GATT  Article  XXIV:6 were separate but directly 
linked. Therefo re, and as previously indicated at the last CTG  meeting and bilaterally to both 
delegations, for practical and legal reasons the EU would like to negotiate a global compensation 
settlement with all members of the E AEU which were also  WTO Members. Despite t he constructive 
meeting that took place in June  2015, the EU regretted to report that since then no progress ha d 
been achieved . The EU had tabled its request more than eight  months ago but had not received 
any offer from Armenia to start substantial negoti ations.  
2.7.  The EU did not oppose the extension requested by Armenia on the date until which Members ' 
rights would be preserved  but urged both Armenia and the Kyrgyz Republic to proceed without 
delay. The EU expect ed a joint and prompt offer from Armenia, the Kyrgyz Republic, Kazakhstan,  
and the Russian Federation in response to its requests . The EU looked forward to the forthcoming 
offer from these Members and to engaging in serious negotiations with them on that basis at the 
earliest opportunity, and if possi ble before the end of the year . 
2.8.  The delegate of Japan  recalled that Japan had submitted a claim of interest to Armenia and 
that it had a  systemic interest in this issue.  He reiterated Japan's call to Armenia at the last 
CTG meeting to engage in negotiation s and consultations with Japan and other interested Members 
with a view to receiving  appropriate compensation under GATT  Article s XXIV and XXVIII.  
2.9.  The delegate of China  recalled that , following Armenia's accession to the EAEU, China had 
also submitted a cl aim of interest and had been working with Armenia bilaterally on th is issue. 
China not only appreciated the progress made in this process but also support ed Armenia's 
request for an extension to allow for the completion of the procedure s under the above -mentioned 
GATT  Articles. Japan e xpect ed to continue working with Armenia, to obtain further clarification on 
some technical issues , and to accelerate the renegotiation process.  
2.10.   The delegate of Chinese Taipei  stated that , having received Armenia's response to  its 
claims , her authorities had provided, on 20  July 2016, their preliminary comments to Armenia's  
draft response.  Chinese Taipei expected and looked forward to continuing to work closely with 
Armenia on th is matter . 
2.11.   The delegate of Armenia  thanked delega tions for their comments  and indicated that these 
would be conveyed to Yerevan . Armenia would also continue to keep the  Council informed, on a 
regular basis, of ongoing compensatory adjustment s. In response to Ukraine 's intervention , he 
reiterated Armenia' s position, already expressed at the previous Council meeting , in July, that 
Armenia could not formally accept the claim of interest and enter into GATT  Article s XXIV and 
XXVIII procedures, including tariff negotiations or consultations toward compensatory  adjustment, 
given that a Free Trade Agreement already existed between Armenia and Ukraine,  and which 
already established, without exclusions, a zero tariff treatment. Therefore, it would make no 
sense , in Armenia's view, to enter into tariff reductions or  compensatory adjustment negotiations 
with one Member (Armenia) with whom a Member claiming an interest (Ukraine) had already been 
trading at zero tariffs for more than twenty  years.  
2.12.   He assured the Council that Armenia would take the necessary steps to complete the 
process as soon as possible and in full compliance with WTO  rules and procedures.  
2.13.   The Chairperson  thanked delegations for their interventions, proposed that the Council take 
note of the statements made , and agree d on the extension of the deadline  until 2  January  2018 as 
set out in Armenia's communication  in document  G/L/1110/Add.2.  
2.14.   The Council so agreed . G/C/M/127  
 
- 5 - 
 
  3  ACCESSION OF THE KYR GYZ REPUBLIC TO THE EURASIAN ECONOMIC UN ION: 
PROCEDURES UNDER ART ICLE  XXVIII:3 OF GATT  1994 – REQUEST FROM THE KYR GYZ 
REPUBLI C 
3.1.  The Chairperson  informed the Council that , in a communication dated 1  November  2016, the 
delegation of the Kyrgyz Republic had requested the Secretariat to include this item  on the 
Agenda.  
3.2.  The delegate of the Kyrgyz  Republic  expressed her delegation 's intention  to update the 
Council on the processes under GATT  Article s XXIV:6 and  XXVIII following modification of the 
Kyrgyz Republic 's concessions due to its accession to the E AEU. In this regard she recalled that , 
following the notification contained in doc ument  G/SECRET/38, seven  Members had submitted a 
claim of interest to the Kyrgyz Republic. Her delegation had engaged in an exchange of 
communications with a view to clarify ing certain technical issues and other related matters , 
including a series of infor mal meetings in Geneva with the representative of the Ministry of 
Economy . 
3.3.  She recalled that , in a communication date d 30 June 2016 (document  G/L/1137/Add.1) , the 
Kyrgyz Republic had not only informed this Council that the agreement between the Kyrgyz 
Republic and the EAEU had entered into force on 12  August  2015, but had also requested an 
extension of the deadline for interested Members to withdraw substantially equivalent concession s, 
until 12 February  2018. The Council had approved this extension at its meeting of 14 July 2016.  In 
accordance with the procedures set out under GATT  Article  XXVIII, the Kyrgyz Republic had 
communicated to those Members that had submitted claims of interest that they had been 
recognized as parties to the renegotiation process.  Her authorities were preparing an initial 
compensation offer that would be conveyed to those Members by the end of the first  quarter of 
2017, and the Kyrgyz Republic also stood ready to engage in bilateral negotiatio ns and 
consultations with them.  
3.4.  The del egate of Ukraine  stated that , with regard to the accession of the Kyrgyz Republic to 
the EAEU, and in accordance with procedures under GATT  Article  XXVIII and the Understanding o n 
the Interpretation of GATT  Article  XXVIII , on 2 July 2015 Ukraine had submit ted its claim of 
interest to the Kyrgyz Republic and had reserved its right to negotiate with the Kyrgyz Republic 
certain concessions listed in Schedule  CXLII, including compensatory adjustments.  
3.5.  The delegate of  the European Union  referred to her statement  delivered under the previous 
agenda item and again urged Armenia and the Kyrgyz Republic to enter into  the substance of their 
negotiations without delay.  The EU expect ed, in reply to its requests, a joint offer from Armenia, 
the Kyrgyz Republic, Kazakhsta n, and the Russian Federation,  and looked forward to resuming 
negotiations on that basis very soon . 
3.6.  The delegate of Turkey  welcomed the progress report on the negotiation process following 
the accession of the Kyrgyz Republic to the EAEU and reiterated Tur key's readiness to continue 
discussing the issue with the Kyrgyz Republic  bilaterally . 
3.7.  The delegate of China  appreciated the progress and constructive effort made by the Kyrgyz 
Republic during bilateral discussions following China's submission of its claim  of interest.  
3.8.  The delegate of Japan  noted that the Kyrgyz Republic had not yet  responded to the claim of 
interest submitted by Japan on this issue. Japan requested the Kyrgyz Republic to engage in 
negotiations and consultations with Japan and other interes ted Members seeking appropriate 
compensation under GATT  Articles  XXIV and XXVIII.  Japan looked forward to receiving responses 
from the Kyrgy z Republic with regard to these  negotiations.  
3.9.  The delegate of Switzerland  thanked the Kyrgyz Republic for its update  and recalled that 
Switzerland had also submitted a claim of interest. Switzerland looked forward to engaging in 
concrete negotiations with the Kyrgyz Republic  on this issue . 
3.10.   The delegate of the Kyrgyz Republic  indicated , in response to Ukraine's statement  that, as 
stated by Armenia,  bilateral trade between the Kyrgyz Republic and Ukraine occurred  on the basis 
of preferential treatment within the Common wealth of Independent States  (CIS) , as provided for G/C/M/127  
 
- 6 - 
 
  in the bilateral trade agreement and th e CIS Free Trad e Agreement signed in 2011.  Consequently, 
and in line with the provisions of the Understanding on the Interpretation of GATT  Article  XXVIII , 
and the G uidelines and Procedures for Negotiations under GATT  Article  XXVIII adopted on 
10 November  1980, the Kyrgy z Republic ha d no legal ground on which to recognize Ukraine's 
claim of interest on this issue.  
3.11.   With regard to the EU intervention she indicated that the Kyrgyz Republic was currently in 
an informal process of exchang ing technical issues  and clarifying technical questions with those 
Members that had submitted claims and been recognized as party to the negotiations, including 
the EU. Therefore, it could at this point neither confirm nor deny the possibility of a joint offer from 
EAEU member  States . This issue would be decided internally and communicated to interest ed 
Members  in due course . 
3.12.   She also indicated to Japan that, as previously stated, the Kyrgyz Republic was currently 
preparing an initial compensation offer to be provided to those Members recognized  as party to the 
negotiations . This offer would be communicated  by the end of the first  quarter of 2017.  The Kyrgyz 
Republic had  engaged Japan in a constructive exchange of information , including on technical 
issues , and would provide more information on t he initial compensation offer in due course . 
3.13.   The Chairperson  thanked delegations for their interventions and proposed that the Council 
take note of the statements made.  
3.14.   The Council so agreed . 
4  ENLARGEMENT OF THE E UROPEAN UNION: PROCE DURES UNDER ARTICLE  XXVI II:3 OF 
GATT  1994 – REQUEST FROM THE EUR OPEAN UNION (G/L/105 1/ADD.6)  
4.1.  The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to document  G/L/1051/Add.6 on the accession of 
Croatia to the EU on 1  July 2013. In this document, the European Union had indicated that 
Members wh o had submitted a claim pursuant to Article  XXIV:6 of GATT  1994 were not precluded 
from withdrawing substantially equivalent concessions under Article  XXVIII:3 of GATT  1994, 
provided that the claiming WTO  Member withdrew those concessions no t later than 46  months 
after the EU's modification of concessions. He recalled that the CTG had extended the deadlines on 
six occasions, namely at its meetings of 27  November  2013, 9  April and 17  November  2014, 
26 March and 10  November  2015, and 15  March  2016. 
4.2.  The delega te of the European Union  inform ed Members that, following the EU  enlargement 
and negotiation procedures after the accession of Croatia, agreements with the People's Republic 
of China and Uruguay ha d been signed and concluded  and would enter into force after completion 
of the implementing regulations.  She also indicated that , following signature of the agreement 
reached with Brazil, recently authorized by the EU  Council, the European Parliament would 
undertake the necessary steps to fo rmally conclude such ag reement.  
4.3.  She also stated that negotiations with other Members were well advanced , and that the EU 
currently await ed replies to its final offer . The EU hoped to receive positive response s and 
announce at the next CTG  meeting the conclusion of other agreemen ts. In this vein, the EU 
believed that the period in which Members' rights were preserved should be once more extended , 
as indica ted in document  G/L/1051/Add.6.  
4.4.  The delegate of the Russian Federation  expressed her delegation 's concerns  with regard to its 
non-participation in such negotiations.  Indeed, the Russian Federation ha d officially informed the 
EU and the WTO Secretariat of its intention to engage in negotiations on compensatory adjustment  
following the accession of Croatia to the EU . Moreover, in th e EU  notification circulated as 
document  G/SECRET/35 , dated 15  April 2013, the Russia n Federation  had been mentioned among 
those WTO Members having principal and /or substantial supplying interests in the se negotiations.  
However, and due to procedural reaso ns, Russia ha d not been recognized as a part y in the 
compensatory adjustment negotiations.  Russia believed that Members with a supplying interest 
had a right to compensation , guaranteed by GATT  Articles  XXIV and XXVIII , and could not be 
deprived of such a right because of deviations in procedural requirements. She therefore urged the 
European Union to engage with Russia in substantive negotiations  with a view to agreeing 
appropriate  compensatory adjustment.  G/C/M/127  
 
- 7 - 
 
  4.5.  The delegate of Brazil  expressed his delegation 's satisfaction with regard to  the upcoming 
signature of the agreement reached with the EU on this issue and hoped for prompt ratification 
and implementation of the agreement.  
4.6.  The delegate of the European Union  indicated that the extensive bilateral discussio ns held 
with all interested Members on this issue demonstrated the EU's  engagement in the negotiation  
process, and recalled that her delegation had already explained why certain claims, submitted 
beyond the legal deadline, could not be taken into account . 
4.7.  The Chairperson  proposed that the Council take note of the statements made, and of the 
EU communication contained in document  G/L/1051/Add.6 , and that the Council agree on the 
extension of the deadline to 1 July 2017, as set out in that document . 
4.8.  The Counc il so agreed . 
5  MARKET ACCESS ISSUES  
5.1.  The Chairperson  noted that the Committee on Market Access (CMA) had forwarded five  items 
to the Council for its  consideration and suggested that they be taken up in the order in which they 
were listed in the Airgram.  
5.1  DRAF T DECISION ON THE PROCEDURE FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF HS  2017 
CHANGES TO SCHEDULES OF CONCESSIONS USING THE TARIFF SCHEDULES (CTS) 
DATABASE (G/C/W/732)  
5.2.  The Chairperson  drew Membe rs' attention to document  G/C/W/732 , containing a Draft 
Decision on the "Procedu re for the Introduction of Harmonized System  2017 Changes to Schedules 
of Concessions Using the Consolidated Tariff Schedules (CTS) Database".  This draft Decision was 
first contained in document  G/MA/W/124 and Corrigendum  1, which was considered by the CMA at 
its meeting of 11  October  2016. At that meeting , the C MA agreed that the final draft text, now 
contained in document  G/C/W/732, be forwarded to the General Council for its adoption through 
the Goods Council.  He therefore proposed that the Council appro ve the Draft Decision contained in 
document  G/C/W/732 and agree to forward it to the General Council for adoption . 
5.3.  The Council so agreed . 
5.2  INTRODUCTION OF HARMONIZED SYSTEM CHANGES INTO THE WTO  SCHEDULES OF 
CONCESSIONS – COLLECTIVE REQUESTS FOR WAIVER EXTEN SIONS  
5.2.1   INTRODUCTION OF HARMONIZED SYSTEM 2002  CHANGES INTO THE 
WTO SCHEDULES  OF TARIFF CONCESSIONS – DRAFT WAIVER DECISION (G/C/W/728)  
5.4.  The Chairperson  drew the Council's attention to the collective draft waiver decision circulated 
in document  G/C/W/728, in connection with the introduction of HS2002  changes into 
WTO schedules of tariff concessions . The current waiver de cision was contained in 
document  WT/L/967 and would expire on 31  December  2016. The one-year extension, as provided 
for in the draft waiver de cision contained in document  G/C/W/728, was the subject of 
consultations in the CMA meeting of 11 October  2016. He therefore propose d that the Council 
approve the waiver request and agree to forward the draft waiver decision contained in 
document  G/C/W/728  to the General Council for adoption.  
5.5.  The Council so agreed . 
5.2.2   INTRODUCTION OF HARMONIZED SYSTEM 2007  CHANGES INTO THE 
WTO  SCHEDULES OF TARIFF CONCESSIONS – DRAFT WAIVER DECISION (G/C/W/729)  
5.6.  The Chairperson  drew the Council's attention to the collective draf t waiver decision circulated 
in document  G/C/W/729, in connection with the introduction of HS2007  changes into 
WTO schedules of tariff concessions . The current waiver decision was contained in 
document  WT/L/968  and would  expire on 31  December  2016. The one-year extension, as provided 
for in the draft waiver decision contained in document  G/C/W/729, was the subject of G/C/M/127  
 
- 8 - 
 
  consultations in the CMA meeting of 11 October  2016. He therefore propose d that the Council 
approve the waiver request and agree to forward th e draft waiver  decision contained in 
document  G/C/W/729 to the General Council for adoption.  
5.7.  The Council so agreed . 
5.2.3   INTRODUCTION OF HARMONIZED SYSTEM 2012 CHANGES INTO THE WTO 
SCHEDULES OF TARIFF CONCESSIONS – DRAFT WAIVER DECISION (G/C/W/730)  
5.8.  The Chairper son drew the Council's attention to the collective draft waiver decision circulated 
in document  G/C/W/730, in connection with the introduction of HS2012  changes into 
WTO schedules of tariff concessions . The current waiver decision was contained in 
document  WT/L/969  and would  expire on 31  December  2016. The one-year extension, as provided 
for in the draft waiver  decision contained in document  G/C/W/730, was the subject of 
consultations in the CMA meeting of 11 October  2016. He therefore proposed that the Cou ncil 
approve the waiver request and agree to forward the draft waiver  decision contained in 
document  G/C/W/730 to the General Council for adoption.  
5.9.  The Council so agreed . 
5.2.4   INTRODUCTION OF HARMONIZED SYSTEM 2017  CHANGES INTO THE 
WTO  SCHEDULES OF TARIFF CONCE SSIONS – DRAFT WAIVER DECISION (G/C/W/733)  
5.10.   The Chairperson  drew the Council's attention to the collective draft waiver decision 
circulated in document  G/C/W/733, in connection with the introduction of HS2017  changes into 
WTO schedules  of tariff concessions . The one-year waiver, provided for in t he decision annexed to 
document  G/C/W/733, was the subject of consultations in the CMA meeting of 11 October  2016.  
5.11.   With regard to this collective waiver request and draft waiver decision he indicated the 
following:  (i) Since the draft waiver decision 's circulation , Argentina, the European Union, 
Paraguay, Switzerland, and Uruguay,  had requested the Secretariat to include the ir name s in the 
Annex to document  G/C/W/733 ; therefore, a revised version of the draft waive r decision w ould be 
issued on 22  November  2016 and would include those Members in the Annex ; (ii) the waiver 
decision indicate d that the possibility of being included in the Annex remain ed open to any other 
Member not yet listed ; therefore , if any other Membe r wishe d to be included in the Annex before 
the next General Council meeting (where the decision was to be considered), it m ight contact the 
Secretariat before  close of business on  Tuesday, 22  November  2016, indicating their wish to be 
included in the Anne x to the revised version of document  G/C/W/733 to be forwarded to the 
General Council for adoption ; (iii) the possibility of benefit ting from the 2017  waiver remain ed 
open to any Member not yet listed in the Annex, provided a notification in this regard was made to 
the CMA; (iv) Members expressing a wish to be included in the Annex, irrespective of when they 
did so, must indicate the date of that Member's implementation of the HS2017 , and whether or not 
the Member ha d implemented the corrections and complem entary amendments to HS  Chapter  44; 
and (v)  since this was the first time that the waiver had been  considered, the revised version of 
the draft decision w ould also clarify that the  waiver w ould be granted for one  year, that is, until 
31 Decembe r 2017, inst ead of "for a further year" , as currently indicated in the draft decision.  
5.12.   The Chairperson  propose d that the Council approve the waiver request contained in 
document  G/C/W/733  and agree to forward to the General Council for adoption a revised version 
of the draft waiver decision set out in document  G/C/W/733, including the amendments to which 
he had referred.  
5.13.   The Council so  agreed . 
6  JORDAN – REQUEST FOR A WAIVER  RELATING TO THE TRAN SITIONAL PERIOD FOR 
THE ELIMINATION OF T HE EXPORT SUBSIDY PR OGRAM FOR JORDAN (G/C/W/705, 
G/C/W/705/CORR.1, G/ C/W/705/REV.1 AND G/ C/W/705/REV.2)  
6.1.  The Chairperson  drew Members' attention to document  G/C/W/705/Rev.2  containing a waiver 
request and a draft waiver decision submitted by Jordan in respect of the transitional period for 
the elimination of the export subsidy programme for Jordan. He recalled that at the April meeting G/C/M/127  
 
- 9 - 
 
  of the Council it had been agreed that the CTG would revert to this matter at this meeting, whe n 
Jordan would update Members on any  developments with regard to this issue.  
6.2.  The delegate of Jordan  again thanked all those Members that had expressed their support for 
Jordan on this issue and that had acknowledged the exceptional economic, financial, and regional 
challenges being faced by the Jordanian economy . This si tuation had persisted and had resulted, 
among other things , in a two -point increase in the unemployment rate compared to 2015, and a 
further 10% decline in exports in the first  half of 2016. 
6.3.  With regard to the implementation of a new and WTO-consistent programme intended to  
replace the export subsidy programme , and in line with the timetable submitted by Jordan in 
November  2015, he informed the Council that a second  mission of USAID experts had taken place 
in April 2016. This mission had included several me etings with different stakeholders  with a view 
to identifying various options for the new programme . A final analysis of alternative policy  options 
would be provided soon.  
6.4.  He also indicated that , as from July  2016, a new work  team had been established and made 
operational and was following  up on developments in the new programme , including the revision of 
data already collected . It was expected that a new programme  would be recommend ed to the 
National Committee by end-2016. A complete analysis of different replacement schemes w ould 
also be finalized immediately after the  revision of  the final alternative policy options . 
Consequently, i n early 2017 the National Committee w ould start designing the new programme 
and preparing the necessary draft legislation for  its implementation . This would be followed by a 
consultation period with all stakeholders , including interested Members.  Following these 
consultations the new programme w ould be passed through  the legislative process and would 
enter into force upon its approval, thus terminating the current subsidy programme.  
6.5.  Jordan was committed to terminating the current export subsidy programme once the new 
programme was approved but in any case the current export subsidy programme w ould be 
automatically terminated by end-2018.  Jordan would update the Council on developments in the 
new draft programme at its April 2017 meeting.  
6.6.  The delegate of the United States  thanked Jordan for its update and for the efforts made to 
change the current subsidy programme. The U S had been actively involved in providing technical 
assistance to Jordan in the context of its reform efforts and st ood ready to continue assisting 
Jordan  in any manner needed.  The United States hoped that Jordan would soon introduce the 
necessary programmatic chang es. 
6.7.  The delegate of Australia  appreciated Jordan's transparency and its open, positive and 
constructive  approach to this issue,  Jordan had demonstrated that it continue d to work actively 
towards the outcome  desired . Australia welcomed Jordan's specific com mitment to replace its 
export subsidy programme with a WTO -consistent programme . 
6.8.  The delegate of New Zealand  thanked Jordan for its commitment and for its efforts to replace 
its WTO -inconsistent export subsidy programme  and, in any case , to automatically t erminate this 
programme by end-2018.  New Zealand remained ready to support Jordan in these efforts . 
6.9.  The delegate of Japan  welcome d Jordan's report, acknowledged the challenges Jordan was 
facing, and appreciate d Jordan's further efforts to reform its subsid y program to make it consistent 
with the WTO  Agreement. Japan expect ed Jordan to eliminate the export subsidy program 
according to the schedule it had submitted and w ould continue to closely follow  up on this issue.  
6.10.   The delegate of Turkey  thanked Jordan fo r the report and appreciated Jordan's efforts to 
establish a program me satisfactory to all parties.  
6.11.   The delegate of China  welcomed the report and reaffirmed China's support for Jordan's 
request concerning the waiver relating to the transitional period for the elimination of the export 
subsidy program until 31  December  2018. China encouraged Members to endorse this request.  
6.12.   The delegate of Chinese Taipei  thanked Jordan for its report and appreciated its efforts to 
terminate the cu rrent export subsidy program me. G/C/M/127  
 
- 10 - 
 
  6.13.   The delegate s of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia , Qatar , Egypt , and Pakistan , respectively,  
thanked Jordan for the update on this issue and reiterated their support for Jordan's request.  
6.14.   The delegate of Guatemala  thank ed Jordan for the information provided  and for its efforts to 
substitute the current programme by 2018.  She reiterated that any exception should be 
considered on a case-by-case basis.  
6.15.   The delegate of Jordan  thanked Members for their interventions and again assured the 
Council that Jordan was committed to phasing  out its current programme as outlined in  its revised 
request submitted in November  2015. Jordan would present a further update to the Counc il at its 
next meeting . 
6.16.   The Chairperson  thanked delegations for their interventions and proposed that the Council 
take note of the statements made and, as requested by Jordan, that the Council agree to revert to 
this matter at its next meeting . He also encourage d interested delegations to continue to discuss 
this matter w ith Jordan . 
6.17.   The Council so agreed. 
7  UNITED STATES – REQUEST FOR A WAIVER  EXTENSION – FORMER TRUST TERRITO RY 
OF THE PACIFIC ISLAN DS (G/C/W/721)  
7.1.  The Chairperson  remind ed delegations that, in a communication dated 2  March  2016 and 
circulated as document  G/C/W/721 , the delegation of the Uni ted States had submitted a request 
and a draft waiver decision to extend its preferences to the Former Trust Territory of the Pacific 
Islands.  This request  was considered at the last two meetings of this Council , at which the 
EU delegation had indicated th at it did not oppose the request but was not in a position formally to 
join the consensus on this issue given the sequence of internal procedures to be followed within 
the EU.  He also informed delegations that , since on 8 June 2016 the 90  days for consider ation of a 
waiver request to which Article  IX:3(b) of the Marrakesh Agreement referred had elapsed with 
regard to this request , he had presented a factual report to the General Council on this issue at its 
meeting of 27 -28 July 2016.  
7.2.  The delegate of the United States  confirmed that the waiver request to permit the U S to 
provide duty -free treatment to eligible products from the former Trust Territory of the Pacific 
Islands had been discussed at the last two  CTG meetings, and that no adverse views had been 
expressed  on those occasions . She added that , on 18  July 2016, in document  WT/L/990, the US 
had submitted its annual report on the operation of the program me. These preferences were a key 
element in US' efforts to help the Republic of the Marshall Islands, t he Federated States of 
Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands to 
participate more fully in the global economy and to complement the work of other Members to 
promote their growth and development.  
7.3.  The delegate  of the European Union  informed the Council and the U S that it had completed 
its internal procedures and was now in a position to join the consensus and agree to the request 
for extending the waiver.  
7.4.  The Chairperson  propose d that the Council take note of t he statements made , approve the 
waiver request , and agree to forward the draft waiver decision contained in document  G/C/W/721 
regarding the US  preferences for the Former Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands to the General 
Council for adoption at its ne xt meeting.  
7.5.  The Council so agreed . 
8  UNITED STATES – REQUEST FOR A WAIVER : TRADE PREFERENCES GRANTED TO 
NEPAL (G/C/W/724)  
8.1.  The Chairperson  remind ed delegations that, in a communication dated 21  June 2016 and 
circulated as document  G/C/W/724, the delegation of the United States had submitted a waiver 
request and a draft waiver decision in respect of trade preferences to be granted to Nepal. This 
request was first considered by the Council at its July 2016 meeting, at which the EU had indicated G/C/M/127  
 
- 11 - 
 
  that it did not op pose the waiver request but was not yet in a position formally to join the 
consensus. The Council had agreed to revert to th e issue at this meeting.  
8.2.  The delegate of the United States  confirmed that at the July  2016 meeting of this Council the 
US had introd uced a new proposed trade preference program me for Nepal, the details of which 
were provided at th at meeting and outlined in the waiver request.  Accordingly, the US sought  a 
waiver from its MFN obligations for a new trade preference program me that would gr ant duty -free 
treatment to certain specified products from Nepal so as to help Nepal in its ongoing economic 
recovery efforts following the April  2015 earthquakes.  The US believed that this preference 
program me would serve an important development objectiv e. 
8.3.  The delegate of the European Union  informed the Council that the internal procedures in the 
EU had been completed , and that her delegation was now in a position to join the consensus and 
approve the waiver request.  
8.4.  The delegate of Nepal  thanked the US f or having introduced this waiver request and the EU 
for having completed the internal procedures for joining the consensus on this request. The 
solidarity of the US would certainly help Nepal to recover from the natural disasters that had taken 
place in Ap ril and May  2015 and set back  Nepal's economy and trade sectors . He also thanked the 
WTO membership for their solidarity and understanding and for havi ng approved the waiver 
request.  
8.5.  The Chairperson  proposed that the Council  take note of the statements mad e, approve the 
waiver request contained in document  G/C/W/724 , and agree to forward the draft waiver decision 
contained therein to th e General Council for adoption.  
8.6.  The Council so agreed . 
9  EUROPEAN UNION – REQUEST FOR A WAIVER  EXTENSION – APPLICATION OF 
AUTONOMOUS PREFERENTIAL  TREATMENT TO THE WES TERN BALKANS (G/C/W/ 731)  
9.1.  The Chairperson  drew Members ' attention to document  G/C/W/731 , dated 12  October  2016,  
containing a waiver request and a draft waiver decision submitted by the European Union relating 
to the application of autonomous preferen tial treatment for the Balkans.  
9.2.  The delegate of the European Union  informed Members that the existing waiver to provide 
autonomous preferential treatment to the Balkans would expire on 31  December  2016; for this 
reason , it had requested an exten sion for five  years or until 31  December  2021. The EU hoped to 
receive Memb ers' support for this extension.  
9.3.  In the absence of any comments the Chairperson  proposed that the Council take note of the 
statement made, approve the request  contained in document  G/C/W/31 to extend the waiver on 
EU preferences to the Western Balkans , and agree to forward the draft waiver decision contained 
therein to th e General Council for adoption.  
9.4.  The Council so agreed . 
10  CUBA – REQUEST FOR AN EXTEN SION OF T HE WAIVER CONCERNING  ARTICLE  XV:6 
OF THE GATT  1994 CONTAINED IN TH E DECISION OF 14  FEBRUARY  2012 (WT/L/850) – 
(G/C/W/734)  
10.1.   The Chairperson  drew the Council's attention to document  G/C/W/734 containing a waiver 
request and a draft waiver decision to extend t he current waiver granted to Cuba in respect of 
GATT  Article  XV:6.  
10.2.   The delegate of Cuba recalled that the initial waiver on this issue was first adopt ed by the 
General Council on 14  October  1986 and that every five  years since then Cuba had asked for 
additional extensions. Given that the current waiver would expire on 31  December  2016 and that 
the conditions set out in the initial waiver and further extensions remained valid, particularly with 
regard to the economic measures and blockage applied by the Unit ed States in respect of Cuba, 
Cuba was once again requesting an additional extension.  G/C/M/127  
 
- 12 - 
 
  10.3.   Cuba had reported to the General Council regularly on  this situation and had indicated on 
those occasions that the waiver had had no negative consequence for the WTO  memb ership and 
that Cuba remained committed not to cause any damage or prejudice to  Members in terms of their 
WTO rights , as also cont ained and explained in document  G/C/W/734 that was currently before the 
Council for its consideration. Moreover, Cuba had agre ed to use this waiver to promote trade and 
investment with other Members.  
10.4.   The delegate of the European Union  assured Cuba that the EU supported the extension 
requested; however, due to its internal procedures it could not yet formally join the consensus.  
10.5.   The delegates of Ecuador  and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela , respectively,  support ed 
the waiver extension requested by Cuba  since, in their view , it would help Cuba to c omply with its 
WTO commitments.  
10.6.   Following a proposal made by the Chairperson that the Council take note of the statements 
made and revert to this matter at its next meeting , the delegate of Cuba reverted  to this issue 
immediately after the Council's consideration of agenda item  11 and expressed her delegation's 
disappointment  with the E U statement . The issue was a priority for Cuba given that the current 
waiver would  expire on 31  December  2016; it would be very difficu lt for Cuba to wait until 
April 2017 given that  there was no substantive objection and the request enjoyed the support of 
many delegations. She therefore called upon the European Union to show flexibility, to join the 
consensus , and to allow Cuba's request to be forwarded to the General Council fo r adoption at its 
next meeting.  
10.7.   The delegate of the European Union  then clarifi ed that the EU had no substantive objection 
with regard to Cuba's request but that, as mentioned in the context of the waivers previously 
considered, there were internal procedures within the EU that had to be followed before it could 
formally j oin a conse nsus on this issue.  
10.8.   The Chairperson  then reminded the Council that a decision , even if taken in April  2017, 
would also cover the period from 1  January  2017; there would be no gap. He then requested the 
Secretariat to explain the issue further . 
10.9.   The Secretar iat indicated that , once considered and approved at a subsequent Council 
meeting and then adopted by the General Council, a waiver's duration would include the period 
between its earlier expiry date and approval of the extension even in the case of a reque st for a 
waiver extension that was submitted before its expiry date but not approved and adopted before 
that date . In other words, an extension of a waiver approved only after its earlier expiry date 
would run as from the expiry date and not from the date of approval and adoption provided that 
the extension had been requested before the expiration of the waiver. Cuba's current request for a 
waiver extension would therefore fall into this category . There were numerous examples that could 
be cited, including the previous extension requested by Cuba in November  2011 but only  adopted 
in February  2012, or the case of the waiver extension for the Balkans requested by the European 
Union . Therefore, Cuba, as any other Member  in such circumstances, could be confident  that no 
Member would have legal ground on which to take advantage of such a  gap. 
10.10.   The delegate of Brazil  supported Cuba's procedural solution , such that the Council could 
allow Cuba's request to be forwarded to the General Council for its meeting in Decemb er, with a 
reservation fr om the EU. Such a solution would allow the EU the opportunity to complete its 
internal proceedings and, if not , the Council could still revert to this issue at its next meeting in 
April 2017, as proposed by the Chairperson.  
10.11.   The del egate of the European Union  indicated that the explanation provided by the 
Secretariat was clear , and that it preferred to adopt this approach given that  EU internal 
proced ures could take  some  time. 
10.12.   The Chairperson  asked the Secretariat to provide further clarification with regard to the 
possibility of including items on the General Council's agenda in the manner suggested by Cuba 
and Brazil.  G/C/M/127  
 
- 13 - 
 
  10.13.   The Secretariat  indicated that the drawback with such an approach from a legal and 
procedural standpoint  was that CTG issues forwarded to the General Council for adoption must 
follow the standard rules of procedure for meetings of WTO  bodies, including with regard to the 
deadlines for putting items on the agenda of those meetings. In the current case , the General 
Counci l's agenda w ould close on 24 November  2016, and unless the EU could be sure of being in a 
position to join the consensus before that date, Cuba and Brazil's approach would not be feasible . 
According to Article  IX:3(b) of the Marrakesh Agreement, requests f or waivers concerning the 
Multilateral Trade Agreements in Anne xes 1A, 1B, or 1C , should be submitted and cleared, 
respectively, by the CTG, the Council for Trade in Services , or the Council for TRIPs , before being 
forwarded to the CTG or to the Minis terial Conference for adoption.  There would therefore be a 
legal constraint preventing the European Union from joining the consensus at any later date.  
10.14.   In light of the above , the Chairperson  proposed that, if the European Union were in a 
position to come back to him and to indicate before 24 November  that it was in a position to join 
the consensus , the CTG could then forward the waiver request to the General Council  for adoption . 
However, in the absence of such a notification, the  Goods Council would be obliged to revert to 
this matter at its next meeting.  
10.15.   The delegate of Cuba thanked the Chairperson and Secretariat for the explanations and 
options provided , and called again upon the EU to consider the issue positively given that there 
was no substantive objectio n to accept ing an extension of its waiver with regard to an issue that 
had in any case appeared on the CTG's agenda over the course of  several decades.  
10.16.   The delegate of the European Union  informed the Council in the afternoon that, following 
consultations w ith Brussels, her delegation was in fact in a positon to join the consensus.  
10.17.   The delegate of Cuba thanked the EU for the internal efforts it had made so as to be in a 
position to join the consensus on this request to extend its current waiver. Cuba was ple ased with 
this outcome.  
10.18.   The Chairperson  therefore proposed that the Council take note of the statements made 
and agree to forward the draft waiver decision contained in document  G/C/W/734 to the General 
Council for adoption at its December  meeting . 
10.19.   The Cou ncil so agreed . 
11  CROATIA – REGULATION OF IMPORT  AND SALE OF CERTAIN OIL PRODUCTS – 
REQUEST FROM THE RUS SIAN FEDERATION  
11.1.   The Chairperson  informed the Council that , in a communication dated 1  November  2016, 
the delegation of the Russian Federation had requeste d the Secretariat to include this item  on the 
agenda.  
11.2.   The delegate of the Russian Federation  expressed concern over trade -restrictive measures 
taken by Croatia, which were allegedly having an adverse impact on the import of petroleum 
products and biofuels from third  countries, including from Russia. These measures related to 
pre-approval and approval of imports, mandatory use of warehouses that meet certain 
requirements established by the Croatian Government, and the licensing of activities involving the 
use of the se warehouses, among others. Russia considered that these measures constituted a de 
jure and de facto restricting scheme as they were not applied to imports from the EU  member 
States or to members of the European Economic Area and Turkey. Russia al so considered that the 
requirements related to the wholesale trade in goods originating in third  countries were less 
favourable than those accorded to like domestic products. These concerns had been raised 
bilaterally and at the CMA but Croatia had not add ressed them. Russia requested Croatia not only 
to remove such measures but also to explain how it considered these measures to be 
WTO consistent, particularly with regard to GATT  Articles  I, III, and XI.  
11.3.   The delegate of the European Union  took note of Russia's concerns regarding Croatia's 
regulation of 2014 "on conditions for wholesale trading and trading with third  countries applied to 
certain goods ". The EU would analyse these  concerns and , after having clarified certain elements 
with Croatia, would respo nd to Russia . G/C/M/127  
 
- 14 - 
 
  11.4.   The Chairperson  thanked delegations for their interventions and proposed that the Council 
take note of the statements made.  
11.5.   The Council so agreed . 
12  UNITED STATES – SEAFOOD IMPORT MONIT ORING PROGRAMME – REQUEST FROM 
THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLI C OF CHI NA 
12.1.   The Chairperson  informed the Council that, in a communication dated 4  November  2016, 
the delegation of China had requested the Secretariat to include this issue  on the agenda.  
12.2.   The delegate of China  express ed China's concern about the US  Seafood Import M onitoring 
Program (SIMP). According to the publication made by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration (NOAA) on February  2016, the SIMP had as its stated purpose the aim of  
combatting illegal , unreported , and unregulated (IUU) fishing and seaf ood, and required filing and 
report -keeping procedures relating to the importation of certain fish and fish products. China 
believed that these measures were  excessive , caused heavy burdens on exporters , and constituted 
a trade barrier  and were therefore WTO-inconsistent. Despite consultations held between China 
and the United States on this issue , further clarification was still required with regard to  some 
issues not yet addressed by the US . These issues were as follows: (i) when would the  publication 
of the final SIMP text  take place , and what was its exact date of entry into force , including  an 
indication of the estimated date of notification of the programme to the relevant WTO bodies ; 
(ii) an explanation as to whether or not t he US  domestic fish indust ry was exempt from keeping 
certification and traceability records for the species at risk , or if this requirement would only be 
applied to imported fish and fish products or to those products re -exported to the US market a fter 
processing;  (iii) aquaculture  products not relevant to IUU  fishing , which should be excluded from 
the SIMP; and (iv) an explanation of the WTO-consistency of the SIMP, its rationale and necessity 
in order to avoid new trade barriers and to make the SIMP WTO -consistent  and, in particul ar, the 
need for complete traceability data, especially in the case of small -scale fishing sectors given the 
practical difficulties and costs implied in the collecti on and submission of such data. 
12.3.   The delegate of the Russian Federation  recalled that , at th e April and July  2016 
CTG meetings , her delegation had raised similar issues regarding the SIMP  but that the US had not 
engaged in any comprehensive commitment  on either of those occasions . Russia b elieved that 
combatting IUU  fishing was and should be an i ntegral part of a government 's fisheries 
management policy; however, such measures should be WTO -compliant, in line with 
GATT  Article  III, and no more trade -restrictive than necessary.  
12.4.   The delegate of the United States , in response to the previous interven tions, explained that 
the objective of the Proposed Traceability Rule (proposed Rule , or Rule) was to combat IUU fishing 
and seafood fraud , that the proposed Rule would require importers to report certai n information 
upon entry into the US market, and to retain other information that would allow the US  authorities 
to track any shipment back to the point of catch or production.  The R ule ha d been developed in a 
transparent manner that had includ ed a process of public notice and comment that had involv ed 
stake holders located both inside and outside the U S as well as direct outreach to exporting 
nations.  Following publication of the relevant notices NOAA received various  comments that were 
being carefully co nsidered , as the first  phase of the program me was finalized, and covered a select 
list of species . The final Rule would be published shortly  and a reasonable implementation  period 
would be granted to allow importers to adapt to the new requirements.  The US, China, Russian 
Federation,  and other  Members share d the common objective of protecting the oceans and look ed 
forward to an ongoing engagement  on the issue . She also indicated that all WTO  requirements 
were being considered in the development of the draft Rule  and that all of their elements had been 
scrutiniz ed so as to ensure compliance with  US international trade obligations.  
12.5.   Regarding domestic requirements  to entry into the US  market , she clarified that the scope 
of traceability established in the SIMP was the point of harvest . The Rule focused on imports a nd 
was part of a larger traceability program that included domestic fish and fish products. The US had 
long been able to collect the information needed to establish traceability from harvest to entry into 
the US market , such as reporting and recordkeeping of harvest and landing information, for its 
domestically harvested seafood thanks to existing legal requirements. Given that over 90% of 
seafood consumed in the US was imported, the Rule was aimed at collecting traceability G/C/M/127  
 
- 15 - 
 
  information for imported product s as well as to help the US ensure that the products entering into 
its market had been legally harvested and truthfully represented. The Seafood Traceability Rule 
would apply to all US  importers, regardless of the country of origin.  As to when the Rule wou ld be 
notified to the WTO , she indicated that this was not a TBT or SPS  measure  and would therefore not 
be notified as such to those Committees.  
12.6.   The Chairperson  thanked delegations for their interventions and proposed that the Council 
take note of the stat ements made.  
12.7.   The Council so agreed . 
13  NIGERIA – IMPORT RESTRICTING M EASURES – REQUEST FROM THE EUR OPEAN 
UNION, NORWAY, THE UNITED STATES OF AME RICA , AND URUGUAY  
13.1.   The Chairperson  informed the Council that , in communications dated 4  November  2016, the 
delegatio ns of the European Union, Norway, the United States of America , and Uruguay, 
respectively, had requested the Secretariat to include this issue  on the agenda.  
13.2.   The delegate of the European Union  recalled that the EU had raised concerns over Nigeria's 
trade p olicy measures in previous CTG meetings , particular ly re garding foreign exchange 
restrictions and the local content requirements on oil and gas.  Nigeria had introduced some 
flexibility  to the foreign exchange measures;  however , the exchange rate was still not fully flexible . 
The EU had raised this  issue several times  in the BOP and the TRIMs  Committee s but to date 
Nigeria had not provided any information. Nigeria should indicate if it was considering other 
measures and policies and to which WTO  bodies it wo uld notify them. Nigeria should also provide 
comprehensive replies to the questions and concerns on these issues.  
13.3.   The delegate of Uruguay  indicated that Uruguayan products continued to face problems in 
access ing the Nigerian market. Like others, Uruguay ha d also raised its concerns on this issue 
several times in this Council  but Nigeria had still not responded to its questions . In recent years 
exports of Uruguayan fish products had been affected by lack of availability of foreign currency for 
Nigerian impor ters of seafood. Uruguay remained ready to initiate multilateral and bilateral talks  
on this issue . 
13.4.   The delegate of the United States  recalled that, at the last four  meetings of this Council, a 
number of delegations had expressed their concern with regard to trade barriers imposed by 
Nigeria, including restrictions on the use of foreign exchange for imports for a wide range of 
products, and local content requirements.  
13.5.   The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) had stated that a key rationale for the foreign exchange  
restriction measure was to stimulate local production of the targeted products. The US would like 
Nigeria to clarify whether this was indeed the case, since Nigeria had not yet notified this measure 
to the WTO nor provided the WTO  membership with any just ification for the measure consistent 
with WTO  rules.  
13.6.   Although the CBN had shown some flexibility , allowing the exchange rate  to adjust to some 
extent, it continued to prohibit importers  from using  official foreign exchange institutions, such as 
banks, for imports of 41  categories of products. The US believed that, in practice, Nigerian 
Customs were generally interpreting and enforcing the policy as an import ban on 41  categories of 
product s, regardless of the currency used for payment.  
13.7.   Concerns also remaine d with regard to Nigeria's expansive local content requirements in 
certain sectors, such as the IT industry  and others , contained in a long list of official import bans.  
The US  praised the Nigerian government for recognizing that it needed to diversify its  exports 
away from a near exclusive reliance on petroleum products. To export successfully, competitive 
products would be required; however, competitiveness was rarely gained through trade -restrictive 
policies , as illustrated by the case of a tomato paste plant that had reportedly announced that it 
was closing because it had been impossib le for it to obtain foreign exchange to import machinery, 
spare parts , and raw materials for processing Nigerian tomatoes.  The US instead encouraged 
Nigeria to identify oth er policy tools and to work with its trading partners to address its 
development objectives. Indeed, measures foster ing greater competitiveness for Nigerian G/C/M/127  
 
- 16 - 
 
  producers through an open trade regime and an attractive investment climate w ould be more 
effective  in helping Nigeria to achieve transformative growth and job creation.  
13.8.   The delegate of Norway  stated that, like others, her delegation was concern ed by the 
currency restrictions imposed by the CBN in 2015, and which affected trade between Nigeria and 
sever al of its trading partners. The issue had been duly raised by Norway and several other 
Members in the WTO and other fora since July  2015. Norwegian reports indicated that there had 
been an improvement in the situation. However, restrictions were still in p lace that limited the 
access of importers of certain specified goods to currency. Trade in fish and seafood between 
Norway and Nigeria had decreased since July  2015, affecting the sector in both countries. Norway 
questioned whether the restrictions were in  conformity with Nigeria's WTO  obligations.  
13.9.   Concerns also continued to exist about local content requirements in the oil and gas  sector. 
Nigeria should rectify and clarify  this situation . 
13.10.   Customs valuation was also a matter of concern. Indeed, the value be ing used in Nigeria 
as the basis for calculation of  the customs value of imported fish was higher than that agreed in 
the invoices; this represented an additional duty and value added to be paid on imports. Instead, a  
transparent, predictable , and rule s-based trading system should  be the basis for trade. Norway 
encourage d Nigeria to solve th is issue and to reassure Members that in all cases the customs 
valuation methods were applied in accor dance with established WTO methodology.  
13.11.   Nigeria should clarify its import restrictions, both in terms of currency restrictions and the 
fish importation policy in general , and update Members on the customs valuation  issue. 
13.12.   The delegate of Iceland  recalled that Iceland, like other Members, had repeatedly raised 
this matter in this Council and other fora. Iceland had also encouraged Nigeria to refrain from 
imposing restrictive measures on the importation of fish and had likewise urged full transparency 
in respect of any changes made to Nigeria's i mport regime for fish product s. 
13.13.   The Icelandic Minister of Foreign Affairs had visited Nigeria in early 2016 to explore ways 
to bring t he current measures in to conformity with WTO  principles. Despite the constructive 
meetings that took place the situation remained unchanged  and importe rs of key food products , 
like fish , continued to face currency restrictions . In addition , Nigeria had not made any notification 
and remained inactive regarding the adoption of corrective measures to the import licensing 
regime  it applied to fish products . Nigeria also continued to apply increased tariffs on fisheries 
products. All these restrictions and the lack of transparency had a negative impact on exports of 
fish products from Iceland to Nigeria , one of the most important export markets for Iceland in 
Africa and globally . The measures also affected an important economic activity for many 
vulnerable coastal com munities in Iceland.  
13.14.   Icelandic fish products had provided Nigerian consumers with a healthy, high quality, and 
affordable source of food  but the m easures adopted by Nigeria were a serious threat to a 
long-standing trade relationship and also affected Nigerian consumers. Nigeria should respect its 
WTO obligations, including transparency, and avoid introducing any further trade barriers . 
13.15.   The delegate of Thailand  echoed the previous concerns regarding import restrictions on 
foreign exchange . Thailand called upon Nigeria to abide by its WTO  obligations and , in particular, 
to fulfil its notification obligations and indicate the rationale behind the measur es. 
13.16.   The delegate of Chile echoed previous speakers on this issue and recalled the various 
requests Chile had made for obtaining from Nigeria clarification and justification of its measures. 
Chilean exporters continued to face difficulties in access ing the Nigerian market, which was 
previously the principle export destination for its frozen horse mackerel.  
13.17.   The delegate of Argentina  also shared the concerns already expressed on this issue . The 
Nigerian trade restricting measures were affecting the fishing sec tor in Argentina  and 41 seafood 
products  in particular . Indeed, Argentinean exports of fish products to Nigeria had decreased , 
respectively,  from US$23  million in 2012, to US$20  million in 2013, to US$7.5  million in 2014, and 
to US$5  million in 2015.  The revised decision of the CBN , adopted in June  2016, did not benefit 
the totality of the 41  fish products  of interest to Argentina ; consequently, Argentina 's concern s G/C/M/127  
 
- 17 - 
 
  about the Nigerian restrictions remained valid. Nigeria should provide more information and 
clarification on the measures recently adopted by the C BN and on any possible elimination or 
further flexibilities introduced to such measures . 
13.18.   The delegate of Australia  again sought clarification from Nigeria regarding the 
WTO-consistency of the preferent ial treatment it accorded to local goods and services in the 
Nigerian Oil and Gas Industry Content Development Act of 2010 . Further to Australia's comments 
made at the last CTG  meeting, he asked Nigeria to indicate if the new government would address 
all the concerns previously raised by Members at the CTG on the local content measures . 
13.19.   The delegate of Japan  shared the concerns raised by previous speakers . The measure 
adopted by the CBN constituted a de facto import restriction  and resulted in a significant  adverse 
impact on the exports of all WTO  Members, including Japan. Japan considered the measure to be 
WTO-inconsistent and urged Nigeria to revise it so as to  ensure that it would no longer adversely 
affect Members' exports.  
13.20.   The delegate of Nigeria  thanke d delegations for having raised their concerns with regard to 
the CBN  measures, the licensing regime applied to fish and fish products , and the local content 
requirements on oil and gas. The Nigerian government was engaged in an activ e review of these 
meas ures and all the concerns had already been conveyed to Abuja where they  were being 
considered in the context of a review process  that includ ed consultations with different 
stakeholders.  
13.21.   Regarding the local content issue, Nigeria recalled that at the last CVA Committee meeting 
it had informed Members that the relevant ministries and institutions were already engaged in 
internal consultations with a view to address ing some of the concerns Members had expressed as 
well as to explore ways of amendment to be further considered by the National Assembly. Nigeria 
was deeply concerned about the situation described  and assured the Council that it would abide by 
its WTO  commitments . Nigeria count ed on the continued cooperation and goodwill of all Members.  
13.22.   The Chairperson thanked delegations for their interventions and proposed that the Council 
take note of the statements made.  
13.23.   The Council so agreed . 
14  INDONESIA'S IMPORT A ND EXPORT RESTRICTIN G POLICIES AND PRACT ICES – 
REQUEST FROM THE EUR OPEAN UNION, JAPAN, AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  
14.1.   The Chairperson  informed the Council that , in communications dated 4  November  2016, the 
delegations of the European Union, Japan, and the United States , respectively, had requested the 
Secretariat to include this issue  on the agenda.  
14.2.   The delegate of the United States  expressed the hope of her delegation that Indonesia's 
new trade minister would continue to pursue the trade policy changes initiated by his predecessor 
so as to  make Indonesia a more attractive business and investment market . Despite the few 
positive changes that had been introduced to Indonesia's trade policies  in 2015 , as a whole, 
Indonesia's policies remained overly restrictive and damaging  to its trading partners. Examples of 
these were the new regulations that restrict ed market access and impose d localization 
requirements , which could be found across many sectors, including mining, oil and gas, 
franchising, retail, and telecommunications . Indeed, in early 2016, the Ministry of Trade and the 
Ministry of Industry had establis hed regulations  that conditioned import licen ces for 
4G LTE-enabled devices to the fulfilment  of local content requirements. Although Indonesia had 
made efforts to make these local content requirements flexible, the US had found that, at their 
core, they r emained a significant and unnecessary obstacle to trade.  
14.3.   The revised import licensing scheme for agricultural products also remained an obstacle to 
trade. The import quotas for horticultural products and the new so -called "5 plus 1 " import 
program me, accor ding to which for every five  cows imported one should be a breeding cow , 
illustrated such obstacles and merely replace d one  restrictive regime with another.  G/C/M/127  
 
- 18 - 
 
  14.4.   The data localization requirements contained in the Financial Services Authority (OJK) and 
Ministry  of Communication and Information (KOMINFO) draft regulations, together with new draft 
measures that would require "over-the-top" companies to register as permanent businesses in 
Indonesia, might hinder the efforts Indonesia was making, even though their stated rationale was 
to develop Indonesia' s E-Commerce and ICT  sector s. 
14.5.   The US continued to be concerned about Indonesia's  unique technical and testing 
requirements, particularly for consumer goods and food product s, and continued monitoring 
closely the imp lementation of the Halal Law . Despite the few improvements to transparency put in 
place by the former Trade Minister , such as the creation of a website for draft regulations and the 
opportunity to provide comments, the Ministry had neither provid ed adequat e time periods to 
comment upon new regulations nor publish ed online the most recent regulations. The US also 
urged Indonesia to notify its pre-shipment inspection requirements and also its subsidy 
program mes, particularly as the re had been no updates on In donesia 's subsidies  since 1995. 
14.6.   The above -mentioned trade barriers were a few examples of the obstacles that the US and 
other foreign  companies continued to face in Indonesia. The Council was well acquainted with 
these and the other concerns raised by the US in previous meetings, such as the measures 
affecting a broad range of sectors, including agriculture, energy, information and communications 
technology, and consumer goods. The se measures include d import licensing requirements, trading 
rights limitation s, pre -shipment inspection requirements, standards requirements, local content 
and domestic manufacturing requirements, and export restrictions, including taxes and 
prohibitions.  
14.7.   The US would continue to raise its concerns bilaterally and in the appropriat e WTO  bodies , 
including the Committees on Import Licensing, TBT, Customs Valuation, and TRIMS. The US 
believed that the senior leadership in Indonesia 's government would understand that Indonesia 
had to position itself to be competitive , and that this mean t taking the necessary steps to ensure 
that Indonesia was as attractive as its neighbours as a place to do busine ss and in which to invest.  
The United States acknowledged that the reform process was challenging but r emain ed optimistic 
that Indonesia w ould succeed. The United States looked forward to continuing its work with 
Indonesia to wards  support ing its reform agenda and address ing these  long-standing concerns.  
14.8.   The delegate of Japan  praised Indonesia for its adoption of  14 economic deregulation 
packages and for having introduced some simplified administrative procedures. However, as 
indicated at previous CTG meetings and other WTO Committees, Japan, together with other 
WTO Members, was compelled once again to express its concerns with regard to a protract ed 
series of laws and regulations, namely, the Mining Law, the Law on Trade, the Law on Industry, 
restrictions in the retail sector, sales restrictions on 4G  mobile phones , and local content 
requirements for investment in the telecommunication s sector. It was regrettable that these 
measures ha d not yet been rectified, particularly as most of these were not WTO-compatible . 
14.9.   With regard to 4G  LTE mobile devices, Regulation  65/2016  of the Ministry of Industry  
provided  for the calculation of the local content ra tes (the T KDN in Indonesian). However, and as 
Japan had pointed  out at the last TRIMS  meeting, it was not clear how the local content rates were 
calculated. Japan again request ed Indonesia to provide detailed explanations with regard to the 
implementation of this Regulation  as, in Japan 's view , this measure was inconsistent with the 
TRIMS  Agreement. Japan called  upon Indonesia to bring its measures into conformity with the 
WTO Agreements.  
14.10.   Japanese industries had suffered economic injury as a result of the m easures in place 
under the Mining Law and Japan once again urge d Indonesia to revise this law and to eliminate the 
prohibition o n unprocessed minerals, in particular nickel . Japan consider ed that these protectionist 
measures had a negative impact on domest ic industries and consumers in Indonesia , both in the 
mid- and the long-term. Additionally, these measures ra n counter to Indonesia' s efforts to develop 
business -friendly  environments through the relaxation of regulations.  Japan urged Indonesia 
seriously to consider the concerns raised by Members and to make a real effort to introduce 
transparent, predictable , and WTO -consistent measures on trade and investment.  G/C/M/127  
 
- 19 - 
 
  14.11.   With regard to Indonesia' s explanation at the last CTG  meeting that its policies were 
justified on safety, health , and environmental grounds, Japan did not believe that all measures 
relating to health and environment were always justified under GATT  Article  XX, as this Article in 
fact impose d strict conditions. And Japan likewise had no intention of denying the possibility of 
recourse to  investment promotion measures and industrial development measures . Nevertheless, 
Japan believed  that these measures should be implemented in a WTO-consistent man ner and 
Japan for this reason urged Indonesia to provide  Members with updated information on th em as it 
had been requested to do at the previous CTG meeting and at the TRIMs Committee.  
14.12.   The delegate of the European Union  regretted to have to refer again to a long list of trade 
barriers already raised by the EU in this Co uncil. She acknowledged Indonesia's intention to reform 
the current restrictive trade and investment measures but indicated, like many others, that the 
reforms were limited and lack ed the necessary transparency.  Indeed, t he persistently high numbe r 
of restricting and protectionist trade and investment measures and the lack of predictability of the 
business environment  continued to worry the European Union . Examples of these were the lack of 
clarity on the implementation of a more flexible import li censing regime applied  to certain sectors , 
as in the case of product -specific licences in the textiles sector, or the VAT  exemption for certain 
imported goods . Despite the recent opening of certain sectors to foreign investment, there was no 
clarity as to how and when these measures would be implemented , and as to how these measures 
co-existed with the broader non -automatic import licensing o bligations and the existing 
quantitative restrictions in place before the changes  were announced . 
14.13.   She also shared the  concerns raised by other speakers about the use of local content 
requirements , which persist ed in the telecoms, retail , and energy sectors , and that had even been 
strengthened , as in the case of construction and public procurement.  The minimum capital 
requirements and the limitation of operation to only certain ports and airports for foreign freight 
forwarders remained in place and were not only high but also discriminatory. Other complex, 
time-consuming , and burdensome import requirements continued to be persistently applied in 
various sectors , such as meat and dairy products, fresh plants, horticulture, wood and forestry 
products , and cosmetics. These were often amplified by the implementation of quantitative 
restrictions , as in the case of meat and alcoh ol products.  Another import -restrictive measure was 
the imposition of a pre -paid corporate income tax on importers , whose effect was still unclear 
given  the recent postponement of import duty payments.  
14.14.   The entry port restrictions applied in Jakarta 's main port and other export restrictions 
applied on certain raw materials continued to undermine the EU 's ability to export food , and to 
disrupt international markets and increase costs for producers . All these led to uncertainty in 
terms of supply.  There were o ther b urdensome and discriminatory conformity assessment 
procedures  and a  proliferation of mandatory technical standards that were having an adverse 
impact upon trade , such as the Halal law, which affected food and beverages, pharmaceutical  and 
cosmetic  goods, and exports of leather  goods.  
14.15.   She again called upon Indonesia to remove the above -mentioned trade barriers and to 
provide clarity and transparency to its trade rules, including on the measures that had been 
recently eliminated. Detailed information on the state of play of the implementation of the laws on 
Trade and Industry was also needed.  
14.16.   The delegate of Brazil  stated that, like other delegations, Brazil wished to make reference 
to its statements on this subject already made at previous CTG  meetings.  Brazil shared the 
concerns voiced by previous speakers with regard to Indonesia's import restricting practices, which 
violated a range of WTO  disciplines and particularly undermined access to the Indonesian market 
of Brazilian exporters of poultry and bov ine meat. After a number of failed attempts to negotiate a 
solution with Indonesia the Brazilian government had had no other option but to initiate 
two proceedings in the WTO  Dispute Settlement Mechanism (DSM) in order to redress Indonesia's 
policies: DS48 4, concerning chicken meat and chicken products, presently in its panel phase; and 
DS506, concerning bovine meat, still at consultation phase. Brazil urged Indonesia to lift its 
trade -restrictive measures, which adversely affected Brazilian interests as we ll as those of other 
WTO Members.  
14.17.   The delegate of New Zealand  shared the concerns raised by previous speakers with regard 
to the number of import restrictions in Indonesia's laws and regulations, which affect ed trade 
across a range of agricultural products , including horticultural and animal products . As stated at G/C/M/127  
 
- 20 - 
 
  previous meetings, Indonesia's restrictions hurt not only exporters but also Indonesian consumers, 
producers , and processors. The measures had also contributed to rises in food prices in Indonesia , 
including for basic foodstuffs , and undermined Indonesia's efforts to increase local capacity and 
jobs given their potential imp act on supply chains.  New Zealand hoped that Indonesia's reform 
plans would steer its policies back in a WTO -consistent direct ion. 
14.18.   The delegate of Chinese Taipei  reiterated the systemic concerns of her delegation with 
regard to Indone sia's trade policy and practice, and in particular with regard to the local content 
requirement for 4G  mobile phones.  
14.19.   The delegate of  the Republic o f Korea  echoed the concerns expressed by previous speakers  
and welcomed the economic deregulation package adopted by the Indonesian Government. 
However, many trade restrictive measures were still in place. In particular, Korea reiterated its 
concerns with regard to the pre -paid corporate income tax on importers according to which 
importers were required to pay 10% of the pre -paid tax on 502  imported products. The possibility 
for them to claim a tax refund at the end of the taxable year was unfair a s it pose d an extra 
burden on importers. Korea believed this tax to be inconsistent with GATT  Article  III and hoped it 
could promptly be fixed . 
14.20.   Korea was likewise still concerned about the Law on Trade and the Law on Industry of 
Indonesia, which included many trade  and investment restrictive articles. Korea asked Indonesia 
to review these laws  in accordance with the relevant WTO  rules and to provide relevant 
information on the ir subordinate regulations.  Korea would continue to work closely with Indonesia 
to address these conc erns. 
14.21.   The delegate of Australia  said that Australia, like others, remained concerned about 
Indonesia's import and export -restricting policies in recent years, particularly as the se affect ed 
agricultural trade.  His delegation had explained these c oncerns in full in previous meetings but 
wanted to highlight the issues with regard to the Halal  law. Australia recognized the importance of 
halal assurance to many Indonesian consumers and also Indonesia's right to provide consumer 
information , and welcom ed the decision to delay the introduction of the regulation until 
November  2019. Considering that some aspects of the proposed measures could be unnecessarily 
trade -restrictive , Indonesia should explain the consistency of the registration requirements with 
the national treatment obligations , particularly as these would not apply to local products.  He also 
emphasized the importance of the early publication of the se regulations so as to allow traders time 
to adapt to any changes. Australia was ready to cooper ate with Indonesia to ensure the 
consistency of the measure's objectives with WTO  rules.  
14.22.   The delegate of Norway  shared the concerns expressed by other speakers. Norwegian 
exporters had reported difficulties with regard to the Indonesian import regime, and especially 
with regard to import quotas , which were a barrier to trade. Norway hoped that recent 
developments in Indonesia might lead to greater progress, and looked forward to working together 
with Indonesia on these issues.  
14.23.   The delegate of Canada  shared the concerns expressed by other Members regarding 
Indonesia's persisting import restricting policies and practices and encourage d Indonesia to 
respect its WTO  obligations, in particular with regard to import licensing  procedures . Canada had 
also raised its  specific concerns at the relevant WTO  bodies and would bring them to this Council, 
if appropriate, at a later stage.  
14.24.   The delegate of Indonesia  recalled that , at the July  2016 meeting  of the Council,  his 
delegation had already provided some responses to th e concerns raised at this meeting. He 
therefore  requested the Secretariat to refer to the relevant part from the minutes  of that meeting2, 
and asked Members to provide their written statements so that these could be forwarded to 
Capital.  Indonesia did not intend to create barriers to trade for other Members ; its import and 
export policies were justified by objectives such as health, environment, and public morals.  
Indonesia had always tried to ensure the consistency of its trade -related policies and regulat ions 
with its WTO  obligations  and the current administration was taking the necessary steps to further 
streamline export and import processes . Indeed, t hrough an economic deregulation package , 
Indonesia intended to improve investment  conditions and purchas ing capacity while  ensuring its 
                                                
2 See document  G/C/M/125, paragraphs  8.21-8.23 and document  G/C/M/126, paragraphs  11.30 -11.31.  G/C/M/127  
 
- 21 - 
 
  commitment towards sustainable development.  The implementation of this programme consisted 
in the harmoniz ation of regulations, the simplif ication of bureaucratic procedures , and the 
implemen tation of an efficient legal enfo rcement.  Consequently, some local regulations had been 
eliminated and the deadlines to process various licences had been reduced.  Indonesia would 
continue  in its efforts to address Members' c oncerns by revoking or amending measures that were 
deemed to be i nconsistent with its WTO  obligations , and Indonesia was also ready to continue 
working with interested Members with a view to a ddress ing their concerns together with 
Indonesia's own development challenges.  
14.25.   The Chairperson  thanked delegations for their interventions  and proposed that the Council 
take note of the statements made.  
14.26.   The Council so agreed . 
15  ECUADOR – IMPORT RESTRICTING M EASURES – REQUEST FROM JAPAN A ND THE 
UNITED STATES OF AME RICA  
15.1.   The Chairperson  inform ed the Council that, in communications dated 4 November  2016, the 
delegations of Japan and the United States , respectively, had requested the Secretariat to again 
include this issue in the agenda of the CTG.  
15.2.   The delegate of Japan  welcomed Ecuador's announcement that it would terminate the 
import rest ricting measures on automobiles by end -2016. Japan hoped that the elimination of 
these measures would be implemented as announced given that Ecuador had already extended 
them several times and that there were already indications that Ecuador would introduc e a 
renewed restriction on automobile s for environmental purpose s. Although the policy direction may 
have been suitable for achieving the stated environmental objective, Japan called on Ecuador to 
avoid excessive environmental restrictions that would at the same time have a  trade -distorting 
effect.  
15.3.   With regard to the Balance of Payment (BOP) measures, Japan welcomed Ecuador's decision 
to replace the 40% surcharge with  a 35% surcharge, and the 25% surcharge with a 
15% surcharge , respectively. However, as previously expressed in this Council and in the 
BOP Committee, Japan' s position remain ed unchanged and for these reasons Japan again urged 
Ecuador promptly to eliminate this measure.  
15.4.   The delegate of the United States  also welcomed Ecuador's decision to reduce  its balance of 
payment safeguards by 5%.  The US had been sensitive to Ecuador's BOP situation, which ha d 
worsened in recent years and had been negatively affected, too, by the earthquake in April  2016. 
The United States shared Ecuador's objective of elimi nating the tariff surcharge , particularly since 
Ecuador's BOP was now positive . This elimination should take place as soon as possible and not in 
2017 as proposed in the phase -out Ecuador had previewed ; there should be no further extensions . 
The US welcome d Ecuador's decision to recognize the American Federal Motor Vehicle Safety 
Standards and to reduce, as of 1 January  2017, vehicle import quotas  that had raised concerns 
regarding Ecuador's WTO  commitments.  
15.5.   The delegate of  the Republic of Korea  also welcom ed Ecuador's decision to terminate the 
import quota on automobiles by end-2016 and anticipated that this would have a positive impact 
on trade between the two  countries. Nevertheless, Korea continued to be concerned about the 
negative trade effects of the BOP safeguard measures , which undermined basic WTO  principles. He 
asked Ecuador to consider alternative and WTO -consistent policy options and to abolish the current 
safeguard measures.  
15.6.   The delegate of Canada  joined previous speakers in welcoming Ecuador's elimination of 
import quotas in the auto mobile  sector ; Canada would continue monitoring this issue. Despite the 
recent reduction of the import surcharges from 40% to 35% , and from 25% to 15%, Canada 
continued to be concerned about the way in which Ecuador was applying its import measures. He 
asked Ecuador to continue updat ing Members on this issue.  G/C/M/127  
 
- 22 - 
 
  15.7.   The delegate of the European Union  joined previous speakers in welcoming the elimination 
of Ecuador's quotas on automobiles as from 1  January  2017. If there were  new import regulations 
the EU expected these to be WTO-compliant and duly notified. Regarding the BOP  measures, the 
EU had reiterated its position on this issue at the last BOP  Committee meeting.  
15.8.   The delegate of Switzerland  reiterated the concerns of his delegation with regard to 
Ecuador's longstanding BOP  measures , and welcomed the transparency Ecuador had shown when 
communicating updates to those  measures . Despite the efforts Ecuador had made to comply with 
WTO rules, including on transparency, Switzerla nd still had concerns about the  WTO-consistency 
and potential distorting design and  application of these measures.  
15.9.   The delegate of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  reiterated Venezuela's support for 
Ecuador's BOP  measures . These were WTO -compliant and corresponded to the available 
exceptions provided for developing countries hav ing an important decrease in their international 
reserves , and requiring to safeguard their international trade  sector  and preserve their industry , 
such as the automobile sector,  as well as t o face the negative impact  of natural disasters.  
15.10.   The delegate of Ecuador  stated that Resolution  0-250/2015 of COMEX to which Members 
had referred , aimed to protect , through the establishment of a global quota , human life, and 
health , and the e nvironment , and that it would not be extended . Consequently, no quantitative 
restrictions would apply to imports of vehicles and their parts as from 1  January  2017. Ecuador 
indicated that the C TG was not the appropriate place to deal with BOP safeguard mea sures , but 
rather the BOP  Committee , whose next meeting would take pla ce by end-November  2016.  
15.11.   The Chairperson  thanked delegations for their interventions and proposed that the Council 
take note of the statements made.  
15.12.   The Council so agreed . 
16  INDIA – IMPORT  RESTRICTING MEASURES  – REQUEST FROM THE EUR OPEAN UNION, 
JAPAN, NEW ZEALAND, AND THE UNITED STATES OF AME RICA  
16.1.   The Chairperson  inform ed the Council that, in communications dated 4  November  2016, the 
delegations of the European Union, Japan, New Zealand, and  the United States , respectively, had 
requested the Secretariat to again include this issue on the agenda.  
16.2.   The delegate of the European Union  regretted to feel compelled  to raise again this issue in 
the CTG. The EU had made several attempts to address its concerns about tariffs related to 
products covered by the Information Technology Agreement (ITA) in the CMA, the ITA Committee , 
and in this Council. Efforts had also been made to solve the issue bilaterally . However, India's 
explanation , that the products in question were new and did not fall under ITA -1, had not 
convinced the European Union that India's  10% import duty on IT  products  was justified . 
16.3.   The European Union believed that the ITA cover ed all products classified in the  WTO model  
list of items  (JOB(07)/96). The HS  codes , which define d the products covered by the ITA, were 
fully specific at the HS  6-digit level , or as X -outs. Consequently, w hen products were fully specified 
at the HS  6-digit level, they all f ell within the scope of the ITA, regardless  of their description.  In 
the particular case of subheading  85-17-52, the full HS  code was covered by the ITA and, 
subsequently , all products falling into this subheading were covered as well, including the items 
mentioned by the EU in its written question s to India.  She highlighted that , in its WTO  Schedule of 
Concessions , India had  agreed  a zero bound  duty for item  85-17-62-90 and should abide by this 
commitment.  Finally , she underscored that India was the only ITA  Member that ha d levied duties 
on such pr oducts , and that, given the importance of these products for international trade and 
EU operators , she requested India to proceed with the elimination of these duties  without delay . 
16.4.   The delegate of the United States  reiterated the concerns of her delegatio n regarding India' s 
import duties on certain telecommunication s products. The United States , along with other s, had 
sent a communication to India in April 2016 containing questions and also requesting further 
explanation  of the existing concerns  on the 10 % tariffs imposed by India , in August  2014, on 
four broad categories of telecommunications equipment , which were covered by  the ITA , and 
which were also contained in India' s Schedu le of Concessions bound at a zero duty. G/C/M/127  
 
- 23 - 
 
  16.5.   The US welcomed the reply sent recent ly by India but for over eight  months had 
nevertheless continued to seek clarification from India as to whether or not it considered that the 
products  fell within the HS  codes identified in the US questions. This issue was not about 
telecommunication s technologies but, as India had indicated in its response, the concern referred 
to India's bound tariffs and the potential inconsistencies between its duty -free and import duties in 
India's 2015 -2016 MFN  applied list of concessions. In other words, India should  justify the 
introduction of a 10% import duty for certain telecommunications products, as in the case of 
HS subheading 85176200 , where the entire HS  6-digit subheading was bound at zero in India 's 
Schedule of Concessions although in its MFN  list there was  an applied duty of 10%. In this 
example , the type of good did not really matter but  what was important were  the duties imposed 
at the border , which did not correspond to India 's bound commitments. Unfortunately , this was not 
the only case , and for these r easons the US was now examining other products and sectors in 
India's 2015 -2016 MFN  list of concessions. She asked India to provide concrete responses before 
the December meeting of the General Council.  
16.6.   The delegate of New Zealand  also regretted to raise again India's import restricting 
measures in the CTG  but, like others, New Zealand had not received answers to repeated 
questions posed to India in this Council and in the Committees on Agriculture, SPS, Import 
Licensing , and TBT . New Zealand had co-sponsor ed this agenda item because it continued to be 
concerned by  India's port closures to apple imports . These c oncerns fell into three  categories: 
(i) over the closures themselves ; (ii)  over the process of the closures ; and (iii) about the ir 
apparent lack of r ationale and WTO -consistency.  India's restrict ions on imported apples at many of 
its ports , adopted  on 14  September  2015, had been taken without any prior consultation and had 
been immediately applied . Some of the ports ha d since then be en reopened  but Visakhapatnam 
and Tuticorin still remained closed to imports of apples.  These closures were inconsistent with 
Article  4 of the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) and with GATT  Article  XI. 
16.7.   Despite the various requests made in the above -mentioned bodies, India had not provided 
any explanation but had repeatedly informed the WTO bodies that th is issue was not relevant . 
However, in the Committee on Agriculture , the Chair had concluded otherwise.  India should share 
the rationale behind its decision so as to explain why apples were being treated different ly from 
other imported products, how long the port closures would remain  in place , and if the decision was 
in India's view consistent with Article  4.2 of the AoA , which stated that "Members shall not 
maintain, resort to,  or revert to any measures of the kind which have been required to be 
converted into ordinary customs duties" . 
16.8.   The delegate of Thailand  shared the commercial and systemic concerns of earlier speakers 
with regard to India's tariff treatment applied to produ cts under HS heading 85 -17. Thailand 
looked forward to find ing a mutually satisfactory solution.  
16.9.   The delegate of Japan  recalled concerns expressed at previous CTG  meetings over India 's 
Minimum Import Prices (MIPs) measure , and regretted that India had exte nded the measure to 
66 iron and steel products as of 4  August and 4  October  2016, respectively . Despite the appeals to 
repeal the measure made by Japan to India at previous CTG  meetings and at the CMA, India had 
indicated that it would continue its application until 4  December  2016. MIPs had an adverse impact 
on the export of iron and steel products from Japan. And Japan consider ed the measure to be 
inconsistent with GATT  Article  XI, and urged India to remove it immediately and to refrain from 
extending the  period of its application beyond the current period.  
16.10.   Japan also recalled concerns raised previously over  India's imposition , in April 2016, of 
safeguard (SG) measures on hot -rolled flat steel products. As mentioned at the last meeting of the 
SG Committee,  Japan considered that this SG  measure did not meet the requirement that the 
increase of imports should have a logical connection with "unforeseen developments" and "the 
effect" under GATT  Article  XIX:1(a). Japan requested India to remove this SG  measure a s soon as 
possible.  
16.11.   Japan also echoed concerns raised at this meeting on ICT products and, referring to India 's 
responses to the questionnaire submitted by the EU, Japan,  and the U S in April  2016, noted that , 
in its replies , India had confirmed that all four products listed in its customs notification  11/2014 
were subject to a 10% Basic Customs Duty. Japan believed that , since the customs duties of the 
four products were bound to zero , except for certain type s of receivers, the 10% basic customs 
duty on the se four  products was inconsistent with GATT  Article II. He asked India to confirm this . G/C/M/127  
 
- 24 - 
 
  16.12.   The delegate of Australia  echoed the concerns already expressed regarding the trade 
restrictive measures introduced by India across a range of industry sectors, in part icular the 
measures on iron and steel products , and the introduction of a n MIP in addition to a safeguard 
measure on steel imports designed to curb imports competing on India's market.  At the 
CTG meeting in April 2016 India had indicated that these measure s had to be discussed fi rst at the 
relevant Committees , and that it was premature to raise them at the CTG  level. Given that such 
discussion and review had  now taken place in the relevant Committees, Australia sought 
clarification from India as to how a n MIP interacted  with the requirements to justify and impos e 
trade remedies , and if India could clarify whether or not it would extend or remove this measure . 
16.13.   The delegate of  the Republic of Korea  shared the concerns expressed  by other delegations  
with regard  to India's import restricting measures, particularly with regard to India's safeguard 
measures on hot -rolled steel products. Safeguard measures were one of the most trade -restrictive 
instruments available to governments and Korea believed that these shoul d be adopted with 
caution and to protect fair trade only in very exceptional circumstances  and as a last resort . Korea 
also doubted that there existed serious injury to India's steel industry or objective evidence of the 
causal link between serious injury and increased imports. In Korea 's view, India's safeguard s 
measure s did not meet the strict requirements of the Safeguard Agreement  and India 's 
government should withdraw  these measures promptly.  
16.14.   The delegate of Canada  echoed the concerns raised by other M embers regarding India 's 
notification No. 11/2014. These  concerns  had also been raised at the ITA and the M A Committees. 
Canada found that the increased applied rates for items covered under HS  code 85-17 were 
inconsistent with India's bound commitments in the ITA and ra n contrary to the objectives of 
multilateral tariff liberalization.  The increased applied rates could hinder and have a negative 
impact on Canada's exports to India for the products under this HS heading.  India had recently 
provided partial information on this issue but Canada looked forward to India's comprehensive 
responses to the collective questions posed to it. India should respect  its commitments under the 
ITA. 
16.15.   Canada also shared  the concerns raised by other  Member s regarding India's imposition of 
MIPs on several iron and steel products.  This type of measure affect ed global trade patterns in iron 
and steel products.  He encouraged India to respect its obligations under GATT  Article  XI. 
16.16.   Canada continued to be concerned by the large number of safeguard measures being 
applied by India . All Members ha d the right to initiate safeguard proceedings and to apply 
safeguard measures.  However, safeguards were unique among trade remedy measures in that 
they targeted  fairly traded imports ; thus, Member s should be especially diligent in following the 
rules governing their use.  
16.17.   Canada also looked forward to receiving from India a complete response to New Zealand's 
concerns and questions regarding port closures for imports of apples.  
16.18.   The delegate of Chines e Taipei  recalled that , at the March and July meetings of this Council 
her delegation had invited India to provide more detail with regard to the MIP measures on certain 
iron and steel products , and to explain their compliance with GATT  Article  XI. India h ad responded 
that this issue should first be discussed in the CMA although Chinese Taipei remained unconvinced 
by this sequencing. She requested  India to respond to these concerns and also echoed those 
concerns raised previously with regard to India's incr eased tariff on ICT  products , which were 
already covered by the ITA. Given the commercial interest of Chinese Taipei in ICT  products , she 
urged India to adopt only measures that were consistent with the WTO  Agreements.  
16.19.   The delegate of China  echoed New Zeal and's concerns with regard to India's restriction s on 
apple import s. China appreciated that India had now re -opened several ports but nevertheless 
expected to receive further information on the procedures applied regarding apple imports, such 
as their expe cted duration and rationale.  
16.20.   The delegate of India thanked previous speakers for their interest in those trade measures 
to which they had referred. Regarding the imposition of customs dut ies on certain IT and telecom 
goods he recalled that India had alread y presented its views on this matter and had now submitted 
document  G/IT/W/42 containing written response s to the questions addressed to India in G/C/M/127  
 
- 25 - 
 
  document  G/MA/W/120.  With regard to the customs classification issues contained in India 's 
notification No. 11, dated July  2014, he reiterated that the main issue was not  the classification 
but rather the tariff binding commitments.  India believe d that the goods in question were not 
covered under its ITA  commitments. India had signed the ITA-1 in 1997 and had subm itted its 
Schedule of Commitment s, which had subsequently been certified , in document  WT/Let/181.  
16.21.   India ha d also explained that IT and telecom technologies ha d evolved over the years. New 
technologies, applications , and equipment ha d been developed that were neither existent nor even 
conceived at the time of signing ITA -1. Further more, by the time that ITA-1 was negotiated, 
HS code 85 -17 for telecom s equipment referred to telecommunication s apparatus for carrier 
current line systems and digital line systems . However, in the last few years , several new 
technologies ha d been developed.  Subsequently, the said code had  been expanded to include new 
technological developments and India 's ITA-1 obligations were limited to those items that 
conform ed to the 1996  definition of products for carrier current line system and digital line 
systems. Therefore, the new  products that ha d lately been classified under this heading could not 
be considered as part of India's ITA-1 commitment s. Indeed, India was not intending to tak e any 
new commitment on goods for which it had not signed in  ITA-1, and which ha d subsequently 
evolved. It was evident that to consider new technological developments and new products some 
participants ha d concluded ITA -2, of which I ndia was not a signator y. 
16.22.   India also reiterated that , for each line of its commitment s under the ITA, India's Schedule 
clearly mention ed its source which , in this case , was  WT/Let/181. India ha d not committed what 
was beyond its ITA commitment inscribed in document  WT/Let/181.  
16.23.   He also said that , on the MIPs on steel products , India had already clarified its position , 
and in this regard he therefore invited those Members concerned to refer to India's statement in 
the Council meeting of  14 July 2016. He recalled that , when the MIP  measure started , in 
February  2016, it covered 173  national tariff lines  and was imposed on a temporary basis in order 
to reduce distress afflicting the domestic industry on account of unprecedented imports arising 
from unfair international business practic es such as predatory pricing. However, in August  2016, 
107 tariff lines had been removed from the MIP regime , bringing the list down to only 66  tariff 
lines and, o n 4 October  2016, the MIP term ha d been extended , for only those limited 66  tariff 
lines, until 4 December  2016.  
16.24.   Regarding safeguard measures on steel, India consider ed that its measures were 
consistent  with the Safeguards  Agreement and the procedures contained therein. The matter was 
under discussion in the Committee on Safeguards, where  India ha d responded to the queries  of 
Members concerned . The concerns raised at this meeting would be conveyed to his authorities for 
consideration  and his delegation was open to discuss any additional issue  bilaterally . 
16.25.   The port restriction on apples  had also bee n discussed at previous meeting s, at which India 
had informed Members that, according to DGFT  Notification No.  2 of 2015 -2020, dated 
14 September  2015, import of apples was allowed only through one  port. However, after a 
detailed review, the Government had issued Notification No.  30, 2015 -2020, dated 
12 January  2016, allowing those imports through sea and air ports in Delhi, Calcutta, Chennai, 
Mumbai , and Cochin , and land ports  and India's land borders.  The Government was constantly 
monitoring the situation . Thus, the issues raised by New Zealand at this meeting were being 
examined  in Capital , in consultation with ministries and administrative authorities . India also 
continued to engage with New Zealand bilaterally so as to allay its concerns.  
16.26.   The delegate o f New Zealand  thanked India for its statement and responses and recalled 
that New Zealand had addressed questions to India on this issue on 12  occasions and in a number 
of different WTO  bodies. New Zealand hoped that these  questions  would not be treated ag ain as if 
a surprise.  
16.27.   The delegate of India took note of New Zealand 's concern and comment.  
16.28.   The Chairperson  thanked delegations for their interventions and proposed that the Council 
take note of the statements made.  
16.29.   The Council so agreed . G/C/M/127  
 
- 26 - 
 
  17  CHINA – IMPORT TA X ON PERSONAL EFFECT S AT THE BORDER – REQUEST FROM 
JAPAN  
17.1.   The Chairperson  informed the Council that the delegation of Japan , in a communication 
dated 4  November  2016, had requested  that the Secretariat include this issue on the agenda . 
17.2.   The delegate of Japan  recalled that import taxes were being imposed by China on several 
personal effects higher than those on identical commercial goods. China 's responses and 
explanations provided bilaterally in Geneva and in capitals had not clarified the difficulties inhere nt 
in choosing  imposition of MFN  duty rate on personal effects. Japan also questioned China 's 
explanation that the WTO  Agreements did not deal with personal effects and that  GATT  provisions 
did not apply to import tax es on personal effects. Japan asked Chi na to further explain the 
consistency of its measure with the WTO  Agreements , and also to clarify why it believe d personal 
effects were exempt from application of the WTO  Agreements . 
17.3.   The delegate of  the Republic of Korea  shared the concerns expressed  by Ja pan with regard 
to China's measure on Personal Effec ts at the Border . This measure , implemented in April  2016, 
constituted not only an adjustment of the import tax but also of import procedures for goods 
traded by E-Commerce. Under the new measure, simplif ied procedures , which had previously been 
applied to all goods traded by E-Commerce,  would hereafter  be applied only to goods on the 
positive list. This meant that many goods traded through E-Commerce might now be subject to 
cross-border regulations such a s TBT and SPS.  The positive list had not been fully implemented 
and Korea was concerned  that it would have a negative impact on cross-border E-Commerce.  
Korea asked China to provide further details of its measure and to consider the concerns r aised to 
facilitate E-Commerce.  
17.4.   The delegate of China  asked Korea and Japan to provide their statements in written form to 
facilitate consideration of them in Beijing. A ccording to China 's Regulations on Import and Export 
Duties, in general, import or export goods were subject to the Customs Import and Export Tariff, 
while the inward articles , such as personal belongings for travellers , were subject to the Flat Duty 
Rates on Inward Articles. Meanwhile, there was no prohibition for inward articles to be subject to 
the Cu stoms Import tariff.  The Flat Duty Rates on Inward Articles  referred to the comprehensive 
tax rates of corresponding import goods, including customs duties, value -added tax , and excise 
tax during import. Therefore , the Flat Duty Rate wa s not just an import  customs duty. 
Furthermore, the Flat Duty Rates ha d only three  levels, which were 15%, 30%, and 60%, thus it 
was a simplified system when compared to the comprehensive tax of import goods involving  
thousands of tariff lines and dozens of distinct rates. Therefore, the Flat Duty Rates  approach was 
more convenient to passengers making a declaration and would  in this way also  improve  customs 
efficiency.  
17.5.   The Chair person  proposed that the Council take note of the statements made.  
17.6.   The Council so agreed . 
18  CHINA – ISSUES RELATED TO TRA DE IN SEAFOOD – REQUEST FROM NORWAY  
18.1.   The Chairperson  informed the Council that the delegation of Norway, in a communication 
dated 4  November  2016, had requested the Secretariat to include this issue on the agenda . 
18.2.   The delegate of Norway  recalled that, as previously stated in th is Council, since 
December  2010 China had implemented several measures that ha d severely affected Norwegian 
exports of seafood.  As a result, the market share of Norwegian salmon in China ha d been reduced 
from about 95% in 2010 to approximatively 1% in autumn  2016.  The measures include d 
quarantine and testing procedures for all kinds of seafood and a system of import licensing for 
Norwegian salmon that constitute d a de facto system of import quotas.  
18.3.   The Chinese quaran tine and testing procedures applied to Norwegian seafood required to 
test and ke ep in custody all consignments waiting  for test results. Th is period  for tests could be 
considerable and affect ed negatively the shelf life of perishable food like fresh seafoo d. Since 
2010, Norway ha d consistently asked China to present its risk analysis  and justification for these 
measures.  G/C/M/127  
 
- 27 - 
 
  18.4.   China also applie d a licensing system for salmon import s that represent ed a quantitative 
restriction on import s from Norway and discrimina ted negatively imports of salmon from Norway 
compared to other trading partners.  
18.5.   Norway welcome d the new Chinese electronic system to register foreign enterprises 
approved for export to China ; it had submitted an updated list  of exporters  and was awaiting 
China 's confirmation of acceptance . 
18.6.   Norway recognize d a Member's right to set their appropriate level of protection. However, 
Norway was concerned by  China 's justification , by the proportionality of the applied measures , and 
by the lack of transparency. China had not responded to Norway 's repeated  requests f or technical 
consultations to discuss food safety issues.  Norway had asked China to act transparent ly and to 
create predictable trading conditions so as to be in conformity with the WTO 's rules, and Norway 
looked forward to continuing to cooperat e with the Chinese authorities on this matter  in order to 
norma lize trade in seafood . 
18.7.   The delegate of the European Union  echoed Norway 's concerns. The EU had also raised this 
issue several times in past meetings of this Council but remained concerned over the lack of 
effective bilateral discussion. The EU considered that i mport procedures should be transparent, 
predictable, and in line with international standards and WTO  requirements.  
18.8.   The delegate of China  recalle d that China had responded to Norway's  and the European 
Union's concerns at previous meetings , and also bilaterally , on which occasions it had explained 
the reasons and rationale of these several mea sures.  
18.9.   In recent years, and on several occasions, China's  entry and exit inspection and quarantine 
authorities had detected parasites, pathogenic micro -organisms and diseases in imported salmon, 
including chilled salmon , and had also noted that the ISA  virus had been repeatedly detected in 
Norwegian salmon. More over, international and Norwegian media had reported that toxic 
substances such as dioxins and dioxin -like PCBs exceeding the maximum limits had been detected 
in the livers of Norwegian codfish . China had notified Norway of this and expressed its concern t o 
Norway about this situation , and expected the Norwegian authorities and enterprises to strengthen 
supervision and quality controls so as to ensure the safety of export ed aquatic products to China.  
18.10.   To ensure the safety of imported aquatic products , and co nsumers ' health , and to combat 
the threats of ISA  virus to China's fishing ecological safety, China had strengthened the inspection 
and quarantine measures on imported seafood and suspended the importation of the whole 
Atlantic salmon from a few Norwegian regions. Relevant measures ha d not completely banned the 
regular importation of Norwegian aquatic products and served for risk management  purposes . The 
measures were based on China' s laws and regulations, had a scientific rationale , and considered 
the relevant risks while at the same time avoiding unnecessary trade barriers.  
18.11.   To date, China ha d approved 325  Norwegian seafood production enterprises to be 
registered in China. On 11  March  2015, following the detection of ISA virus in multiple batches of 
chilled  salmon , three Norwegian enterprises  had been suspended from the registry by China' s 
relevant authorities . The Norwegian relevant authorities had also been required to submit 
investigation documents, rectification and verification certificates , and officia l registration 
management questionnaire s for production enterprises exporting aquatic products to China. 
Norway 's relevant authorities had submitted some application documents recently ; these were 
currently being examin ed. 
18.12.   With regard to the concerns on import licences, she indicated that China require d all 
aquaculture products exported to China from all count ries and regions to obtain the Animal and 
Plant Inspection and Quarantine Permit , a requirement not addressed to certain WTO Members  
only. 
18.13.   China had also maintained and would continue to maintain a permanent communication 
with Norway,  through multiple channels, including the competent technical authorities, embassies , 
and respective WTO  Missions.  G/C/M/127  
 
- 28 - 
 
  18.14.   The delegate of Norway  thanked China  for its responses ; Norway would continue to work 
together with China on the seafood  issue. China 's explanation that the range of measures affecting 
Norwegian exports of seafood were based on  food safety  concerns only underline d the need to 
cooperate at the technical level in order to clarify the issue in l ine with WTO  Agreements. This was 
the reason why Norway had request ed to hold technical consultations.  
18.15.   She underlined that the Norwegian food safety regulations were fully harmonized with 
EU regulations through the EEAA, and that they also reflected the relevant requirements of Codex, 
OIE, and IPPC , which certified  that seafood produced anywhere in the EU/EEA  Area, including 
Norway, complied  with the same food safety requirements. As she had previously mentioned, 
Norway fully recognize d each WTO  Member's right to set its own appropriate level of protection ; 
however, it was difficult to discuss these issues without a meeting at the technical level.  
18.16.   The Chairperson  thanked delegations for their interventions and propose d that the  Council 
take note of the statements made.  
18.17.   The Council so agreed . 
19  WORK PROGRAMME ON EL ECTRONIC COMMERCE  
19.1.   The Chairperson  noted that, at the previous two  meeti ngs of the Council, of 15 April and 
14 July 2016, respectively, the Chair person had recalled that M inisters in Nairobi had adopted the  
decision contained in document  WT/L/977 on the "Work Programme on Electronic Commerce". In 
that Decision Ministers had reaffirmed not only the mandate of the "Work Programme on Electronic 
Commerce", adopted on 25  Septemb er 1998 and contained in document  WT/L/274, but also the 
subsequent Ministerial Declarations and Decisions on the Work Programme.  Therefore, Ministers 
decided to continue the work under the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce (Work 
Programme, or WPEC ) since the last session, based on the existing mandate and guidelines and on 
the basis of proposals submitted  by Members in the relevant WTO  bodies as set out in 
paragraphs  2 to 5 of the Work Programme. To this end, they had instructed the General Council to 
hold periodic reviews in its sessions of July and December  2016 and July  2017, and to report to 
the next session of the Ministerial Conference based on the reports that might be submitted by 
those WTO  bodies entrusted with the implementation of the Work Pr ogramme.  In this vein, and in 
order to fulfil the mandate, he invited delegations to express their opinions and to make 
suggestions as to how to work on the preparation of the periodic reviews to be held in the General 
Council at its sessions of December  2016 and July  2017.  
19.2.   Before opening the floor he informed d elegations that, at the next meeting of the General 
Council he intend ed, on his own responsibility, to make a factual report on the discussions h eld in 
this Council during 2016.  
19.3.   He also  inform ed the Council that, on 4  November  2016, the delegation of China had 
submitted a communication to the General Council, the Goods and Services Councils, and the 
Committee on Trade and Development. China's document was subsequently circulated under the 
following Jo b document symbols: JOB/GC/110 , JOB/CTG/2 , JOB/SERV/243 , and JOB/DEV/39. The 
delegation of Pakistan had informed the Se cretariat that it would also co -sponsor China's 
communication. Therefore, a  revised version of this document w ould be issued to include P akistan.  
19.4.   The delegate of China , on behalf of her delegation and of the delegation of Pakistan, 
introduced document  JOB/GC/110, JOB/CTG/2, JOB/SERV/243, and JOB/DEV/39.  In this 
communication both delegations indicated that , since 1998, E-Commerce ha d attrac ted attention 
from the broad WTO  Membership , and that t he W PEC had mandate d Members to examine all 
trade -related issues relating to global electronic commerce in the General Council and in its 
four subsidiary bodies.  Due to the booming development of E-Commerce worldwide, many 
Members had demonstrated a strong interest , after the Nairobi Ministerial Conference, in 
discussing  E-Commerce.  
19.5.   China had always believed that continuing the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) according 
to the existing mandate was a priori ty task , but in the meantime, and against a background of 
weak economic recovery and sluggish trade growth , discussions on E-Commerce at the WTO were 
also of great significance with regard  to helping developing Members to utilize new tools of trade G/C/M/127  
 
- 29 - 
 
  promoti on and provide more opportunities for their SMEs and disadvantaged groups to participate 
in international trade and global value chains.  To this end, China and Pakistan had issued  this 
communication as a way of supporting  WTO discussions on E-Commerce and in the hope of 
providing  inspiration for achieving progress on the topic by MC11.  The communication was divided 
into three  parts: (i) an Introduction ; (ii) Specific Elements ; and (iii) a Discussion of Organization 
and Secretariat Work. 
19.6.   The introduction emphasize d the following three   points : (i) if pragmatic progress was to be 
expected by MC11, current discussion should focus on areas like trade in goods ; (ii) the existing 
mandate should be respected and the development dimension upheld throughout the discu ssions ; 
and (iii)  the inclusiveness of trade policies should be incorporated in such a way as to help 
developing Members and their SMEs better participate in the multilateral trading system and global 
value chains , and with the intention also to  achiev e tangible benefits for SMEs . 
19.7.   The S pecific Elements section focused on  the whole process of cross -border 
internet -enabled trade in goods , including the following three  aspects : (i) creation of a sound trade 
policy environment to facilitat e cross-border E-Comme rce; (ii) enhance ment of  policy framework 
transparency with regard to cross-border E-Commerce; and (iii) improve ment of  the infrastructure 
and technical conditions for cross-border E-Commerce.  Other relevant issues for the promotion of 
cross-border interne t-enabled trade in goods were also listed  as possible subjects for future 
discussion . 
19.8.   The section on Organization and Secretariat Work raised points intended  to stimulate 
discussion on how to improve the coordination and division of responsibilities among the General 
Council and its relevant subsidiary bodies.  It also suggest ed that the Secretariat provide targeted 
technical support in the multilateral discussion so as to achieve a more pragmatic progress.  
19.9.   Based o n this communication , China and Pakistan 's wish was to engage in a n in-depth 
exchange of views with Members on how to encourage the discussion on E-Commerce leading up 
to MC11 , but given the complexity  of E-Commerce , China believe d that E-Commerce -related work 
in the WTO should proceed pragmatically , progressively , and  in a spirit of solidarity , with priority 
given to the more straightforward issues.  Moreover, in order to ad vance the discussion on 
E-Commerce  effectively , China believed that a seminar on E-Commerce and Trade in Goods under 
the auspice s of the CTG might be helpful and desirable.  Relevant stakeholders could also be invited 
to discuss issues of common interest.  China looked forward to Members ' comments and a 
productive discussion.  
19.10.   The delegate of Pakistan  thanked China for its submission on this very important issue for 
Pakistan , and also welcomed the exploratory approach proposed by China with regard to complex 
cross-cutting issues in E-Commerce . He hoped that an exchange of information and 
experience -sharing would enable Members to bridg e the information gap on this subject.  As 
co-sponsor of the paper, Pakistan was also ready to engage positively with China and other 
Members so as to advance the work on E-Commerce.  
19.11.   The delegate of the United States  welcomed China and Pakistan 's communicat ion on the 
WPEC , which contained a number of specific proposals ripe for collaboration.  There were a number 
of trade facilitation measures to encourage the transit of goods bought and sold through 
E-Commerce platforms , for example; and, as China' s communic ation suggest ed, simplifying border 
measures for imports and exports  while encouraging an exchange of information on regulatory 
measures and procedures that impact on E-Commerce . This  would encourage an increase in trade, 
particularly among SMEs that rel ied on E-Commerce platforms to export  their goods . A key issue  
in this regard was how to promote tra de facilitation measures across the board while avoid ing 
approaches that could lead to too great a differentiation between  the various channels of trade , as 
clearly t rade facilitation in one channel of trade should not come at the expense of trade 
facilitation in another.  
19.12.   China' s communication recommend ed extending the moratorium on customs duties on 
electronic transmissions. This had been agreed  at every Ministerial meeting since 1998 and ha d 
become a cornerstone of the global digital economy. The US was in favour of making this 
moratorium permanent so as to allow digitally -enabled firms greater confidence when offering  
their services around the world.  The US a lso support ed China' s recommendation to promote G/C/M/127  
 
- 30 - 
 
  mutual recognition of digital certificates and electronic signatures and encourage the use of such 
tools in cross -border E-Commerce. Electronic authentication was essential to ensuring the validity 
of online commerce  as buyers and sellers needed to  determine and agree the best method 
available to ensure the security and integrity of their transaction s. 
19.13.   The US recognized the breadth of digita l trade and encouraged  the uptake of other related 
issues  in the WTO beyond  the trade in goods. For example, digitally -delivered services should be 
afforded the same protections as services provided in an offline context, and warrant ed inclusion in 
any dia logue in the W PEC. Likewise, digital products  such as e -books, apps, m usic, and video s, 
should be protected against discrimination in the same way that Members endeavour ed to protect 
their offline analogues.  The US looked forward to an open dialogue on the specifics of China and 
Pakistan's submission.  
19.14.   The delegate of Austral ia welcomed China and Pakistan's contribution to discussions under 
the W PEC. Australia was likewise of the view that work on E-Commerce should be undertaken in a 
cooperative spirit ; Australia support ed the aim of achieving pragmatic progress on E-Commerce at 
MC11.  Australia also agree d that it would be useful to explore aspec ts of the facilitation of 
internet -enabled cross-border trade , building on the outcomes and momentum created by the 
Trade Facilitation  Agreement (TFA) . For example, Australia consider ed that Members could explore 
some of the issues highlighted in the communication relat ing to the promotion of paperless trade, 
electronic authentication , and increased transparency with respect to laws, regulations, and 
administrative measures on E-Commerce . 
19.15.   Australia also support ed making the moratorium on customs duties on electronic 
transmissions permanent, consistent with arrangements for their non -discriminatory treatment 
under internal tax measures.  Australia looked forward to gaining a better understa nding of the 
scope and modalities  of the new ideas contained in China 's submission and considered that 
Members could also explore whether or not there was scope for pragmatic progress on other 
aspects of E-Commerce in areas beyond trade in goods, such as s ervices , that facilitate d 
E-Commerce.  
19.16.   Australia remained open to any approach that would advanc e the discussion on 
E-Commerce in the WTO , and in any relevant body , and would be pleased to work with China and 
others on this issue.  
19.17.   The delegate of Canada  shared China 's view that WTO Members ha d expressed 
considerable interest in exploring what might be possible at the WTO on E-Commerce , and Canada 
welcomed China 's engagement and initiative to move the substantive discussions on this issue  
forward . Canada enco uraged all Members to work together to promote inclusive access to and 
participation in E-Commerce.  Digital trade facilitation was important, but the WTO  membership 
nevertheless needed  to reflect further on China and  Pakistan 's submission , including with a  view to 
consider ing ways to enhanc e services sector commitments and examin e where t he WTO c ould best 
contribute , particularly as Canada considered that the issue of  taxes fell outside the WTO's scope.  
19.18.   Canada also supported holding an informal joint meetin g of relevant WTO  bodies to 
facilitate a stocktaking of init iatives , examining "all trade -related issues relat ed to global electron ic 
commerce" . Canada asked for additional information on the proposed Electronic World Trade 
Platform  (EWTP ) and how it would  work in practice.  Canada looked forward to work ing with all 
WTO Members on E-Commerce issues.  
19.19.   The delegate of Colombia  welcomed China and Pakistan 's contribution to the WPEC. The 
issue of  E-Commerce was very important for Colombia, and Colombia was ready to continue 
discussing the relevant issues in each of the respective bodies in which the proposal had been 
submitted.  Colombia believed that information technology made a positive contribution to the 
internationalization of companies and could significantl y reduce associated export costs, one of the 
major obstacles  for SMEs . Thanks to E-Commerce, SMEs could operate international ly and attract 
consumers from other markets.  Colombia therefore believed that there was a positive link between 
E-Commerce and deve lopment.  G/C/M/127  
 
- 31 - 
 
  19.20.   The document would be evaluated in Capital, but Colombia already welcomed its 
submission  to the relevant WTO  bodies  and called upon Members to discuss this submission in all 
these bodies constructively and with a view to achieving significant prog ress and to obtaining a  
significant outcome . 
19.21.   The delegate of Japan  welcome d China and Pakistan 's proposal  leading up to MC11.  The 
Dedicated Sessions under the General Council faced difficult y in beginning substantive discussion 
of the issue but Japan hope d that all Members would soon engage in substantive discussion, 
including on the various issues suggested by China in its proposal. Consequently, Japan 
appreciated the suggest ion to hold a n informal joint meeting of rel evant WTO  bodies  and wished  to 
discuss  the issue with China  further . 
19.22.   Japan was still considering the specific issues  but wished already to indicate that, o verall, 
China's main  focus was trade facilitation  issues. Some of these issues were, in Japan's view, 
relevant to the WTO, but other s were  not. Therefore , Japan believe d that it would be more 
appropriate at this stage for Members to proceed with a focused discussion of issues relevant to 
the WTO and only then to explore other issues , as appropriate . 
19.23.   Japan considered that the development of E-Commerce had multiplied the number of 
product -based business transactions , particularly those based on small parcels ; the promotion of 
trade facilitation in this area was therefore essential. The trade facilitation elements included in 
China 's proposal wer e timely and deserve d to be considered. I n order to deepen the discussion, 
Japan requested China to explain its ideas and relay its experiences in relation to the elements 
mentioned in paragraph  1 of its proposal.  Japan was of the view that those elements were 
especially important, citing the use of information technology, simple and transparent trade 
procedure s, and the establishment and research of international standards. In its submission , 
Japan had emphasize d the need for paperless  trade; in other word s, computerization of business  
documents with a view to ensuring faster business  transaction s. Japan hope d to hold further 
discussion on E-Commerce and in particular with regard to the promotion of trade facilitation.  
19.24.   China 's proposal also made reference  to consumer protection, privacy protection , and 
protection of intellectual property rights. Jap an also attached  importance to discussion of other 
important areas , even if not all the subjects pertained to the CTG, such as free information flow 
across  border s. Japan expect ed China to engage in the se discussions on E-Commerce  
constructively, and welcome d China' s initiative to develop a deeper discussion of the issue, 
including a seminar  on goods under the auspices of the CTG . 
19.25.   The delegate of  the Republic of Korea welcomed China and Pakistan 's contribution to the 
WPEC . Korea hoped for a meaningful outcome on E-Commerce at MC11  and supported China's 
pragmatic approach of giving  priority to areas of common interest . Korea also agreed that the 
development dimension  should be fully considered and incorporated into MC11  outcomes and, 
given the valuable elements in China' s proposal that relate d mainly to trade in goods, Korea 
expected an  active and constructive discussion of this proposal in the CTG. The discussion sho uld 
also pursue progress on transparency, consumer protection, privacy protection , and intellectual 
property rights , and all these cross-cutting issues should be dealt with in a holistic manner. Korea 
was ready to work closely with all other Members on E-Commerce issues.  
19.26.   The delegate of the European Union  thanked China and Pakistan for their submission. The 
EU believed that there was a need to intensify and deepen discussion on  E-Commerce at the WTO. 
China's submission  on E-Commerce , as well as other submis sions, showed that the subject of 
E-Commerce was relevant to many areas , including trade in goods, trade in services, intellectual 
property, and development issues . Thus, it was useful to explore where to discuss these issues 
most appropriately , such as th e CTG  or some other body . At the same time, it was equally 
important  to maintain a horizontal discussion  such as that which had taken place  in the D edicated 
Sessions.  
19.27.   The EU found that many of the ideas in China and Pakistan's submission were 
complementary  and that they sometimes even overlapped with elements put forward by the EU 
and other co-sponsors in  document  JOB/GC/97, wh ich contained a mapping of E-Commerce 
issues. In particular, document  JOB/GC/97 emphasized the importance of initiatives that facilitated 
E-Commerce, such as paperless trade and transparency. Clearly, a more in -depth reflection and G/C/M/127  
 
- 32 - 
 
  discussion w ould be necessary to assess the feasibility of some of the se ideas and to identify other 
potential elements that m ight currently  be missing.  
19.28.   At this stage the EU could only make preliminary remarks on China and Pakistan's 
submission. The EU agreed that E-Commerce covered  a broad range of complex issues, some of 
which could be addressed at MC11 for Members ' mutual benefit  while others require d more time. 
The EU also agreed concerning the potential benefit of E-Commerce for development and for SMEs  
and support ed a further exploration of measures that would contribute to improving the 
infrastructure and the conditions for E-Commerce in developing coun tries. Indeed, Aid for Trade 
was already moving in this direction.  The EU also considered it important to provide greater clarity 
and certainty to the trading community with regard to the moratorium on customs duties  and 
advocated to make the moratorium pe rmanent.  On the ideas contained in the submission on 
customs procedures, the EU considered that several of these were also con tained in the TFA. 
Therefore, Members should focus on those issues on which  reach ing a consensus was most likely 
and rather avoid such contentious issues as, for example,  taxation policies. This was what the EU 
had understood from China 's proposal. The EU was likewise of the view  that services supporting 
E-Commerce , such as e -contracts, e -signatures, e -authentication , and consumer pr otection , could 
also form part of the collective WTO E-Commerce  discussion. Last but not least, the EU was 
supportive of the transparency -related objectives set out in document  JOB/GC/97 . The EU looked 
forward to engaging in further discussion of this issu e with all Members and based upon the 
various contributions submitted . 
19.29.   The delegate of Singapore  joined others in thanking the co -sponsors of 
document  JOB/CTG/ 2 which, as her delegation had understood, would also be introduced at the 
GC, the CTS , the CTD , and other relevant WTO bodies. Singapore was still consulting domestically 
on this new submission but made some preliminary comments  nevertheless . Singapore broadly 
supported the elements contained in th e proposal , such as trade facilitation  and, in partic ular 
facilitating internet -enabled cross-border trade in goods. The trade facilitation perspective on 
E-Commerce was one area  identified by Singapore and the co -sponsors of 
document  JOB/GC/101/Rev.1 as a priority . Her delegation hoped to provide detailed c omments on 
China and Pakistan's  proposal at the next CTG  meeting and in the meantime would  continue its 
informal discussions with Members . She encouraged Members to engage constructively and 
substantively on all proposals on E-Commerce tabled  so far , regar dless of in which WTO body they  
had been tabled.  Last but not least, Singapore supported the suggestion of holding a seminar on 
E-Commerce and trade in goods  under the auspices of the CTG.  
19.30.   The delegate of the Russian Federation  welcomed Members ' growing in terest in discussing 
E-Commerce issues  and thanked the co-sponsors for their comprehensive proposal . Russia was 
ready to discuss all the E-Commerce initiative s tabled thus far with a view to finding landing zones 
and build ing up a  common understanding amon g Members.  Considering that E-Commerce was a 
cross-cutting issue, discussions should be based on the existing mandate; a different interpretation 
of the WPEC might only raise more questions and also produce a reluctance to engage in further 
discussion of t his topic . 
19.31.   The delegate of Brazil  thanked China and Pakistan for having submitt ed what Brazil 
considered to be the closest to a comprehensive proposal on E-Commerce  to date , and that 
provided Members with a general overview of possible ways to  move forward  on E-Commerce.  
China 's intention was to begin with the less contentious issues ; its proposal therefore focused 
largely on the trade in goods via the internet , while also recognizing that this was not the only 
issue. Indeed, the proposal itself, as highlig hted also by others , considered services also to be an 
important part of the E-Commerce discussion, together with the developmental side , and 
intellectual property.  Brazil also supported the proposal to hold an informal joint discussion of 
those WTO bodies  mandated by the WPE C to discuss E-Commerce issues.  
19.32.   As Canada had previously mentioned, taxation seem ed outside the WTO's scope; Brazil did 
not consider it to be  an area that Members should pursue.  
19.33.   Brazil considered it important to see how Members might translate the proposal discussed  
into a potential deliverable for  MC11 , and stood  ready to work with China an d other Members in 
this regard.  G/C/M/127  
 
- 33 - 
 
  19.34.   The delegate of Mexico  thanked the proponents for their constructive submission. Mexico 
believed that it was  importan t to maintain and encourage E-Commerce discussions in th e WTO 
with a view to it being a possible deliverable at MC11.  Mexico had co-sponsored two of the 
seven  proposals currently tabled and discussed at the De dicated Session on E-Commerce , and 
favoured ide ntification of common elements in the various  proposal s so as  to facilitate discussion 
on this topic. Meanwhile, China 's proposal was being considered in her Capital. Nevertheless , 
Mexico could share the preliminary comment that several elements included therein focused on the 
trade facilitation of goods  and that although these elements were indeed relevant for E-Commerce, 
Mexico, like others, considered that there were also other relevant elements in services . Mexico 
suggested that Member s first identify which of these elements were already included in the legal 
provisions of the existing Agreements such as the GATT and , in particular, the TFA. 
19.35.   Mexico agreed with China that the E-Commerce discussions should not necessarily imply 
negotiations in terms of mar ket access to goods , and believed that E-Commerce was a tool that 
served to access markets that already exist ed. In this vein, the proposal suggested that 
strengthening transparency was particularly relevant , and that Members could already start to look 
at the transparency issue as a possible deliverable for MC11.  
19.36.   With regard to the extension of the moratorium , Mexico sought clarification from China 
about what exactly it was proposing, if an extension, a permanent moratori um, or just a specific 
time period longer than that agreed at past Ministerial  meetings . Mexico, for its part,  had 
supported , and w ould continue to support , a permanent extension. Mexico also welcomed the 
suggestion to hold a joint session of this Council and other relevant Councils and Com mittees  to 
which the WPEC had made reference . In parallel, Mexico wished Members to approach 
E-Commerce cross -cutting issues in a holistic manner. Therefore, Mexico favoured exploring any 
approach that would facilitate a more substantive discussion  of this issue, which was an issue of 
increasing interest to its companies, and SMEs in particular.  Finally, Mexico cautioned that 
Members should avoid getting caught  up in procedural issues.  
19.37.   The delegate of Chinese Taipei  joined other s in welcoming the proposal. Her delegation 
held a strong interest in E-Commerce and believed that it was important to acknowledge a great 
deal of the work still necessary  in order to define those areas to be the subject of future discussion 
and negotiation.  The currently prevailing v iew was  that the most essential elements for 
E-Commerce, among others, were an open network, interconnectivity, neutral technology , and 
data flows. For the WTO to remain relevant to future world trade, E-Commerce had also to become 
a cornerstone of its str ucture.  And only a proposal that considered all aspects of E-Commerce in 
the context of the WTO  rules would show Members a way forward.  
19.38.   Like others, Chinese Taipei had some preliminary comments on the proposal. Chinese 
Taipei preferred a more realistic app roach on policy framework regarding digital trade and also 
recognized the specific concerns of certain Members over the digital divide.  To enhance 
transparency on E-Commerce had merit; however, any proposal on E-Commerce had also to 
address either the poli cy framework or the issues identified by the business community. Such an 
approach was of critical importance so as to support the digital trade of the future.  
19.39.   Chinese Taipei regretted not see ing fully reflected in the proposal either the goods 
delivered in  digital form , or services. Additionally, a number of suggestions in the proposal we re 
already contained in existing provisions of WTO Agreements, and in particular in the TFA. 
Examples of these were the single window in the case of the TFA and the obligat ion to set up 
enquiry points that already existed in the goods and services agreements . What really mattered 
was to learn more about the real problems , such as where E-Commerce was not yet sufficiently 
regulated , and where there was still a need to fill a gap. 
19.40.   As to how to apply simplified border measures , at least on the B2C model, in Chinese 
Taipei 's view it would be very difficult for customs offic ers to differentiate between the various 
transaction methods  used to trade in goods, such as internet, E-Commerce, fax, and tele phone, 
and also to treat them differently. It might also create a huge administrative burden for customs 
service s. G/C/M/127  
 
- 34 - 
 
  19.41.   Chinese Taipei supported the proposal to hold a joint meeting of all WTO  bodies where 
E-Commerce was discussed following the mandate in the WPEC. It also supported making the 
moratorium permanent.  Chinese Taipei remained ready to engage in consultations with Me mbers 
on all E-Commerce topics.  
19.42.   The delegate of Peru thanked China and Pakistan for their proposal. This was a propo sal 
that would help Members to make progress on E-Commerce, and particularly at MC11. Peru also 
believed that there was a real link between E-Commerce and development , as SMEs from 
developing countries would then more easily participate in the global marke t and offer their 
products to potential customers from all over the world , and where the potential of E-Commerce 
would be realized  for SMEs in developing countries in the area of  trade facilitation in goods, given 
that developing countries were more likely  to produce goods that required to be physically 
distributed . 
19.43.   The delegate of Switzerland  reiterated his delegation 's interest in  E-Commerce and 
welcomed the proposal by China and Pakistan.  The specifics of the proposal were still being 
reviewed in Capital , but Switzerland in any case supported the suggestion of holding an informal 
joint session of the different bodies with a mandate to discuss E-Commerce.  This would enable 
Members to continue looking at E-Commerce in a coherent and meaningful way as well a s 
contributing to build ing a better understanding of the issues at hand.  
19.44.   The delegate of Argentina  welcomed China and Pakistan 's proposal as submitted to various 
WTO bodies. Argentina remained ready to make progress on this issue with a view to achieving a  
concrete outcome at MC11. Argentina considered it appropriate to hold a joint informal meeting of 
the General Council with all WTO  bodies mandated to discuss E-Commerce with a view to 
developing an integral discussion that c ould provide guidance to other WTO Committees . Argentina 
likewise  endorsed the proposal to organize a seminar on this issue . 
19.45.   The delegate of Costa Rica  thanked the proponents for their submission. Costa Rica 
believed in the possibilities offered by E-Commerce in terms of facilitating tr ade and providing new 
potential development to WTO Members  and hoped that a concrete outcome would be achieved  at 
MC11. The approach suggested in the proposal would be reviewed with attention , and Costa Rica 
was ready to contribut e to the E-Commerce discus sion in this C ouncil and in other WTO  bodies  
with flexibility . 
19.46.   The delegate of Paraguay  thanked the proponents for their submission , which confirmed a 
renewed interest in E-Commerce issues leading up  to MC11. Paraguay asked China to provide 
further details  of the trans parency issues to which Section  II of the submission referred and, in 
particular, to provide detail as to the type of notifications to be submitted, in which bod y or bodies , 
and what specifically was to be notified . 
19.47.   The delegate of South Afric a thanked the proponents for their submission on the WPEC. 
South Africa reiterated the existing mandate on E-Commerce according to which the GC together 
with its subsidiary bodies had been required to discuss E-Commerce issues  as set out  in 
paragraphs  2-5 of the WPEC.  
19.48.   Members had highlighted the importance of E-Commerce  but still there was a wide digital 
gap among  them, as was  recogniz ed in the proposal. South Africa considered that developing and 
least developed countries might be reassured that their enhanced participation in E-Commerce 
would also benefit them and  not only be of benefit to those countries already significantly involved 
in such trade. Moreover, E-Commerce discussions should especially consider the concerns of 
developing and least developed countries by addressing the specific trade barriers they faced . 
Transparency and inclusiveness should govern the process and South Africa was ready to continue 
participating in furthering the work on E-Commerce with a development dimension and in 
accordanc e with the current mandate.  
19.49.   The delegate of India thanked the proponents for their submission and reiterated India's 
willingness to discuss E-Commerce within the existing mandate in the WPEC and in the relevant 
WTO bodies , including this Council. His capit al was analysing specific aspects of the proposal with 
relevant stakeholders and at this stage had only some preliminary comments and questions. Like 
South Africa, India welcomed the proponents ' view that discussions should be based on the G/C/M/127  
 
- 35 - 
 
  existing mandate . Section  I of the proposal dealt with the regulatory framework and the 
movement of physical goods  but at present it was not clear what exactly was being proposed ; for 
this reason, it was likewise unclear  how to further encourage discussion in future meeti ngs. 
19.50.   The delegate of Hong Kong, China  said that E-Commerce offered enormous opportunities 
in cross -border trade, and that all Members could benefit fro m this technological progress. She 
thank ed China and Pakistan for the proposal , which highlight ed the development dimension of 
E-Commerce, and looked forward to exploring  initiatives that could facilitate a better integration of 
least developed  and developing countries into the multilateral trading system.  
19.51.   The delegate of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  thank ed the proponents for their 
submission . Even though it was currently being assessed  in Capital , Venezuela wished to highlight 
that E-Commerce discussions should be based on the existing mandate, and should be focused on 
expectations  of common interest  to Members , including the development dimension . The  
discussions should be linked to the W PEC, which did not include any type of negotiation.  
19.52.   The delegate of Ecuador  said that, in accordance with the WPEC, any proposal on 
E-Commerce should be submitted fo r discussion to all relevant WTO bodies. Her capital was 
assessing the submission, including the proposal to hold a seminar on  E-Commerce and trade in 
goods.  
19.53.   The delegate of China  thanked all delegations for their comments. These were a good basis 
on which  to re-invigorate discussions on E-Commerce issues in the CTG  although for now she 
could only provide preliminary responses to some of t he questions and comments made.  
19.54.   With regard to the comments on the existing mandate she indicated that the proposal , 
based on China's economic development experience, emphasized that the mandate should be 
followed and Members' common interests should be taken as top priorities.  China did not intend to 
go beyond the existing mandate and would therefore address these issues carefully  in the 
discussion. Accordingly, China wished to discuss jointly with Members on how to ensure progress 
in the discussions that would satisfy  Members' common interests, and in particular for developing 
Members . 
19.55.   Regarding coverage, the communication  proposed that E-Commerce discussion could focus 
on promotion and facilitation of internet -enabled cross-border trade in goods , together with the 
services directly supporting such trade in goods, such as payment and logistics services. Th is did 
not mean th at E-Commerce deal t only with trade in goods, or that other E-Commerce -related 
areas were not important. From China's domestic experience, to increase development an 
improvement in E-Commerce infrastructure and capacity -building were of practical significa nce for 
developing Members and their SMEs.  Given t he complexity of E-Commerce and the different 
development levels between Members, work on E-Commerce should  be progressive and should 
give priority to the easier issues while fully reflect ing Members' commo n interests.  
19.56.   Since the Ministerial Declaration of 1998 's mandate to Members to examine E-Commerce 
issues , all following Ministerial Decision s had reiterated that Members w ould maintain the current 
practice of not imposing custom s duties on electronic trans mission until the following Ministerial 
Conference . China believed that this practice should be maintained.  
19.57.   With regard to the other specific questions and comments that had been made, some of 
which were technical  and complex , China would consult its compe tent authorities and revert  to 
these questions and comments either bilaterally or at multilateral level. Concerning the queries 
raised on the EWTP , she recalled that at the 2016  Summit of the G20 in Hangzhou , the B-20 had 
made policy recommendations to G20  leaders . The EWTP  initiative was led by the private sector 
and the multiple stakeholders' initiative s for public -private dialogue and aimed to promot e best 
business practice s and incorporate cross -border E-Commerce rules , endeavour to help SMEs, 
especiall y those located in developing countries, and to solve the obstacles they faced when 
promoting cross-border E-Commerce , and foster ing a more effective and efficient policy and 
business environment for cross -border E-Commerce development.  Thus, th e content a nd details of 
the EWTP still need ed to be studied and clarified by the industries and business  sectors involved in 
E-Commerce . G/C/M/127  
 
- 36 - 
 
  19.58.   The Chairperson  asked how the proponents intended to receive further comments from 
those delegations that had made preliminary co mments at this meeting, if bilaterally or through 
any other mechanism.  
19.59.   The delegate of China  indicated that those delegations having  further comments or 
questions could approach China bilaterally or informa lly at any time.  
19.60.   The Chairperson  thanked China and  Pakistan for their submissions and other delegations 
for their interventions and proposed that the Council take note of the statements made. He also 
asked the Council if , in order to fulfil the Nairobi mandate he could make, on his own 
responsibility, a purely factual report to the General Council at its meeting of 7-8 December  2016, 
based on the discussions held in this Council in April , July, and November  2016. 
19.61.   The Council so agreed . 
20  CONSIDERATION OF ANN UAL REPORTS OF THE S UBSIDIARY BODIES OF THE 
COUNCIL  FOR TRADE IN GOODS  
20.1.   The Chairperson  recalled that, pursuant to the "Procedures for an Annual Overview of 
WTO Activities and for Reporting Under the WTO" (WT/L/105), which were adopted by the General 
Council on 15  November  1995, all bodies constituted under  Agreements in Annex  1A of the 
WTO Agreement were required to submit annually a factual report to the Council for Trade in 
Goods, and the Council was to take note of these reports.  
20.2.   The Chairperson  proposed that the Council take note of the following annual  reports: 
(i) Committee on Agriculture, document  G/L/11 65; (ii) Committee on Trade Related Investment 
Measures, document  G/L/11 53; (iii)  Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, 
document  G/L/11 57; (iv)  Committee on Antidumping Practices, documen t G/L/11 58; 
(v) Committee on Safeguards, document  G/L/11 55 (and G/L/1155/Cor.1 in English only) ; 
(vi) Committee on Market Access, document  G/L/11 54; (vii)  Committee on Import Licensing, 
document  G/L/11 62; (viii)  Committee on Customs Valuation, document  G/L/1160; (ix)  Committee 
on Sanitary and Phyto -sanitary Measures, document  G/L/11 64; (x) Committee of Participants on 
the Expansion of Trade in Information Technology Products, document  G/L/11 63; (xi) Preshipment 
Inspection - Independent Entity, document  G/L/1161; (xii)  Committee on Technical Barriers to 
Trade, document  G/L/11 67; (xiii)  Committee on Rules of Origin, document  G/L/11 59; and 
(xiii) Working Party on State Trading Enterprises, document  G/L/11 56. 
20.3.   The Council so agreed . 
21  ADOPTION OF THE ANNU AL REPORT OF THE COUNCIL FOR T RADE IN GOODS TO THE  
GENERAL COUNCIL (G/C /W/735)  
21.1.   The Chairperson  recalled that the draft Annual Report of the Council had been circulated in 
document  G/C/W/735. In accordance with the "Procedures for an Annual Overview of 
WTO Activities  and for Reporting under the WTO" (WT/L/105), which was adopted by the General 
Council on 15  November  1995, it was agreed that "The respective sectoral Councils should report 
in November each year to the General Council on the activities in the Council as well as in the 
subsidiary bodies" and that the reports of the sectoral Councils should be "factual in nature, 
containing an indication of actions and decisions taken, with cross -references to reports of 
subordinate bodies and could follow the model of the GATT  1947 Council reports to the 
CONTRACTING PARTIES". He noted that the draft report would be updated in light of this meeting.  
21.2.   The Chairperson  proposed that the Council agree to adopt the report, subject to the update 
and revision to take into account th e Council's work at this meeting.3 
21.3.   The Council so agreed . 
                                                
3 The Annual Report to the General Council was circulated in document  G/L/1168. G/C/M/127  
 
- 37 - 
 
  22  OTHER BUSINESS  
22.1.   The Chairperson  recalled that , at the start of the meeting , four delegations had requested 
the inclusion of certain issues under the agenda item  "Other Business" . 
22.1  Section  15(a)(ii) of  China's Protocol of Accession  
22.2.   The Chairperson  invited China to report on the expiry date of Section  15(a)(ii) of  China's 
Protocol of Accession.  
22.3.   The delegate of China  stated that, i n accordance with Article  15 of China' s Protocol of 
Accession to the WTO, 1 5 years after the date of accession, the "surrogate country methodology " 
in anti -dumping investigations on Chine se products would expire . Therefore, as from 
11 Decem ber 2016 WTO Members w ould no longer be allowed to use third  country  prices or costs 
in cal culating the dumping margin in anti -dumping investigations on Chinese pro ducts. The general 
rules of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement would subsequently be applied to anti-dumping 
investigations on Chinese products initiated by WTO  Members, and the dumping m argin sh ould be 
calculated ba sed on Chinese prices or costs.  
22.4.   China thanked th ose Members that, prior to 11 December  2016, had already abandoned the 
surrogate country methodology practice  and requested those Members that continued to use the 
surrogate count ry methodology to abide by their WTO  obligation s and terminate this practice on 
time. Pacta Sunt Servada was a fundamental principle in international law that should be followed 
by all WTO  Members. Failure  to honour an international obligation w ould underm ine the 
multilateral trad ing system and damage  international trade. China would make use of its 
WTO rights to defend its interests in case s where Members refuse d to fulfil their obliga tions in 
accordance with Article  15 of its Protocol of Accession.  
22.5.   The de legate of  the United States  said that , under its Protocol of Accession , China continue d 
to raise the issue of its market economy status at the WTO , and contended that the expiration of 
one provision in Article  15 of th is Protocol would require Members to a bandon the use of a 
third country methodology after 11 December  2016. The US were of a different view and 
considered that to accept China's interpretation would mean that more than just one provision 
would expire  and this was simply not the case.  
22.6.   China 's position at a recent meeting of the AD  Committee had also been disappointing, and 
particularly as China had been unwilling to engage in any discussion with Members on this issue. 
In the view of the United States, this was not the way to deal with disagreeme nts in the WTO , and 
China should reconsider its position. The US also encouraged China to take additional steps to 
reform its economy and limit governmental intervention in key markets  so as  to address any 
significant current or future distortion to prices  and costs.  
22.7.   The delegate of the European Union  expressed the EU's concerns over pervasive market 
distortion s, including those that c ould lead to over -capacities and injurious dumping practices.  On 
9 November  2016, the European Commission had tabled a legis lative proposal to amend the basic 
EU anti-dumping and anti -subsidies regulations. The proposal had intended to  ensure that the EU 
would have effective trade defence instruments to deal with significant market distortions, 
including those leading to over -capacities in the international trading environment , while at the 
same time  fully respecting the EU's WTO obligations . This proposal was currently before the 
European Parliament and the Counci l of member State s for adoption.  
22.8.   The delegate of Canada  recognize d the importance of this issue for m any WTO  Members , as 
well as the different views regarding the implications of the expiration of Article  15(a)(ii ); Canada 
also shared the concerns raised by previous delegations over this issue and welcomed further 
discussion of a systemic nature.  
22.9.   The delegate of Mexico  recalled that Mexico had expressed its concerns and posed some 
questions to China at the AD  Committee. China had always been willing  to engage in an open 
dialogue with other Members  and Mexico did not expect this current case to be an  exception  to 
that. Regarding the transitional situation, Mexico acknowledged the efforts that China was making 
in the context of economic reforms and encourag ed it to continue this process.  G/C/M/127  
 
- 38 - 
 
  22.10.   The delegate of China  thanked delega tions for their comments and responded to some of 
the requested  clarifications . For China it was clear that Article  15 of China's Accession Protocol 
indicate d that, in any event, the surrogate country methodology sh ould expire 15  years after the 
date of Ch ina's accession. There was no precondition attached to this clause.  China considered that 
some of the arguments were misleading and exaggerated the domestic criteria of market economy 
or economic reform and downplay ed the importance of fulfilling internati onal obligation s. In the 
WTO context there was no designation or criteria with regard to market economy, nor was there 
any link to  economic reform. China reiterate d that WTO Members were bound by an international 
obligation to terminate on time the surroga te country methodology in anti -dumping practice. The re 
was no link here to domestic criteria and nor was there an  alternative or compromise on this issue.  
22.11.   The EU proposal to change the anti-dumping regulation in order to fulfil the EU 's 
obligation s under Article 15 of China's Accession Protocol  resulted in market distortion. However, 
the surrogate country methodology or the analogue country methodology sh ould be terminated 
completely by 11 December  2016 and any new measure  should be in line with WTO  rules, fair and 
reasonable, and without any new discrimination . WTO anti-dumping regulations sh ould apply 
equally to all Members and there was no excuse to continue  the surrogate country methodology in 
some alternative way.  
22.12.   China had raised this issue under the agenda item "Other Business" as its intention was 
simply to remind  Members to withdraw the said methodology on time.  Similarly, lengthy debate as 
to whether or not to terminate this methodology should not take place in this forum. China again 
called upon Members to terminate the surrogate country methodology in anti -dumping 
investigations against China by 11 December  2016.  
22.13.   The Chairperson  thanked delegations for their interventions and proposed that the Council 
take note of the statements made.  
22.14.   The Council so agreed. 
22.2  Turkey – Measures Regarding Additional Customs Duties on Imported Tyres  
22.15.   The Chairperson  invited Japan to introduce an issue relating to measures regarding 
additional customs duties on imported tyres from Turkey.  
22.16.   The delegate of Japan  indicated th at, in June  2016, Turkey had introduced a new measure 
that determine d the  customs value of imported tyres at 5USD per kilo, even when the actual 
transaction value of imported tyres was less than that. Additionally, i n September  2016, Turkey 
raised its cust oms duty on tyres  and tyre products, even if the increased rates were still lower than 
the bound rate.  Turkey 's imposition of customs duties was not based on the actual transaction 
value of imported tyres and appeared to be  a minimum customs value or an ar bitrary or fictitious 
value on which customs value should be determined. Turkey should clarify the consistency of this 
measure wit h the CVA and GATT  Article  VII. 
22.17.   As a result of the above -mentioned calculation method and increase d customs duties, the 
actual  rates of customs duties on some imported tyres, having a price lower than the 5USD per 
1 kilogram, were far beyond the bound rates for those products contained in Turkey 's Schedule of 
Concessions. Since these measures negatively affected Japan's trade with Turkey, Japan sought a 
concrete explanation from Turkey with regard to this issue.  
22.18.   The delegate of Chinese Taipei  echoed Japan 's concerns. Regrettably, Turkey 's 
determination of customs valu e based on a fixed transaction price was inconsistent with 
GATT  Article  VII and Article  1 of the CVA, which provided that , for customs purpose s, the value of 
import ed goods should be based on the actual value of the imported merchandise.  The result could 
be an  imposition of duties that exceeded the bound rates set out in Turkey 's Schedule of 
Concessions ; in addition, it contradicted GATT  Article  II.1(a) and Article  I(a) and (b).  Instead, 
Turkey 's valuation method should be applied in a WTO -consistent manner. She noted that her 
delegation had a commercial interest in thi s issue and had raised simila r concerns in the 
AD Committee.  G/C/M/127  
 
- 39 - 
 
  22.19.   The delegate of Turkey  said that Turkey was acting  consistently with its Schedule of 
Concessions  and would continue its bilateral discussion s with interested delegations so as to clarify 
their co ncerns . 
22.20.   The Chairperson  proposed that the Council ta ke note of the statements made.  
22.21.   The Council so agreed . 
22.3  Members' Notification Performance  
22.22.   The Chairperson  invited New Zealand to introduce the issue of Members' Notification 
Performance.  
22.23.   The delegate of New Zealand  informed the Council of the intention of his delegation to 
encourage a thorough discussion on transparency at the next meeting of this Council , under an 
agenda item on the Status of Notifications under the WTO  Agreements . Poor compliance with 
regard to timely and complete notifications was a problem across all WTO  bodies , including in the 
CTG's subsidiary bodies. One example of this was the agriculture notifications on domestic 
support , where the majority of the WTO  membership was behind with its compliance to its 
notification commitments  and had n either  submitted nor updated a notification over the past 
15 years. ST  notifications faced a similar situation , as almost a third of Members had not 
submitted a n otification in the last decade.  
22.24.   Transparen cy was a key WTO  principle that helped Members to understand each other's 
policies and implementation of the WTO  Agreements. It also benefitted private stakeholders such 
as importers, exporters, producers , and consumers. Lack of transparency clearly had ne gative 
implications for the multilateral trading system and resulted in an imbalance in Membe rs' right s 
and responsibilities.  
22.25.   The delegate of the United States  welcomed New Zealand's initiative. At previous 
CTG meetings the US had noted that there continue d to be a number of countries that had not 
submitted their notifications, had not done so in a timely fashion , or had submitted incomplete 
notifications. Transparency was a key element in implementing the commitments adopted in 
Nairobi and in the preparati ons for MC11.  
22.26.   The delegate of Singapore  thanked New Zealand for this initiative. Singapore attached 
great importance to transparency, particularly regarding complete and timely notifications, as it 
contribut ed to the predictability and transparency of th e international trading system.  
22.27.   The delegate of Japan  echoed previous speakers in welcoming this initiative. Japan also 
considered that timely and appropriate notifications , submitted in accordance with the relevant 
WTO Agreements , were essential in the WTO. They also allowed Members to examine whether or 
not another Member compl ied with its WTO Agreements.  
22.28.   The delegate of the European Union  welcomed the initiative from New Zealand to discuss 
in the CTG the issue of transparency and recalled that the EU had, on several occasions and in 
different WTO  fora, raised  the issue of transparency  and compliance with notification obligations. 
She also asked the Secretariat to make a best endeavour to circulate the Annual Report on the 
Status of Notifications under the W TO Agreements at the earliest possible  opportunity . 
22.29.   The delegate of Brazil  thanked New Zealand for having raised this issue. Brazil also 
considered transparency to be an essential pillar of the multilateral trading system and favoured a 
more systemic appro ach aimed at recognizing not only Members' individual a dditional efforts but 
also the need for a collective effort to increase adherence to transparency obligations.  Brazil 
encouraged all similar initiatives under way in the regular WTO  Committees to impro ve notification 
procedures and clarify notification obligations, although without singling out individual Members.  
He drew Members ' attention to P aragraph  29 of the Nairobi Declaration on the Reinvigoration of 
the Work of the WTO Regular Bodies . Brazil bel ieved that a component of the implementation of 
this paragraph was the discussion of notifications . G/C/M/127  
 
- 40 - 
 
  22.30.   The delegate of Costa Rica  thanked New Zealand and echoed the concerns regarding 
compliance with notification obligations. Transparency was a key WTO pillar and Costa Rica looked 
forward to a more detailed discussion o f this issue.  
22.31.   The delegate of Australia  thanked New Zealand. Australia also considered that, in the 
notification process, completeness was fundamental to transparency. Australia looked forward t o a 
substantive discussion o f this issue.  
22.32.   The delegate of Switzerland  joined previous speakers in thanking New Zealand for its 
initiative. Switzerland had always supported enhanced transparency in the WTO and believed that 
compliance with notification obli gations was an efficient means to reach this goal.  
22.33.   The Chairperson  thanked delegations for their interventions and proposed that the Council 
take note of the statements made.  
22.34.   The Council so agreed . 
22.4  Russian Federation – Certification Requirements for Cement  
22.35.   The Chairperson  invited the delegation of the European Union to introduce an issue with 
regard to the Russia n Federation 's certification requirements  for cement.  
22.36.   The delegate of the European Union  indicated that , through Resolution  930 of 
September  2015 and GOST standard of January  2016, the Russian Federation require d mandatory 
certification for cement. The EU had raised several times its concerns with regard to these 
measures , both in the TBT  Committee and during Russia's first Trade Policy Review, and r egretted 
to be compelled to ra ise them again in this Council.  
22.37.   The EU indicated that the notifications on these measures  had only t aken place after their 
entry into force  and constituted a blockage to EU  trade in cement, particularly as the Russian 
conformi ty assessment bodies did not grant certificates for foreign companies exporting to Russia. 
Only a few certificates had been delivered in July and August  2016, but these had then in any case 
been cancelled ; this was regrettable.  
22.38.   The GOST Standard mentioned above had introduced additional inspection control s to each 
batch of cement originating in the EU and imported into Russia. This was a de facto and 
discriminatory ban on EU  imports of cement . 
22.39.   The EU asked Russia to suspend these measures , to explain the ju stification of the 
additional testing processes according to the TBT  Agreement , and to confirm that the strength test 
would not be performed with a view to block ing imports of cement.  
22.40.   The delegate of the Russian Federation  provid ed a preliminary response t o the EU by 
indicating that Russia had notified all the measures relating to cement certificate in accordance 
with the TBT  Agreement. The reason to include cement in the list of goods subject to mandatory 
certification had been determined by a sharp decrea se in the quality of cement in the Russian 
Federation and also for safety  and health  reasons and for environmental protection  purposes . 
These measures we re applied in a non-discriminatory manner  and the list of documents and tests 
required to obtain a cert ificate for cement were equal for all manufacturers.  Since 8  March  2016, 
294 certificates for different types of cement had been issued , including 51  certificates for foreign 
companies.  
22.41.   The Chairperson thanked delegations for their interventions and propos ed that the Council 
take note of the statements made.  
22.42.   The Council so agreed . G/C/M/127  
 
- 41 - 
 
  22.5  Date of the next meeting  
22.43.   The Chairperson  informed the Council that the next meeting of the Council was schedul ed 
to take place on Thursday, 6  April 2017. The Agenda would close on  Friday, 24  March  2017.  
22.44.   With regard to closure of the CTG  Agenda he reminded delegations that, according to the 
Rules of Procedure, meetings of WTO  bodies were convened by a meeting notice (Airgram) issued 
not less than ten  calendar days prior to the date set for the meeting. The agenda itself therefore 
closed one WTO  working day prior to circulation of the meeting notice; in other words, 11  calendar 
days before the date set for the meeting (or, if the date fell on a weekend, the previous Friday).  
22.45.   The meeti ng was closed.  
__________