RESTRICTED
G/C/M/120
27 February 2015
(15-1183)  Page: 1/26
Council for Trade in Goods   
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF TH E COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS 
17 NOVEMBER 2014 
CHAIRPERSON: H.E. AMBASSADOR ATANAS A. PAPARIZOV (BULGARIA) 
The meeting of the Council for Trade in Goods (CTG) was convened by airgram WTO/AIR/4388; 
the proposed agenda for the meeting was circulated as document G/C/W/707. The meeting proceeded on the basis of the following agenda: 
1   ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON ................................................................................ 2
 
2   NOTIFICATION OF RE GIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS .................................................... 3  
3   MARKET A CCESS ISSUES ............................................................................................. 3  
3.1   Introduction of Harmonized System 2002 Changes into WTO Schedules of Tariff 
Concessions – Collective Request for Waiver Extension (G/C/W/702) ........................................ 4  
3.2   Introduction of Harmonized System 2007 Changes into WTO Schedules of Tariff 
Concessions – Collective Request for Waiver Extension (G /C/W/703/Re v.1)............................... 4  
3.3   Introduction of Harmonized System 2012 Changes into WTO Schedules of Tariff 
Concessions – Collective Request for a Waiver Extensio n (G/C/W/704) ..................................... 4  
4   GABON – SCHEDULE XLVII: RENEGO TIATIONS UNDER ARTICLE XXVIII:4 AND 
ARTICLE XXIV:6 OF  THE GATT 1994 ................................................................................. 4  
5   ENLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION: PROCEDURES UNDER 
ARTICLE XXVIII:3 OF GATT 1994 ..................................................................................... 5  
6   KINGDOM OF BAHRAIN – CUSTOMS DUTIES ON CIGARETTES – REQUEST 
FROM SWITZE RLAND ....................................................................................................... 6  
7   CANADA – PREFERENTIAL MEASURES UNDER CANADA'S TARIFF REGIME – 
REQUEST FROM THE SEPARATE CUSTOM S TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, 
KINMEN AND MATSU ........................................................................................................ 6  
8   NIGERIA – RESTRICTIONS/BAN IMPOSED BY NIGERIA TO IMPORTS OF SEA 
PRODUCTS – REQUEST FROM CHILE, THE EUROPEAN UNION, ICELAND, 
NORWAY, AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ............................................................ 8  
9   NIGERIA – LOCAL CONTENT MEASURES IN OIL AND GAS – REQUEST FROM 
THE EUROPEAN UNION .................................................................................................... 9  
10   RUSSIAN FEDERATION – TRADE-RESTRICTING MEASURES – STATEMENTS 
BY THE EUROPEAN UNION, JAPAN AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA .................... 11  
11   INDONESIA'S IMPORT AND EXPORT RESTRICTING POLICIES AND 
PRACTICES – STATEMENTS BY THE EUROPEAN UNION, JAPAN AND THE UNITED 
STATES OF AMERIC A ...................................................................................................... 15 
12   PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA – COUNTER NOTIFICATION OF STATE 
TRADING ENTERPRISES OF CHINA – REQUEST FROM THE UNITED STATES OF 
AMERICA ........................................................................................................................ 17  
13   UKRAINE – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURE ON IMPORTS OF AMMONIUM 
NITRATE FROM THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION - REQUEST FROM THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION .................................................................................................................. 1 8
 G/C/M/120 
 
- 2 - 
 
  14   JORDAN – REQUEST FOR A WAIVER  RELATING TO THE TRANSITIONAL 
PERIOD FOR THE ELIMINATION OF THE EXPORT SUBSIDY PROGRAM FOR JORDAN (G/C/W/706) .................................................................................................. 19
 
15   CONSIDERATION OF ANNUAL REPO RTS OF THE SUBSIDIARY BODIES OF 
THE COUNCIL FOR TR ADE IN GOODS ............................................................................. 23  
16   ADOPTION OF THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN 
GOODS TO THE GENERAL CO UNCIL (G/C/W/706) ......................................................... 24  
17   WORK PROGRAMME ON ELECTRONIC CO MMERCE ................................................... 24  
18   OTHER BU SINESS .................................................................................................... 25  
18.1   ARMENIA - NOTIFICATION OF CHANGES TO ITS BOUND TARIFFS UNDER 
GATT ARTICL E XXIV.6 ...................................................................................................... 25 
18.2   DATE OF TH E NEXT MEETING ................................................................................... 26 
 
At the start of the meeting the Deputy Director-General , Mr Xiaozhun YI, recalled to delegations 
that, at the General Council meeting of 21 October, Ambassador Jonathan Fried had announced that he had concluded the consultation process to appoint a successor to Ambassador Joakim Reiter, the former Chair of the Council for 2014-2015, and that he would conduct the opening of 
this meeting in order to elect Ambassador Atanas Atanassov PAPARIZOV as the Chairperson of the 
Goods Council for the remainder of the term 2014-2015. He also welcomed H.E. Mr Gabriel Tchango, Minister of Commerce, Small and Me dium-Size Enterprises, Crafts and Services 
Development of Gabon. 
 
The delegate of the European Union informed th e Council that, under the agenda item "Other 
Business", his delegation intended to raise an issue concerning the notification recently submitted 
by Armenia to modify its Schedule of Concessions following its entry into the Eurasian Economic 
Union.  
The agenda was so agreed. 
 
1  ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON 
1.1.  The Deputy Director-General recalled to delegations that, at the General Council meeting of 
July 2014, Ambassador Jonathan Fried had announced that, in light of the departure of 
Ambassador Joakim Reiter (Sweden), Chairman of the Council for the period 2014-2015, he would conduct consultations to appoint a new Chair for the Goods Council for the remainder of the term. 
He also recalled that, at the meeting of the General Council of 21 October 2014, Ambassador Fried 
had indicated that he had conducted these consultations in accordance with Paragraph 7.1(b) of the Guidelines for the Appointment of Officers in document WT/L/510, and also put into effect the 
practical steps to improve their implementation agreed by the General Council in July 2012, and 
contained in the document JOB/GC/22, and that, throughout the process, he was assisted by Ambassador De Mateo, from Mexico, Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body. 
1.2.  At the October meeting Ambassador Fried al so informed the General Council that there was 
consensus on the appointment of Ambassador Atanas Atanassov PAPARIZOV from Bulgaria as 
Chairman of the Council for Trade in Goods for the remainder of the term and that Ambassador PAPARIZOV would be formally appointed at the next meeting of the Goods Council. 
1.3.  The Deputy Director-General proposed that the Goods Council elect Ambassador Atanas 
Atanassov PAPARIZOV of Bulgaria as the Chairperson of this body by acclamation. 
1.4.  The Council so agreed. 
1.5.  The Deputy Director-General congratulate d Ambassador PAPARIZOV for his appointment, and 
invited him to come up to the podium. 
1.6.  The new Chairperson thanked the DDG and Members for their support and confidence and 
assured them that he would make every effort to ensure the successful outcome of the work of 
this Council. G/C/M/120 
 
- 3 - 
 
  2  NOTIFICATION OF REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS 
2.1.  The Chairperson recalled that, under the wo rking procedures agreed by the Committee on 
Regional Trade Agreements (CRTA), following adopti on by the General Council of the Transparency 
Mechanism, the CTG was to be kept informed of  Members' notifications of new regional trade 
agreements.1 He informed the CTG that the following regional trade agreements had been notified 
to the CRTA: 
- Free Trade Agreement between Switzerland and China (WT/REG351/N/1); 
 
- Association Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova 
(WT/REG352/N/1 and WT/REG352/N/1/Add.1); 
 
- Association Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine (WT/REG353/N/1); 
 
- Association Agreement between the European Union and Georgia (WT/REG354/N/1 
and WT/REG354/N/1/Add.1); 
 
- Free Trade Agreement between Icel and and China (WT/REG355/N/1); and 
 
- Free Trade Agreement between Hong Kong, China and Chile (WT/REG356/N/1). 
 2.2.  The delegate of the Russian Federation drew Members' attention to the notifications 
concerning the association agreements concluded by the European Union (EU) with several Members, including Ukraine, which in the view of his delegation impacted significantly upon the trade interests of the Russian Federation. Indeed, preliminary analysis carried out by his 
authorities had shown that the provisions therein that referred to the free circulation of goods 
conflicted with other free trade agreements concluded between his country and such Members. Such a conflict was not only evidence of a fragme ntation of the multilateral trading system but 
also threatened it. His country had emphasized this on many occasions, including in a recent 
APEC summit, and was of the view that, in the case of FTAs, transparency should include the 
negotiating stages. His delegation looked forward to raising this issue at the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs). 
2.3.  The delegate of Ukraine said that, in accordance with the transparency mechanism, his 
country had signed an association and free trade agreement with the EU, the early announcement 
of which had been made on 18 February 2008. This agreement was fully compatible with 
GATT Article XXIV and GATS Article V; the conclusion  of the said agreement had been notified by 
both parties to the WTO on 1 July 2014. Accordin g to the agreement, the EU and Ukraine would 
establish a transitional free trade area during a maximum period of 10 years, counted from its 
entry into force, or since 16 September 2014, when it had been ratified. 
2.4.  The delegate of the European Union stated that all the FTAs signed by the EU were fully 
WTO-compatible and had been notified in accord ance with the transparency mechanism. If a 
Member had a remark, his delegation was eager to clarify the issue; however the EU did not see 
any infringement of the WTO rules. 
2.5.  The Chairperson thanked delegations for th eir interventions and proposed that the Council 
take note of the notifications and statements made. 
2.6.  The Council so agreed. 
3  MARKET ACCESS ISSUES 
3.1.  The Chairperson noted that the Committee on Market Access (CMA) had forwarded 
three items for consideration by the Council and suggested that they be taken up in the order in 
which they were listed in the airgram. 
                                               
1 See documents WT/REG16, WT/L/671, and G/C/M/88. G/C/M/120 
 
- 4 - 
 
  3.1  Introduction of Harmonized System 2002 Changes into WTO Schedules of Tariff 
Concessions – Collective Request for Waiver Extension (G/C/W/702) 
3.2.  The Chairperson drew Members' attention to th e collective draft waiver decision circulated in 
document G/C/W/702, made in connection with the introduction of HS2002 changes into 
WTO schedules of tariff concessions. The current waiver decision was contained in 
document WT/L/900 and would expire on 31 December 2014. The proposed one year extension of the waiver decision contained in document G/C/W/702 was considered at the formal meeting of 
the Committee on Market Access that took place on 22 October 2014 and forwarded to the CTG for 
action. He proposed that the Council approve the draft waiver decision contained in document G/C/W/702 and forward it to the General Council (GC) for adoption. 
3.3.  The Council approved the draft waiver decision contained in document G/C/W/702 and 
agreed to forward it to the GC for adoption. 
3.2  Introduction of Harmonized System 2007 Changes into WTO Schedules of Tariff 
Concessions – Collective Request for Waiver Extension (G/C/W/703/Rev.1) 
3.4.  The Chairperson drew Members' attention to th e collective draft waiver decision circulated in 
document G/C/W/703/Rev.1, made in connection with the introduction of HS2007 changes into WTO schedules of tariff concessions. The current waiver decision was contained in 
document WT/L/901 and would expire on 31 December 2014. The proposed one year extension of 
the waiver decision was considered at the formal meeting of the Committee on Market Access that took place on 22 October 2014 and forwarded to the CTG for action. He proposed that the Council approve the draft waiver decision contained in document G/C/W/703/Rev.1 and forward it to the 
GC for adoption. 
3.5.  The Council approved the draft waiver deci sion contained in document G/C/W/703/Rev.1 and 
agreed to forward it to the G С for adoption. 
3.3  Introduction of Harmonized System 2012 Changes into WTO Schedules of Tariff 
Concessions – Collective Request for a Waiver Extension (G/C/W/704) 
3.6.  The Chairperson drew Members' attention to th e collective draft waiver decision circulated in 
document G/C/W/704, made in connection with the introduction of HS2012 changes into 
WTO schedules of tariff concessions. The current waiver decision was contained in document WT/L/902 and would expire on 31 December 2014. The proposed one year extension of the waiver decision was considered at the formal meeting of the Committee on Market Access that 
took place on 22 October 2014 and forwarded to the CTG for action. He proposed that the Council 
approve the draft waiver decision contained in do cument G/C/W/704 and forward it to the GC for 
adoption. 
3.7.  The Council approved the draft waiver decision contained in document G/C/W/704 and 
agreed to forward it to the GC for adoption. 
4  GABON – SCHEDULE XLVII: RENEGO TIATIONS UNDER ARTICLE XXVIII:4 AND 
ARTICLE XXIV:6 OF THE GATT 1994 
4.1.  The Chairperson informed the Council that, in a communication dated 12 September 2014, 
and in light of renegotiations pending with a number of Members, the delegation of Gabon once 
more requested an extension of the renegotiation period of its Schedule of Concessions for a 
further period of 90 days, or until 16 December 2014. This letter had been circulated to 
delegations and, in the absence of written objections to this request, it had been understood that the Council had agreed on this further extension and that the issue would be included in the 
agenda of today's meeting. 
4.2.  Gabon, represented by H.E. Mr Gabriel Tchango, Minister of Commerce, Small and 
Medium-Sized Enterprises, Crafts and Services Development, thanked the WTO membership for all 
the support it had received throughout the renegotiation process of its Schedule of Concessions in 
order to reach a solution for a situation that had been challenged by WTO Members since 1995. G/C/M/120 
 
- 5 - 
 
  Indeed, in the case of 2,131 non-agricultural tariff  lines, or 38% of Gabon's total tariff lines, the 
applied tariffs exceeded the bound tariffs. 
4.3.  The Minister also recalled that, when the Uruguay Round concluded, Gabon was one of the 
few developing countries to have bound all of its tariff lines; this demonstrated Gabon's bona fides  
and its willingness to be in line with WTO provisions. At the regional level, and given that it was 
part of the Economic and Monetary Community of Central Africa (CEMAC), Gabon had to apply CEMAC's common external tariff which was composed of four different tariff bands: (i) 5% for 
essential goods; (ii) 10 % for raw materials and capital goods; (iii) 20% for semi-processed and 
other goods; and 30% for consumer goods. At Gabon's Trade Policy Reviews of 2001, 2007, and 2013, this issue of conformity was raised by Me mbers and, in order to remedy this, Gabon had 
started, as of 2008, the renegotiation of its Schedule of Concessions. 
4.4.  At the Goods Council of 18 October 2013 Ga bon had submitted a notification to renegotiate 
its schedule of concessions pursuant to GATT Articles XXVIII:4 and XXIV:6, whose objective was to solve the issue of conformity between the applied rates and the bound rates, but not protectionist 
goals. On this new process a two-fold issue was at stake, to respect Gabon's WTO commitments, 
and to avoid nullifying or putting at risk the integration efforts currently under way in Central Africa. As a result, there had been an increase in Gabon's bound rates for 2,159 tariff lines and a 
reduction in bound rates for 2,626 tariff lines. The average of the new bindings for non-agricultural 
products was 18.08%; however, the increase of bindings affecting 2,159 tariff lines would not have any financial impact on the duties and taxes already being paid at the border by Gabon's trading partners. 
4.5.  The results of the renegotiation process, already completed, would be conveyed to Members 
according to the WTO rules; Gabon, more than ever, would respect its WTO commitments. 
4.6.  The delegate of the European Union thanked Gabon for its active engagement during the 
renegotiations; after intensive discussions, the EU had reached an agreement with Gabon which 
was currently following the EU's internal procedures. 
4.7.  The delegate of the United States of Amer ica also indicated that her authorities had reached 
agreement with Gabon on this issue, and thanked Gabon for its interest in upholding its 
WTO commitments. 
4.8.  The delegate of Japan thanked the Minister and the delegation of Gabon for their efforts and 
diligence during the process. 
4.9.  The delegate of Morocco welcomed the Minister and expressed his support to Gabon. 
4.10.  The Chairperson thanked the Minister of Ga bon and other delegations for their interventions 
and indicated that Gabon would continue the pr ocedures under GATT Article XXVIII, including the 
notification of the bilateral agreements it had re ached with interested Members. He proposed that 
the Council take note of the statements made and of the information provided. 
4.11.  The Council so agreed. 
5  ENLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION: PROCEDURES UNDER ARTICLE XXVIII:3 OF 
GATT 1994 
5.1.  The Chairperson drew Members' attention to document G/L/1051/Add.2 concerning the 
accession to the European Union on 1 July 2013 of the Republic of Croatia. In this document, the 
EU indicated that it would not assert that Members who had submitted a claim pursuant to 
Article XXIV:6 of GATT 1994 were precluded from withdrawing substantially equivalent concessions under Article XXVIII:3 of GATT 1994 because such wi thdrawal occurred later than six months after 
the EU's withdrawal of concessions, provided th at the claiming WTO Member withdrew concessions 
no later than 24 months after the EU's modification  of concessions. He recalled that the CTG had 
extended the deadlines on two occasions, at its meetings of 27 November 2013 and 9 April 2014. 
5.2.  The delegate of the European Union recalled that at the April meeting of this Council his 
delegation had already indicated that that it had received 12 claims within the 90-day period G/C/M/120 
 
- 6 - 
 
  following its notification to the WTO and two other claims thereafter. In October 2013 and 
February, June and October 2014, the EU held meetings with those WTO Members having submitted timely claims, where it addressed the consolidation of agricultural TRQs and, where justified, possible ad-hoc  compensations beyond that consolidation. Agreements with Argentina, 
Australia, Brazil, China, New Zealand, and Uruguay were expected to be finalized soon with a view 
to beginning the respective internal procedures fo r their entry into force. However, the EU was of 
the view that the period in which Members' rights were preserved should be extended until such 
agreements entered into force. 
5.3.  The Chairperson thanked the EU for the info rmation provided and invited the Council to take 
note of the statement made and to extend the deadline as it was set forth in 
document G/L/1051/Add.2. 
5.4.  The Council so agreed. 
6  KINGDOM OF BAHRAIN – CUSTOMS DUTIES ON CIGARETTES – REQUEST FROM 
SWITZERLAND 
6.1.  The Chairperson informed the Council that, in a communication dated 22 October 2014, the 
delegation of Switzerland had requested the Secretariat to include this item in the Agenda of 
today's meeting. 
6.2.  The delegate of Switzerland said that the du ties currently levied by the Bahrain's customs on 
cigarettes were significantly higher than those permitted under Bahrain's WTO commitments. 
Indeed, Bahrain applied a tariff of 100% on cigarettes while it had a bound rate of 35% on these products. Since the bound rates represented the maximum level that a Member was entitled to 
levy, Switzerland believed that Bahrain was not in compliance with its WTO obligations. He asked 
Bahrain to clarify when and how its authorities intended to address this issue. 
6.3.  Switzerland had first raised this issue in January 2013, both bilaterally with Bahrain and in 
WTO bodies, including in the last CTG. Recent discussions with Bahrain had clarified the reasons 
that had led Bahrain to the current situation. However, he recalled that the WTO provided specific procedures to address such situations, and if Bahrain was to deconsolidate its bound tariffs, 
Switzerland would take part in these negotiations. 
6.4.  The delegate of the Kingdom of Bahrain th anked Switzerland for its engagement in discussing 
the issue bilaterally; this had afforded Bahrain the opportunity to explain that the situation that 
Switzerland had described was caused by a technical error during Bahrain's application of the 
GATT, particularly with regard to a small number of products under the tobacco HS code. Bahrain 
had also consulted on the issue with the Secret ariat with a view to reviewing the pertinent 
procedures to rectify this discrepancy on a permanent basis, and in order to be in compliance with 
its WTO obligations. 
6.5.  The Chairperson thanked delegations for thei r interventions and invited the Council to take 
note of the statements made. 
6.6.  The Council so agreed. 
7  CANADA – PREFERENTIAL MEASURES UNDER CANADA'S TARIFF REGIME – REQUEST 
FROM THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU 
7.1.  The Chairperson informed the Council that, in a communication dated 5 November 2014, the 
delegation of the Separate Customs Territory of  Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu had requested 
the Secretariat to include this item in the agenda of this meeting. 
7.2.  The delegate of Chinese Taipei said th at Canada, based on the review of its General 
Preferential Tariff Scheme conducted in 2013 ("2013 GPT Review"), had issued the "General 
Preferential Tariff Withdrawal Or der" ("GPT Withdrawal Order"), wh ich in turn would withdraw the 
entitlement to GPT benefit for 72 WTO Members who, as from 1 January 2015, would become 
non-GPT beneficiaries. Concerns existed because the "2013 GPT Review" had introduced new 
forms of discrimination amongst the non-GPT beneficiaries and also limited the autonomy of the G/C/M/120 
 
- 7 - 
 
  Least Developed Countries (LDCs) to choose the best sources of supply for their textile and 
apparel products in the supply chain. 
7.3.  Additionally, the "GPT Withdrawal Order"  would effectively remove the GPT status of 
72 WTO Members, although Canada would continue  to provide these Members with two forms of 
preferential treatment that the other non-GPT beneficiaries would not enjoy. Indeed, the 
amendment to the "Outward Processing Remission Order (Textiles and Apparel)" provided preferential treatment in the form of lower duty rates for imported apparel produced in the 
72 non-GPT beneficiaries if made from Canadian textiles. Chinese Taipei believed that this 
measure arbitrarily created a system that kept in place preferential treatment for the 72 WTO Members whose GPT eligibility had already been withdrawn. On an MFN basis, all non-GPT beneficiaries should be granted the same treatment. However, the new amendment had 
created discrimination amongst the group of no n-GPT beneficiaries, something that was not 
justified under WTO rules. The amendment to  the "General Preferential Tariff and the 
Least-Developed Country Tariff Rules of Origin Regulations" ("LDCT") had established a 
second form of preferential treatment as it pr ovided that products imported from LDCs, when 
using inputs from the above-mentioned 72 WTO Me mbers, could qualify for duty-free treatment. 
7.4.  According to trade statistics, in 2013 a few LDC Members had exported a total of 1.65 billion 
US dollars' worth of textile and apparel products to Canada; however, the products with inputs 
from the non-GPT beneficiaries, like his country, had not been able to enjoy the duty-free treatment under Canada's regime. Consequently, Chinese Taipei's textiles industry had not only been excluded from the supply chain to Canada bu t the Canadian regime had also deprived LDCs 
from exploring more competitive market options in order to find the best sources of supply. This 
discriminatory approach ran counter to the true spirit of Canada's LDC systems and its obligations under the WTO. 
7.5.  To conclude, he stated that the two amendments already explained only allowed the 
72 designated non-GPT WTO Members to enjoy preferential treatment, but not the other non-GPT beneficiaries; this was contrary to the MFN principle. He urged Canada to reconsider its 
measures in order to provide fair and equitable trade opportunities to all of the 
non-GPT beneficiaries in the its textile and apparel import market, and to provide LDC Members with the complete range of market options and opportunities under its LDCT scheme. 
7.6.  The delegate of Canada expressed the view that Canada's unilateral tariff preferences, which 
provided benefits to the world's poorest countries through its LDCT, had been widely praised as 
they met the needs of LDCs and encouraged ma rket access from the poorest countries, with 
comprehensive product coverage and rules of orig in. Moreover, Uganda, on behalf of the LDCs, 
and various other delegations had referred to it in  very positive terms, notably at the Committee 
on Rules of Origin, and at the Subcommittee on LDCs of 6 November 2014. 
7.7.  As announced in Canada's Budget 2013, Ca nada had been making changes to its General 
Preferential Tariff (or GPT) to better align it with the current global economic environment. The 
changes that would be notified to the Committee on Trade and Development would come into effect as from 1 January 2015. He added that consequential changes had also been made to the rules of origin for the LDCT, so that LDCs' preferential access to the Canadian market would not be 
impacted by the GPT changes. Therefore, the status quo  was maintained and LDCs would continue 
to benefit from the same liberal access that they  had enjoyed in the Canadian market since 2003. 
Beneficiary countries had welcomed this action by Canada. 
7.8.  He said that, since 2009, Canada had elim inated all tariffs on imported machinery and 
equipment and manufacturing inputs, including textiles. This unilateral tariff liberalization had benefitted exports of all Canadian trading partners, including Chinese Taipei. 
7.9.  The Chairperson thanked delegations for thei r interventions and invited the Council to take 
note of the statements made. 
7.10.  The Council so agreed. G/C/M/120 
 
- 8 - 
 
  8  NIGERIA – RESTRICTIONS/BAN IMPOSED BY NIGERIA TO IMPORTS OF SEA 
PRODUCTS – REQUEST FROM CHILE, THE EUROPEAN UNION, ICELAND, NORWAY, AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
8.1.  The Chairperson informed the Council that, in a communication dated 27 October 2014, the 
delegations of Chile, the European Union, Iceland,  and the United States of America had requested 
the Secretariat to include this item in the agenda of this meeting. 
8.2.  The delegate of Chile reiterated the concer ns already expressed at the June meeting of this 
Council and at the October meeting of the Committee on Import Licensing regarding the 
restrictions adopted by Nigeria on the importation of frozen fish. She added that also in March 2014 the Embassy of Chile in Kenya, which also represented Chile in Nigeria, had asked the Nigerian authorities to clarify this issue. Nigeria had only offered responses in the course of the 
discussions that had taken place at the WTO but had not solved the trade concern itself, which had 
an impact upon Chile's interests. 
8.3.  Although Nigeria had indicated that the new import policy was currently being drafted, the 
Chilean fish exporters were still affected by the ex isting measures; therefore, it could be concluded 
that these measures were being fully implemented. Indeed, Chile's exports had dropped to less than half as a result of the measures which were not only applied to products considered as "farm 
fish", but also to frozen fish such as mackerel. 
8.4.  Chile wanted clarification about the process th at fish exporters might currently follow to trade 
their products which, up until 2013, had been sold and distributed in Nigeria without any obstacles. Specifically, how could Chile take part  in the consultation process between importers 
and exporters carried out by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development and to which 
Nigeria had referred at the Committee on Import Licensing? Had the authorities in Nigeria established a deadline to finalize guidelines explaining the new policy, as well as the requirements 
that exporters might fulfil in order to access the Nigerian market? 
8.5.  Exports of fish products were of great importance to Chile; Nigeria was the main destination 
of exports of frozen mackerel, and during the la st three years these exports had represented an 
average of 75 million dollars per year. Chile wish ed to strengthen its trade partnership with 
Nigeria; therefore, she invited Nigeria to introduce its new policy to the WTO membership, according to the transparency mechanism, and in a manner that would allow Chilean exporters to become acquainted with it. 
8.6.  The delegate of the European Union echoed Chile's statement and recalled that the same 
concerns had already been raised in this Council and at the last meeting of the Committee on 
Import Licensing. Nigeria had provided some replies and announced that there was an ongoing 
revision of its fishery policy. It had also suggested that the current de facto  ban was justified 
under the GATT provisions on Balance of Payments and potential sanitary problems; however, the current Nigerian measures should be notified to the WTO, indicating if these would apply to all 
third countries. 
8.7.  The EU also noted that with the revised fishery policy Nigeria intended to develop local 
production. However, the EU was concerned by the fact that this could lead to an unjustified and non-transparent de facto  ban on imports. In this regard he recalled that, according to the figures 
provided by the FAO, in the near future and ev en assuming the best scenario under which local 
production would be boosted, the relevant gap between demand and national supply could only be filled through trade. Furthermore, and consider ing the current account surplus of Nigeria, the 
EU could not understand the reference to "Balance of Payments difficulties" to justify its restriction 
of imports. Nigeria was asked to provide information about when it intended to finalize its new fish import policy. 
8.8.  The delegate of Iceland echoed the views and concerns expressed by Chile and the EU. His 
delegation had also raised this issue on previo us occasions and bilaterally with Nigeria, and 
appreciated Nigeria's willingness to engage with interested and relevant stakeholders. Iceland had also welcomed the statement delivered by the Ni gerian Ambassador at the June meeting of the 
CTG, as well as the written responses, dated 10 October 2014, addressed to interested countries 
where it had been pointed out that "Nigeria is not introducing an import license regime or planning G/C/M/120 
 
- 9 - 
 
  to increase the import duties of fish and fish products so as to reduce imports". However, the 
official explanations were incomplete and inconsistent, particularly when compared with the information received from Icelandic exporters. 
8.9.  Iceland was also concerned by the possible introduction by Nigeria of quota restrictions to 
fishery imports and by the announced policy to reduce these by 25% annually, particularly as his 
country had exported 130 million dollars' worth of fish to Nigeria in 2012. Iceland's exports had dropped sharply and continued to fall, given the current uncertainty. He asked Nigeria to inform 
Members about any changes made to its import regime, including information on the licensing 
procedures in place, precise information on the fisheries products affected, the rationale of such measures to achieve Nigeria's stated policy objectives, and their compliance with Nigeria's WTO obligations. 
8.10.  The delegate of Norway recalled that, since October 2013, her delegation had registered 
similar concerns in this Council. Norway had followed up on this issue both in Geneva and 
bilaterally in Abuja, and appreciated the efforts made by the Nigerian Ambassador in Geneva and 
the local authorities in Abuja. Norway acknowledged that Nigeria had been addressing some legal 
and food safety concerns; however, there was a la ck of transparency and predictability regarding 
the current import licensing regime for fish and fish products, and particularly about the 
distribution of licences and the applicable regulations. Norway sought clarification about these 
aspects and about how the quota regime and import licensing requirements were WTO-compatible. Transparency and predictability were essential for all economic operators. 
8.11.  The delegate of the United States of Am erica reiterated the concerns of her delegation 
about this issue, and its request to Nigeria to clarify and provide all pertinent reasons for any new 
import restrictions it had in place or was contemplating for fish products. 
8.12.  The delegate of Uruguay echoed the previous speakers; his country had a trade relationship 
with Nigeria on seafood products which had been  affected by the policy changes implemented by 
Nigeria. Uruguay did not have enough information on how this procedure was operating and what its objectives were. 
8.13.  The delegate of Nigeria recalled that, as mentioned by previous speakers, her delegation 
had provided written responses on this issue at previous meetings of this Council and other 
committees, and had engaged to continue consulting with the concerned delegations. She stated that, when formulating the proposed new fish import policy, Nigeria had been mindful of its 
WTO obligations and commitments and would follow due processes and consider the views and 
comments of all stakeholders, including interested WTO Members, before finalizing the proposed new measure. She urged the concerned delegations to allow the consultations to continue in order 
to ensure an amicable solution to this issue. 
8.14.  The Chairperson thanked delegations for th eir interventions and proposed that the Council 
take note of the statements made. 
8.15.  The Council so agreed. 
9  NIGERIA – LOCAL CONTENT MEASURES IN OIL AND GAS – REQUEST FROM THE 
EUROPEAN UNION 
9.1.  The Chairperson informed the Council that, in a communication dated 6 November 2014, the 
delegation of the European Union had requested the Secretariat to include this item in the agenda 
of this meeting. 
9.2.  The delegate of the European Union renewe d its call to Nigeria to respond to the written 
questions and concerns previously raised by his delegation in this Council and at the 
TRIMs Committee. He asked Nigeria again about the measures it had taken to ensure that local content requirements would reflect the productive ca pacity and supply possibilities of the affected 
Nigerian sectors. Regarding the expatriate position s, he sought clarification on the possible skills 
shortages in the Nigerian labour market, and partic ularly the solution that would be provided when 
no Nigerian candidates could be found with the required skills. The EU was also interested in knowing how Nigeria intended to reconcile the objective of attracting new investment to the oil G/C/M/120 
 
- 10 - 
 
  and gas sector with the far-reaching obligations regarding the nationality of management and staff 
that limited the investors' control of their enterprises. 
9.3.  In order to fulfil the objective of obtaining a better skilled and educated workforce, capable of 
meeting the job requirements and the local co ntent requirements, and also to prevent the 
investment law from being an impediment to prod uction, with no positive economic or social 
impact, he asked Nigeria about the measures it would take or had already taken to ensure appropriate education and training opportunities to gether with those provided by the operators. 
9.4.  The EU had understood that, until the investment law would be reviewed, the derogation 
from the requirements therein, which had expire d in 2013, could no longer be awarded under the 
specific mechanism contained in Section 11 of the Law. Nigeria should explain how operators were currently being allowed to face capacity shortfalls. The EU would welcome responses to all of these 
questions. 
9.5.  The delegate of the United States of Amer ica recalled that, more than three years ago, her 
delegation had drawn the Council's attention to certain Nigerian measures which appeared to 
require the use of local content in Nigeria's oil and gas industry. Written questions had been posed 
to Nigeria in September 2011, but the delegation of Nigeria had indicated that it had not received instructions from its capital. A similar response was provided by Nigeria at the Council meeting in 
October 2011, when the US had described its understanding of the measure at issue. 
9.6.  The issue had repeatedly been raised in the CTG but Nigeria had continued to fail to respond 
to the questions posed. On several occasions her delegation had indicated that the WTO committee system provided a forum to gain a basic understanding of the trade policies of 
other Members and also to raise concerns outside of the context of dispute settlement. She 
therefore urged Nigeria to clarify its measure and to explain its relationship with Nigeria's obligations under the TRIMs Agreement. 
9.7.  In the view of her delegation, the adoption  of measures requiring the use of local content 
appeared to be spreading to new sectors in Nige ria and, most recently, to the ICT sector. Such 
measures imposed a long-term cost to Nigeria, as investors questioned their ability to operate in 
the market and considered alternative locations where the investment climate might be more 
favourable. The US looked forward to working bilaterally and multilaterally with Nigeria on these issues. 
9.8.  The delegate of Australia echoed the EU an d the US in again seeking Nigeria's explanation on 
how the preferential treatment accorded to local goods and services in its Oil and Gas Industry 
Content Development Act was consistent with Nigeria's national treatment obligations under the GATT. In particular, Australia noted that Sectio n 11.1 of the Act established minimum percentages 
of Nigerian content in goods, services, and investment, for any project in the Nigerian oil and gas 
industry. Furthermore, Section 7 of the Act requir ed operators to submit a Nigerian content plan 
demonstrating compliance with the Nigerian content requirements. Australia sought clarification 
from Nigeria with regard to these measures. 
9.9.  The delegate of Japan reiterated the concer ns of his delegation on this issue and requested 
Nigeria to provide the Council with the necessary information to clarify long-standing questions 
posed by Members in previous meetings of this Council and in the TRIMs Committee. 
9.10.  The delegate of Nigeria thanked delegations for their interest in the Nigerian Oil and Gas 
Industry Content Development Act 2010; she reassu red the Council that Nigeria was committed to 
its WTO obligations, as evidenced by the notifications it had submitted to enhance the 
transparency mechanism. Indeed, the Act provided a framework for the utilization of services in 
the Nigerian Oil and Gas Industry and, as expres sed at recent meetings of the TRIMs and Import 
Licensing Committees, the Act also maintained a good balance between national aspirations for 
local capacity development and the participation of international investors in the Nigerian oil and 
gas industry. 
9.11.  She also informed the Council that a meeting was held recently in the US between the 
stakeholders and related ministries and agencies  where the concerns raised by the EU, the US, 
Japan, and Australia, were addressed, and that various ministries in her country were still holding G/C/M/120 
 
- 11 - 
 
  negotiations on the concerns that had been raised by Members; her delegation would convey the 
results to the delegations concerned, either through this Council or bilaterally to their various offices or missions. 
9.12.  The Chairperson thanked delegations for th eir interventions and proposed that the Council 
take note of the statements made. 
9.13.  The Council so agreed. 
10  RUSSIAN FEDERATION – TRADE-RESTRICTING MEASURES – STATEMENTS BY THE 
EUROPEAN UNION, JAPAN AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
10.1.  The Chairperson informed the Council that, in a communication dated 6 November 2014, 
the delegations of the European Union, Japan, an d the United States of America had requested the 
Secretariat to include this item in the agenda of today's meeting. 
10.2.  The delegate of the European Union regret ted to have to refer once again to the Russian 
Federation's trade-restrictive measures. Indeed, since its accession to the WTO, in August 2012, 
the Russian Federation had not respected its commitments; consequently, the EU had been 
compelled to launch four dispute settlement cases, on motor cars recycling fees, pork ban, 
anti-dumping fees on light commercial vehicles, and excessive import duties. This was an exceptional situation in the history of the Organization and, in three out of the four disputes, a 
panel had already been established. This situation had generated a systemic problem. 
10.3.  The EU also deplored the frequent use by the Russian Federation of protectionist measures, 
such as the imposition of a subsidy for local car producers, a measure in place since 1 January 2014, aimed at "compensating" domestic  producers for the recycling fee established in 
September 2012. The EU had also raised on several occasions the safeguard measure on combine 
harvesters, a measure adopted in January 2015 and valid until August 2016. Furthermore, the Russian Federation had failed to address and reply to several important issues like the compliance 
of the Customs Union (CU) measures with the Russian Federation's WTO commitments, 
particularly the allocation of quotas. However, an d despite various statements to the contrary, the 
investigation authority had not provided a clear justification in its final report for the departure 
from the WTO requirements not to reduce impo rts below the average of imports of the last 
three years. 
10.4.  Concerns also existed about the protectionis t trend in the agricultural sector, largely based 
on alleged SPS problems. Measures such as the ban applied since 1 August 2014 to certain Polish 
fruits and vegetables, particularly apples, were affecting significantly the EU and other countries. 
At the SPS Committee in October 2014, the EU had expressed its concerns about the consistency of these measures with the international princi ples as outlined by the SPS Agreement and the 
International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC).  The Russian Federation ban appeared to be 
disproportionate in relation to the claimed lack of compliance, and was not supported by a risk assessment. Furthermore, since 7 August 2014 most of the EU's agricultural products were banned 
from entering the Russian Federation under the argument that this one-year ban would benefit the 
Russian Federation's domestic agricultural production. This ban also applied to the United States of America, Norway, Australia, and Canada. The ban prevented EU agricultural products from transiting through the Russian Federation to Central Asian countries, such as Kazakhstan. 
10.5.  Another area of concern in the agricultural sector was the adoption of a subsidy programme 
for agricultural machinery whose conditions for eligibility included "localization requirements". It was regrettable to observe the increased number of  discriminatory measures taken by the Russian 
Federation against EU products in the SPS area as well as in other fields, like the differentiated 
export duties on oil. With regard to the latter, the EU had noted that export duties applied to oil 
purchased in Eastern Siberia were lower than those for oil delivered through Russian western 
channels to the EU. The EU believed this to be a discriminatory practice, and to its detriment. 
10.6.  The protectionist trend developed by the Russian Federation over the past two years had 
been amplified by the establishment of the Custom s Union formed by the Russian Federation with 
Kazakhstan and Belarus. Indeed, the Russian protectionist measures which constituted an obstacle 
to trade had been extended to the Customs Union and this did not favour mitigating solutions. G/C/M/120 
 
- 12 - 
 
  10.7.  The G-20-WTO joint report on trade recalled that "G-20 governments extended until the end 
of 2016 their standstill commitment with respec t to measures affecting global trade and 
investment and their commitment to roll back new protectionist measures". However, the Russian Federation's trade policy trends showed that it had a long way to go to comply with this 
commitment. The EU expected the Russian Fede ration to change this trend so that its 
WTO membership would become an asset not only for the Russian Federation itself but for the Organization as a whole. Members were all awar e that the fundamental WTO disciplines remained 
to be fully met, and urged the Russian Federation urgently to take the necessary steps to put its 
policy into compliance with its obligations. 
10.8.  The delegate of the United States of Amer ica echoed the concerns expressed by the EU over 
the implementation of the Russian Federation's WTO commitments, particularly the growing trend 
to adopt discriminatory policies against imports and in favour of its own products. Specific 
examples included the mandate to purchase domestically produced automobiles, medical equipment, and pharmaceutical products. 
10.9.  There was a clear trend away from open trade that the US was monitoring closely in order 
to ensure that these measures would apply only to purchases for governmental purposes. More specifically, on 14 May 2014, Russia had issued Presidential Instructions No. 1159, entitled "On 
Additional Measures to Stimulate Economic Growth", which outlined an import substitution 
programme. Those instructions directed the relevant Ministries to develop and approve plans to promote import substitution in the industry and agricultural sectors, including incentive measures for companies implementing the plans. She asked Ru ssia to clarify if there had been specific plans 
issued, if those specific plans were publically available, and to confirm that these plans were 
consistent with the Russian Federation's WTO obligations, both in their language and their implementation. 
10.10.  Similarly, in October 2014, the Russian Fe deration's Ministry of Trade and Industry had 
proposed a ban on the purchase by certain companies of imported automobiles, metal products, and heavy machinery from certain countries. The 65 companies that had been named might be 
state-owned companies; however, these also engaged in commercial activities, and hence were 
covered by Russia's WTO commitments. The Russian Federation should clarify the status of this proposed ban. 
10.11.  Given that at the G-20 and APEC meetings  the Russian Federation had put a premium on 
RTA transparency, the US urged Russia and its customs union partners to promptly notify the 
Eurasian Economic Union under GATT Article XXIV, together with the documentation required under the WTO Transparency Mechanism for Regional Trade Agreements. 
10.12.  Her delegation was also concerned about the ban imposed by Russia on 6 August 2014 to 
certain agricultural imports from the US, the EU, Canada, Australia, and Norway. This would adversely impact upon the Russian population. 
10.13.  The delegate of Japan echoed the previous concerns about the trade-restricting measures 
implemented by the Russian Federation; these had both a systemic and a commercial impact. 
Japan acknowledged Russia's reduction of its applied rates operated in September and October 2013 and in September 2014; however, there were still some tariff lines whose applied 
rates were higher than the bound duties, particularly in cases where the customs value was below 
a certain level or value. The Russian Federation's use of mixed tariffs in applied rates on certain products, like refrigerators, resulted in a higher ad valorem  equivalent than the corresponding 
bound rates. This continued to affect Japanese industries. 
10.14.  Japan considered that bound rates were the most fundamental obligation under the WTO 
and urged Russia to be a responsible Member by bringing its duties into conformity with its 
WTO obligations. Furthermore, Russia's decision to raise its applied tariffs for TV sets as from 
April 2013 ran counter to the standstill commitment of the G20 and APEC leaders. The Russian Federation should also respect its political commitments and redress this situation. 
10.15.  Japan had also been monitoring Russia's implementation of its WTO commitments in the 
automotive sector, and had noticed that Russian automobile manufacturers that received a subsidy 
were companies that had accepted the local-content requirement to obtain preferential tariffs. At G/C/M/120 
 
- 13 - 
 
  the October 2014 meeting of the TRIMS Committee, when responding to a question about how an 
automobile producer could be considered to be Ru ssian, the Russian delegation had explained that 
the pertinent Resolutions merely indicated that the production itself should be "in the industrial assembly mode", which meant that the producer had a valid agreement on industrial assembly. 
Japan would submit questions in written form to deepen the discussion on this matter in the 
relevant committees. 
10.16.  The delegate of the Republic of Korea echoed the previous speakers and reiterated the 
concerns of his delegation on the application by the Russian Federation of higher tariff rates on 
imported refrigerators than those set out in its Schedule of Concessions. This was inconsistent with Russia's accession commitments and caused an unnecessary burden to Korean industry. Korea had engaged in bilateral consultations with Russia bu t there had been no meaningful progress. He 
urged the Russian Federation to address this issue in a constructive and timely manner in order to 
respect its accession commitments and to remove the restrictive measures as soon as possible. 
10.17.  The delegate of Australia reiterated that the Russian Federation should adhere to its 
WTO accession commitments and avoid the use of trade-restrictive measures; these were of 
concern for Australia and had a negative impact on its trade. Australia looked forward to continued engagement with the relevant Russian authorities on these issues. 
10.18.  The delegate of Canada expressed the conc erns of his country over the increasing number 
of protectionist measures recently taken by the Russian Federation, particularly given its status as 
a Recently Acceded Member of the WTO. Canada  also questioned the consistency of these 
measures with Russia's WTO obligations and, as a member of the G-20, reminded Russia that it 
had committed to a standstill against protectionist policies. He encouraged the Russian Federation 
to dismantle the variety of trade-restrictive measures that it had recently introduced. 
10.19.  The delegate of Ukraine shared the previous  concerns and recalled that his delegation had 
already raised similar concerns in various WTO bodies. However, there had not been any positive 
development from the Russian Federation's side. Th e Russian Federation's lack of compliance with 
its WTO commitments had common systemic characteristics such as unpredictability, 
non-transparency, and lack of justification in accordance with the WTO Agreements. The manner 
in which many of these measures were applied cast doubt on their compatibility with the non-discrimination principle, such as the na tional treatment and MFN provisions of the 
WTO Agreements. 
10.20.  The Russian Federation had failed to provid e scientific evidence to support its TBT and/or 
SPS measures. It had provided rather limited information to general notices on the responsible authority's website, and had also failed to respon d to the enquiries and claims of traders. The 
Ukrainian authorities had encountered problems in communicating with the relevant Russian 
Federation authorities, and had been waiting many months for specific responses to written official enquiries on specific trade concerns. 
10.21.  Russia's import-restricting measures covered a wide range of goods of animal and plant 
origin, such as confectionary, juice, dairy produc ts, alcoholic and beer beverages, and vegetables. 
10.22.  The measure introduced on 15 October 2014 banned import and transit from Ukraine of all 
plant products on the grounds of alleged increa sed imports and their presumed EU origin. This 
measure was not based on scientific evidence or maintained on sufficient scientific evidence or 
statistical data; it was excessive, trade-restricting, and discriminatory. 
10.23.  Ukraine welcomed the Russian Federation's announcement made at the last 
TBT Committee meeting that it would engage in bilateral consultations on some specific trade 
concerns (STCs). This was a positive signal and Ukraine hoped that the consultations would be constructive and aimed at reaching satisfactory settlement of the concerns, rather than to a 
further delay in the settlement of these issues. He urged the Russian Federation to fully comply 
with its WTO commitments, to ensure predictability and transparency, to remove unjustified bans and discriminatory barriers for imported products , and to improve cooperation with Ukraine and 
interested WTO Members in identifying problems and finding solutions. G/C/M/120 
 
- 14 - 
 
  10.24.  The delegate of Chinese Taipei stated th at, although her delegation sympathized with the 
Russian Federation as a very recently acceded WTO Member, Chinese Taipei also shared the 
concerns raised by other delegations. The Ru ssian Federation, as part of the rules-based 
multilateral trading system, should double its efforts to implement its WTO accession commitments 
and to comply with its WTO obligations. Chinese Taipei was particularly concerned about the 
provisional import ban applied by the Russian Federation to its fish products. Bilateral 
consultations had been constructive and Chinese Ta ipei looked forward to resolving these issues 
promptly. 
10.25.  The delegate of New Zealand stated that his country had an established track record of 
constructive engagement with the Russian Federation on veterinary issues, including a treaty-level 
agreement, to which New Zealand attached great value. His country had respected its agreements 
with Russia and the animal products exported to the Russian Federation complied with the 
requirements. New Zealand was ready to work with the Customs Union on new certification 
requirements but was also mindful of the challeng es this process presented and had signalled to 
the Customs Union partners New Zealand's wish to secure a robust and pragmatic outcome, 
consistent with WTO obligations. However, Ne w Zealand was also concerned by the sweeping 
nature of Russia's import bans and would continue to follow developments closely. 
10.26.  The delegate of the Russian Federation said  that most of the interventions made repeated 
what had already been said by the same delegati ons during the previous meeting of the CTG and 
reiterated that his delegation had always been and continued to be ready to engage in constructive 
dialogue with interested delegations with a view to finding solutions to the problems if such 
problems did exist. 
10.27.  He indicated that, as from 1 September 2014, the new revision of the Customs Union 
Common Customs Tariff had entered into force and it was in accordance with Russia's tariff 
reduction commitments for 2014. Such revision included inter alia  the reduction of the custom 
duties that had caused concern to some Members in the past. He announced that the Russian Federation had accepted the EU request to hold bilateral consultations on these concerns, and 
indicated that the suspension of some imports fr om Ukraine was due to the inconsistency of some 
products with the current technical regulations of the Customs Union in order to protect the consumers' right to have valid information and prevent deceptive practices. The measures adopted were in compliance with WTO rules and the TB T Agreement and, after the detection of the 
first cases of non-compliance, the Federal Service on Consumers' Rights Protection and Human 
Well-Being Surveillance of the Russian Federation had been supervising more carefully Ukrainian products. However, Russia was ready to discuss and develop measures to assist the return of such 
products to the Russian market. 
10.28.  He reiterated that the SPS measures adop ted by his country were based on international 
standards and in compliance with the SPS Agreement. The competent authorities in his country 
were doing their best, both bilaterally and in the WTO, to address any trade concern raised by 
WTO Members. 
10.29.  Concerning the safeguard measures on combine harvesters to which the EU had referred, 
he said that the final report of the investigating authority provided an explanation on the level of 
imports which was in accordance with Article 5.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards. On the import 
quota allocation, he referred to the response al ready provided by his delegation at the Committee 
on Safeguards, when the EU had raised the same issue, and that, in the absence of a sufficient 
number of requests for import licences from historical importers, the remaining quota volume had 
been distributed among other suppliers as of mid-April 2014. 
10.30.  He stated that the concerns about differential treatment and possible inconsistencies with 
the national treatment principle did not have legal ground and that the measures in question were 
in line with the Russian Federation's WTO commi tments. The Russian Federation had taken very 
seriously the implementation of its WTO commitments, and the temporary measures that it had adopted were also WTO-compliant. 
10.31.  The Chairperson thanked delegations for their interventions and proposed that the Council 
take note of the statements made. G/C/M/120 
 
- 15 - 
 
  10.32.  The Council so agreed. 
11  INDONESIA'S IMPORT AND EXPORT RESTRICTING POLICIES AND PRACTICES – 
STATEMENTS BY THE EUROPEAN UNION, JAPAN AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
11.1.  The Chairperson informed the Council that, in a communication dated 6 November 2014, 
the delegations of the European Union, Japan, an d the United States of America, had requested 
the Secretariat to include this item on the agenda of this meeting. 
11.2.  The delegate of the United States of America expressed the interest of her delegation in 
working with the new Indonesian government to address the concerns that it had raised about 
various trade measures adopted and implemented by the previous government, and welcomed the 
priority that President Widodo was placing on the improvement of the business and investment 
environment in Indonesia, such as reducing red tape and speeding up the business license 
process. She also recalled that on various occasions in this Council the US had raised concerns 
about the growing number of trade and investment restrictions which affected a broad range of sectors, including agriculture, information and communications technology, energy, and consumer 
goods. The measures previously adopted by Indonesia included import licensing requirements, 
local content and domestic manufacturing requir ements, standards requirements, pre-shipment 
inspection requirements, and export restrictions requirements, including taxes and prohibitions. 
Concerns also existed about the general lack of transparency in Indonesia. 
11.3.  There were other specific policies that had emerged, such as the import of information 
technology products. Indeed, two months ago, the Ministries of Trade and Industry had begun to 
delay the issuance of import permits and lice nces for cell-phones, tablets, and handheld 
computers, and required importers to commit to establish manufacturing bases in Indonesia. 
Despite the bilateral and WTO discussions of her delegation with Indonesia to address these concerns, the results obtained to date were disa ppointing and limited. The US hoped that the new 
government would engage in more productive discussions and positive outcomes. 
11.4.  The delegate of Japan echoed the US and re ferred particularly to the implementation of the 
Mining Law which prohibited the exportation of raw materials, such as nickel ore. As previously 
expressed in this Council, the export-restricting measures on raw materials constituted a violation 
of GATT Article XI which stipulated general elimination of quantitative restrictions on import and export. He asked Indonesia to clarify the consistency of this measure with the relevant WTO provisions. Since the implementation of the re strictions, Japan, together with its industry, 
had urged the Indonesian authorities to recons ider the measures concerned. Japan hoped to 
obtain a WTO-consistent solution through bilatera l dialogue with the new Indonesian government; 
however, it would consider taking further steps under the DSU if the current situation remained 
unchanged. 
11.5.  Concerns also existed about the Law on Trade and the Law on Industry. Japan considered 
the Trade Ministry Regulation No. 70/2013 problematic as it imposed an obligation on shopping 
centres and modern retail shops to ensure that 80% of the products in their outlets were 
domestic. Such a local content condition would hardly support the retail sector in Indonesia and could further deteriorate Indonesia's business climate. Japan sought clarification on the revision of this regulation which was promulgated in September. Japan would continue to monitor these 
issues and expected the Indonesian authorities to  bring the measures into conformity with the 
relevant provisions of the WTO Agreements, in particular Article III:4 of the GATT, and Article 2 of the TRIMS Agreement. 
11.6.  Japan also referred to Trade Ministry Regulation No. 28/2014, which entered into force in 
July 2014 and which restricted imports of alloy steel  and provided that the import licenses should 
be granted within five working days. Nonetheless, there had been delays in granting such import 
licences and/or conditions to restrict the quantity of imported goods. Japan requested Indonesia to 
clarify in written form the consistency of such measures with the relevant provisions of the WTO Agreements, namely Article XI:1 of the GATT,  and Articles 2.2(a)(iii) and 3.5(f) of the 
Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures. 
11.7.  The delegate of the European Union reiterat ed the concerns that the EU had expressed over 
more than one year in many WTO bodies with regard to Indonesia's trade policies. Operators G/C/M/120 
 
- 16 - 
 
  hesitated to enter the Indonesian market give n the growing restrictions that contradicted 
Indonesia's pledge made at G-20. 
11.8.  The EU was concerned about the legislation on  distribution that could restrict considerably 
the possibilities for non-locally produced goods or non-local marks to be sold on the Indonesian 
market, the imposition of pre-paid corporate income tax to import companies which were not in 
line with Indonesia's WTO obligations of non-discrimination, and the entry port restrictions in the Jakarta main port that undermined the EU's capacity to export food in particular. 
11.9.  Concerns also existed over the export restriction measures applied to certain raw materials 
and, despite the amendment recently introduced to  the tariff component, the ban on exports of 
unprocessed minerals had been left unchanged. These measures disrupted international markets, increased input costs for producers, and led to uncertainty in terms of supply. The current export 
ban, while aiming at supporting certain industrial policy objectives under the Mining Law, might be 
more harmful than beneficial both to the Indonesian economy and to global markets. The EU considered these measures to be inconsistent  with WTO rules, which prohibited quantitative 
export restrictions. His delegation had already ca lled upon Indonesia to improve transparency on 
the implementation of these measures and to provide updated information. 
11.10.  The EU deplored the lack of transparency  and consultation prior to the issuance of the 
legislation. This created a climate of uncertainty and ambiguity for exporters, importers, and 
investors alike. This applied in particular, but not only, to the adopted Laws on Industry and Trade, whose impact on trade and investment could be significant in terms of disrupting trade if fully implemented in their current form. The EU hoped th at the firm commitment of President Widodo to 
enhance transparency and increase trade openness would soon translate into concrete actions that 
would address the concerns that had been expressed in this Council for over a year. 
11.11.  The delegate of the Republic of Korea congratulated Indonesia for its new government and 
urged it to withdraw these measures soon. Korea reiterated its call to Indonesia to review its laws 
on Trade and on Industry with due consideration to relevant WTO rules and Members' concerns, and to provide relevant information on their subordinate regulations under preparation. 
11.12.  The delegate of Canada said that his co untry, as a significant exporter of high quality 
agricultural and agri-food products, had a systemic interest in ensuring that Indonesia's measures 
did not restrict trade. He echoed the previous statements, particularly those which referred to horticultural products, animals, and animal products. Canada had participated as a third party in 
the consultations, and concerns remained that Indonesia's numerous measures, especially those 
which related to agricultural products, might negatively affect Canada's ability to compete in the Indonesian market. Canada also encouraged Indonesia to respect its WTO obligations, in particular 
on import licensing. 
11.13.  The delegate of Australia reiterated its concerns about Indonesia's import-restricting 
policies in recent years, particularly those affecting agriculture and resource trade. Restrictions on 
exports of raw materials had created uncertainty for Indonesian and foreign mining operators 
alike, and were affecting investors' confidence. Si milarly, the implementation of the new laws on 
Trade and on Industry had the potential to harm investment. Australia welcomed the ambitious plans of the new Indonesian government to ac celerate economic growth, improve the business 
environment, and attract foreign investment, and was ready to collaborate closely with it on 
foreign trade and investment issues, and to support growth. 
11.14.  The delegate of New Zealand expressed the concerns of his country about Indonesia's 
restrictive requirements for imports, in particular those measures relating to animal and 
horticultural products, which had substantially impacted New Zealand's trade. He acknowledged the changes introduced to these measures since 2013; however, concerns remained on the import 
licensing scheme for agricultural products which was more trade-restrictive than necessary. As 
uncertainty for importers remained over the implem entation of these regulations, he encouraged 
Indonesia to undertake further reform. Concerns al so existed with regard to Regulation 70, which 
required retail outlets to sell 90% domestically produced goods. 
11.15.  The delegate of Chinese Taipei shared the concerns expressed over Indonesia's import 
licensing regime for agricultural products, which required importers to obtain multiple documents, G/C/M/120 
 
- 17 - 
 
  to complete multiple steps, and to contact multiple Indonesian agencies prior to importation. 
These requirements were complex, burdensome, and time-consuming, and had negatively affected the access of Chinese Taipei's agricultural products into Indonesia. The requirements were discriminatory and breached the national treatment principle. 
11.16.  The request for consultations by New Zealand and the United States of America, as well as 
the dispute filed in October 2014 by Brazil against Indonesia over the importation of chicken meat and chicken products, covered the same areas of concern as those of her delegation. Chinese 
Taipei would continue closely to monitor this issue and encouraged Indonesia to improve its import 
licensing regime. 
11.17.  The delegate of Indonesia thanked the previous speakers for their continued interest in her 
country's trade policy and said that every day, and at all times, millions of tons of imported goods 
passed through all ports of entry into Indonesia. Indeed, during the first semester of 2014, the 
value of imported goods reached around 118 billion USD, of which most imports originated in the EU, Japan, the US, Korea, Australia, New Zealand, and also ASEAN Member countries. 
11.18.  Indonesia's new administration was committed to increase intra-ASEAN trade from 24.2% 
to 35 and 40% during the next five years. To realize this commitment the new Government planned to expand infrastructure by inviting foreig n investment. This effort was meant to facilitate 
trade and to expedite export and import activities. 
11.19.  She recalled Indonesia's statement in several Council meetings that it was a strong 
supporter of the multilateral trading system and trade reform. Indonesia's import and export policy 
was applied on the basis of justifiable reasons,  such as safety, health, environment, social, 
cultural, and moral hazard reasons, and was not intended to create barriers to trade. The results 
of the supervisory and control activities conducted by the Indonesian National Agency of Drug and 
Food Control had shown that not all imported food and traditional medicine complied with the 
requirements of Indonesian National Standards. In September 2014, this authority had destroyed, 
in different regions of the country, illegally imported goods worth around 15 million USD. Moreover, the Division of Goods and Services Su pervision in the Ministry of Trade had found 
several imported goods circulating in the market that did not comply with the required standards, 
such as iron steel, toys, electronic products, tires, and several other consumer products. 
11.20.  He highlighted that the policies adopted by Indonesia in recent years were "living policies", 
which evolved, were readjusted, and recalibrated commensurate with the challenges of global 
trade, and that Indonesia would communicate any changes made to the relevant WTO bodies. 
Indonesia remained committed to working with other Members to address Members' concerns as well as Indonesia's own needs and development challenges. 
11.21.  The Chairperson thanked delegations for their interventions and proposed that the Council 
take note of the statements made. 
11.22.  The Council so agreed. 
12  PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA – COUNTER NOTIFICATION OF STATE TRADING 
ENTERPRISES OF CHINA – REQUEST FROM THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
12.1.  The Chairperson informed the Council that, in a communication dated 6 November 2014, 
the delegation of the United States of America ha d requested the Secretariat to include this item 
on the agenda of this meeting. 
12.2.  The delegate of the United States of America informed Members that, on 7 August 2014, 
and pursuant to paragraph 4 of the Understandin g on the Implementation of Article XVII, her 
delegation had submitted to the Working Party on State Trading Enterprises (WPSTE) a 
counter-notification of the state trading enterpri ses of China. This had been discussed by the 
WPSTE at its meeting on 9 October 2014, when China had stated that it was currently preparing 
its overdue notifications from 2004 throug h 2013 and would notify the Working Party 
"immediately" after that work had been finished. G/C/M/120 
 
- 18 - 
 
  12.3.  The US had welcomed the news and asked China to inform Members when they could 
expect to receive such notifications. 
12.4.  The delegate of Japan shared the concern about China's lack of notification on its state 
trading enterprises. Being the largest country in  terms of world trade, China might provide an 
example as a responsible Member in the multilateral  trading system, by submitting its notifications 
in a timely manner. 
12.5.  The delegate of Australia said that notifi cations underpin the transparency obligations of the 
WTO, but also acknowledged the difficulties in their preparation process so as to ensure that these 
were comprehensive and as up-to-date as possible. However, significant delays in their submission impacted upon other Members' interests and their ability to adequately review and understand the notifications. He called on China to comply with its notification obligations as soon as possible. 
12.6.  The delegate of the European Union said that the EU supported any initiative that could 
increase transparency; consequently, it would welcome updated information on China's 
state-trading enterprises activities as announced by China at the Working Party. 
12.7.  The delegate of the People's Republic of Ch ina informed delegations, particularly those that 
had intervened, that China was assessing the details of the US counter-notification and reserved 
its right to make further comments and clarifications, including the request of bilateral 
consultations with the US. 
12.8.  China fully respected the transparency prin ciple and had made its best effort to fulfil its 
notification obligations since it had joined the WTO in 2001. As already stated at the meeting of the WPSTE on 9 October 2014, there had been no changes in China's state trading administration 
system since 2003, except for a limited number of  agricultural products which were no longer 
subject to state trading administration. Her capital was still working on the preparation of the notification of the STEs from 2004 to 2013 and wo uld submit the notification once completed. 
12.9.  The Chairperson thanked delegations for th eir interventions and proposed that the Council 
take note of the statements made. 
12.10.  The Council so agreed. 
13  UKRAINE – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURE ON  IMPORTS OF AMMONIUM NITRATE FROM 
THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION - REQUEST FROM THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION 
13.1.  The Chairperson informed the Council that, in a communication dated 6 November 2014, 
the delegation of the Russian Federation had reques ted the Secretariat to include this item in the 
agenda of this meeting. 
13.2.  The delegate of the Russian Federation re iterated the concerns that her delegation had 
already expressed at the October meeting of the Committee on Anti-Dumping regarding the recent 
reviews by Ukraine of its anti-dumping measures on ammonium nitrate originating in the Russian 
Federation. The Russian Federation doubted that  either the methodology of dumping margin 
calculation or the procedure of the review we re in line with Ukraine's WTO commitments. 
13.3.  Indeed, the final conclusions of Ukraine's investigation authorities rejected the actual costs 
of the product, and specifically th e cost of gas, and replaced the exporters' actual cost data with 
fictional purported "market" cost data. This new market data included prices for gas from outside the Russian Federation, the country of origin, and exportation of ammonium nitrate. This 
replacement was made to determine whether sales we re made in the ordinary course of trade and 
for subsequent construction of the normal value; however, her delegation was of the view that this was not in line with Article 2 of the WTO Agreement on Anti-Dumping. 
13.4.  Concerning the procedural aspects, Ukraine had failed to provide interested parties with the 
data and calculations it had used to determine the existence and the amount of dumping margin. Russia believed that Ukraine had not considered appropriately the fundamental principles of 
anti-dumping proceedings, such as fair procedur e and transparency. Ukraine's failure to disclose 
data and calculations deprived interested parties from acknowledging the fundamental facts under G/C/M/120 
 
- 19 - 
 
  consideration, and consequently from defending their interests; this ran contrary to Article 6 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
13.5.  Her delegation had approached Ukraine several times asking for the missing information but 
no proper response had been received, only Ukraine's assurances that everything would be 
provided in due course. Since this had not been the case, the Russian Federation looked forward to 
receiving the required information and clarifications from Ukraine's investigating authorities. 
13.6.  The delegate of Ukraine stated that, when conducting the above-mentioned reviews of the 
anti-dumping measures, the competent investigating authority of Ukraine had reached its 
conclusions based on and in full compliance with Ukraine's Law No. 330-XIV of 22 December 1998, and amendments, on the protection of national pr oducers against dumped imports, as well as in 
compliance with the Anti-Dumping Agreement. On  10 November 2014, the Russian Federation had 
posed a number of questions concerning Article 16.4 of the said Agreement; experts in Kiev were 
preparing the pertinent answers that would be conveyed to the Russian Federation promptly. 
13.7.  The Chairperson thanked delegations for th eir interventions and proposed that the Council 
take note of the statements made. 
13.8.  The Council so agreed. 
14  JORDAN – REQUEST FOR A WAIVER RELA TING TO THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD FOR 
THE ELIMINATION OF THE EXPORT SUBS IDY PROGRAM FOR JORDAN (G/C/W/706) 
14.1.  The Chairperson drew the Council's attention to document G/C/W/705, containing a waiver 
request and a draft waiver decision submitted by Jo rdan in respect of the transitional period for 
the elimination of the export subsidy program for Jordan. 
14.2.  Mrs Maha Ali, Secretary General of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Supply, on behalf of 
Jordan, stated that the waiver request was aimed at assisting her country in reducing the 
implications of persisting severe regional and international circumstances, to continue to stimulate 
private sector investments, and to enable the industrial sector to adjust to these challenges. The 
industrial sector in Jordan was a main pillar of the economy, which contributed to almost a quarter 
of the GDP and was heavily connected with other economic sectors, such as services and 
agriculture, and absorbed a significant part of the labour force while providing opportunities for 
education and training. Industrial exports constituted around 90% of the total exports of the country. Additionally, Jordan had to deal with major economic, financial, and political challenges, and also development needs. 
14.3.  The unprecedented regional volatility, co ntinuing negative consequences of the global 
financial crisis, and the accompanying crisis in the Euro-zone, had greatly affected the economy. The GDP recorded a growth rate of 2.8% in 2013, which was very modest compared to its levels 
during the period 2000-2008, which amounted to an average of about 6.6% per annum. Her 
government had adopted austerity measures in te rms of cutting back fuel subsidies and freezing 
public recruitment. Nonetheless, the net public de bt recorded an increase of 4.5% by the end of 
2013 and had reached 27 USD billion, which was equivalent to 80% of Jordan's GDP. 
14.4.  The inflation rate as measured by the relative change in the average index for consumer 
prices had registered 5.6% in 2013 when compared to 4.7% back in 2012. This increase was a result of, among other factors, the liberalization of prices of oil derivatives, noting the sharp 
increase of oil world prices, which in turn raised the domestic prices of electricity and 
transportation. The unemployment rate in 2013 had increased to a record 12.6% and this was attributable to structural imbalances in the labour market, on the one hand, and low-paid foreign 
workers in a large number of job sectors, on the ot her. Moreover, in the last few years, Jordan had 
hosted several influxes of refug ees from neighbouring countries, ma inly from Iraq and Syria, which 
had had a negative impact on the national budget an d infrastructure. With Syrian citizens residing 
in the country currently around 1.4 million, including refugees, the financial burden on the 
economy amounted to around US$2.1 billion in 2013,  and was forecast to hit US$3.2 billion by the 
end of 2014. The burden strained the infrastructu re, education, health, water, food, and other 
sectors. The Syrian labour force was also pushing into areas of the job market traditionally 
reserved to Jordanians, and thus reducing job opportunities for Jordanian nationals. G/C/M/120 
 
- 20 - 
 
  14.5.  Jordan's trade with Arab countries constitu ted more than 50% of its total external trade and 
exports to Arab countries represented around 57% in 2013. The political instability in the region 
had had a severe impact on the trade performance of Jordan, and threatened the loss of traditional 
markets for Jordanian exports, as well as other si gnificant markets. The trade deficit significantly 
increased from 9.2 billion USD in 2008 to reach 14.4 billion USD in 2013. 
14.6.  Bilateral trade with neighbouring Arab countries, such as Iraq and Syria, had also been 
negatively affected, and Jordanian exports to Europe and Turkey via Syria had also significantly 
decreased. Moreover, the disruption of the Egyptian gas supply that was used by industries and for 
energy generation had had a very negative impact  on Jordan's economy as a whole. Consequently, 
the Government was forced to use more expensive diesel and heavy fuel for electricity generation instead of the cheaper gas, which drastically rais ed the price of electricity. To complete this 
panorama, the competition distorting energy pricing policy in some producing and exporting 
countries, in addition to the volatility of the price of raw materials in global markets, had led to the inability of Jordanian domestic industry, specifically small and medium-sized enterprises, to 
compete fairly, and caused some industries to shut down their factories, or to move abroad. As 
from January 2013, 1080 factories were shut down and almost 14 jobs eliminated. 
14.7.  The above-mentioned reasons explained the waiver request which was limited in scope and 
aimed at extending the transitional period after 2015 to provide the SMEs in Jordan the 
opportunity to deal with the unprecedented diffic ult situation and challenges of a political and 
economic nature in the region, in addition to enabling Jordanian exports to regain a certain competitive ground and maintain existing markets. She added that, overall, the programme had 
proven to be an effective tool for economic stimulation since its introduction, and in order to 
continue to promote production, investment, and export-oriented SME businesses in Jordan, Jordan needed to maintain its export subsidy programme in the form of tax exemptions on income 
generated from exports beyond the year 2015. Th erefore, Jordan requested a waiver from its 
obligations of the transition period under Articl e 27.2(b) of the SCM Agreement, and continuation 
of extensions pursuant to Article 27.4 of the SCM Agreement, until 2023. 
14.8.  The delegate of Kuwait, on behalf of th e Arab Group, thanked Jordan for its clear and 
complete explanation of its waiver request and stated that the challenges and development needs 
faced by developing countries, namely those of the Arab Region, were not easy, especially in 
volatile circumstances such as the current problems and crises across the world. Many of these 
countries were middle-income, with modest Gross National Income (GNI) figures per capita. 
Jordan was one such country, with a GNI per capita of 4,950 USD in 2013, according to World Bank statistics. Among many other obstacles and challenges, employment and poverty remained 
targets to defeat, and a means to achieve this was through the encouragement provided to small 
and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which is the essence of the Jordanian request. 
14.9.  Jordan, a developing country located in a region that had encountered political, economic 
and social instability over the last four years, faced severe pressure on its resources and 
infrastructure in order to overcome the subsequent negative consequences. Moreover, the spillovers of conflicts in neighbouring countries continued to subdue Jordan's economic activity. These made Jordan's request essential to overco me all those difficulties. Therefore, the Arab 
Group supported the waiver request and hoped that a positive decision would be adopted in due 
time. 
14.10.  The delegate of Oman associated his delegation with the statement made on behalf of the 
Arab Group. Oman acknowledged the circumstances faced by Jordan and believed that the 
purpose of the request was clear and of a genuine nature. Jordan had undertook reform measures, including infrastructure projects such as alternative gas supplies intended to help ease the 
situation; however, it would take some time for the results of these efforts to materialize. Oman 
called upon Members to consider Jordan's status both as a developing country and a Recently Acceded Member (RAM) in their assessment of it s request. Oman supported Jordan's request. 
14.11.  The delegate of the Kingdom of Bahrain supported the statement made on behalf of the 
Arab Group and confirmed Bahrain's support of Jordan's request, as it believed that the extension 
of the export program would help Jordan to face the economic and geopolitical challenges of the region. Bahrain did not find the export program trade-distorting, and believed that it would be 
beneficial for trade in the region. G/C/M/120 
 
- 21 - 
 
  14.12.  The delegate of Qatar, when supporting the statement made by the Arab Group, stated 
that his delegation found the request and its justification sufficient and valid. Since the trade 
effects were minimal, he encouraged other delegations to support Jordan's request. 
14.13.  The delegate of the Kingdom of Saudi Arab ia associated his delegation with the statement 
made on behalf of the Arab Group. Saudi Arabia believed that SMEs were a key driver to all 
economies in the world, and especially to those in developing countries; SMEs played a major role in facing employment and economic growth challe nges. As indicated by Jordan in its submission, 
its request was limited in scope, aimed only at extending the transitional period so as to give SMEs 
the opportunity to deal with the unprecedented difficult situation and the challenges of a political and economic nature in the region. 
14.14.  The WTO existed as a means to an end. That end was to enhance the welfare and living 
conditions of all, both within and across countries, developed and developing alike. This required 
policy coherence between trade policy and public policy goals. To this extent, and to assist Jordan in overcoming the challenges faced by its economy, Saudi Arabia urged the Council to support 
Jordan's waiver request. 
14.15.  The delegate of Turkey stated that his delegation believed in free trade and liberalization 
as the best means to pursue well-being in a country over the long run; however, there should also 
be temporary and exceptional options to help WTO Members overcome extraordinary 
circumstances. Turkey was well aware of the difficulties Jordan was facing in a number of economic areas, including the phasing out of its export subsidy programme. 
14.16.  The current political situation in the Middl e East had a significant impact on the economies 
of the region and, as a result, Jordan had received  1.4 million immigrants from Syria alone. Turkey 
could understand the social and economic impact of such a situation as Turkey itself had welcomed almost 1.7 million Syrian refugees. But refugees were not the only problem in the region; other 
economic challenges had also arisen. Therefore, Turkey supported Jordan's request and hoped that 
such a waiver would alleviate Jordan's overall economic burden. 
14.17.  The delegate of Egypt associated his delega tion with the statement made on behalf of the 
Arab Group and expressed the support of his country for Jordan's waiver request for extension of 
its Export Subsidy Programme until December 2023. This would have a positive effect on Jordan's economic and social prospects, as this programme was an integral part of its investment regime. Egypt looked forward to a positive consideration of this request. 
14.18.  The delegate of Tunisia thanked Jordan for the comprehensive explanation it had provided 
with regard to its waiver request. The extension of the program would support Jordan's efforts to 
address unemployment and poverty, as well as its development needs in light of the exceptional 
circumstances in the region. Tunisia supported the waiver. 
14.19.  The delegate of the People's Republic of  China stated that, in light of the exceptional 
circumstances and difficulties that Jordan was facing, China supported this request. 
14.20.  The delegate of Japan stated that his country commended the vital role that Jordan had 
played, and continued to play, in the peace and st ability of the Middle East. In recognition of the 
tough challenges that Jordan had been facing, in cluding those caused by the influx of refugees 
from neighbouring areas, Japan had been extending assistance to Jordan to support its efforts. 
Japan acknowledged that Jordan was undertaking a stru ctural reform in abolis hing fuel subsidies, a 
measure that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) had considered positively under the fifth review of the stand-by arrangement. 
14.21.  Concerning the request for a waiver, Japan required further clarification on a number of 
issues, including explanation as to whether there was any other WTO-consistent measure to support Jordan's economy than the extension of it s export subsidy program. The potential adverse 
effects to the WTO Members to which those subsidized exports were directed, as well as to the 
other WTO Members which undertook their commitments, together with Jordan, based on the General Council Decision in 2007, al so required further examination. G/C/M/120 
 
- 22 - 
 
  14.22.  Japan believed that, in general, an ex port subsidy was one of the most harmful and 
trade-distorting measures, and its exemption from the obligation set out in a General Council decision, as well as of the WTO Agreement, shou ld not be easily accepted without a thorough 
discussion among WTO Members to find a convincing justification. Therefore, Japan wanted 
constructively to engage in the discussion on this very important matter. 
14.23.  The delegate of the United States of America said that export subsidies, normally 
prohibited under the Subsidies Agreement, had a long history, and that these were to be phased 
out by most developing countries by 2002, but that, in order to address the concerns of certain 
developing countries, two extensions of the original 2002 deadline had been requested and granted, such that the original deadline had si nce been extended by 13 additional years. The 
US had played a central role in facilitating both the extension requests and approvals in 2001 and 
in 2007 and, in the course of the approval of the second extension, the extension recipients 
committed themselves to not asking for any additional extensions. 
14.24.  The US hoped that the Jordanian authorit ies would understand that granting its waiver 
request would be unfair to those developing country Members that had phased out their export 
subsidy programs in 2002, which was the original deadline, as well as with those developing country Members that were following through on their commitment to phase out their export 
subsidy programs pursuant to the second extension. 
14.25.  This inability to support this request did not mean a lack of sympathy or understanding for 
the particular challenges Jordan was facing at this time as a result of broader events in its region. The presence of Jordan's Minister here in Gene va this week was an important reminder for all 
Members of those challenges. However, the US believed that Jordan could demonstrate its 
creativity by finding other policy approaches fo r addressing these challenges in a manner that 
would avoid violating its obligations under the Subsidies Agreement. 
14.26.  The delegate of the European Union st ated that the EU acknowledged the economic 
challenges, the difficult situation and regional political environment cited by Jordan in support of 
its waiver request. In line with the US and Japan, the EU considered that the current request 
posed various difficult challenges. He also recalled that the 2007 Decision was undertaken under 
the understanding that the Members concerned would not seek further extensions of the phase-out period. Since the current phase-out peri od for the subsidies had not yet expired, the 
EU encouraged Jordan to explore other alternative options which might allow it to achieve the 
same goals while at the same time respecting the 2007 commitment. 
14.27.  The delegate of Australia welcomed Jordan's generosity in hosting Syrian refugees, and 
acknowledged the impact of regional crises on Jordan's economy. Like others, Australia had 
various concerns with the request. He recalled th at Australia had been one of the most active 
Members in the negotiations leading to the Ministerial Decision in 2001, and to the General Council Decision of July 2007. The latter contained stri ct transparency and reporting requirements, 
including an action plan for eliminating the export subsidies for which an extension had been 
sought, but on top of that, the 2007 General Council Decision included a commitment not to seek a further extension. Australia believed this commitment reflected the fact that export subsidies were the most egregious form of trade distorting measures and definitely had an impact on the 
trade and commercial interests of other WTO Members. 
14.28.  Concerns also existed with regard to the implications for other developing country 
beneficiaries, who had already met or continued to meet the deadlines for elimination of their 
export subsidy programmes. Implications also existed for the competitiveness of other developing 
country Members in similar circumstances. He highlighted that the commitment in the General Council Decision not to seek a further extension was in recognition that it was possible for 
beneficiaries to amend the specific export subsidy programmes covered by the decision and bring 
them into conformity with the Subsidies Agreement. For this purpose, technical assistance had been available throughout this period, but even more importantly, the General Council's decision was not a broad prohibition on assisting domestic industries through the provision of subsidies. 
Jordan retained the ability to assist its industrial sector through subsidies, if necessary. Australia 
was ready to engage in constructive discussions as to how Jordan could continue to assist its SMEs. G/C/M/120 
 
- 23 - 
 
  14.29.  The delegate of New Zealand stated that  his country acknowledged and sympathized with 
the challenges Jordan and the region were faci ng. As other speakers had mentioned, concerns 
existed with both the history of the 2007 Decision and the substance itself of the issue of export 
subsidies. New Zealand considered that the elimination of export subsidies was a core requirement 
of the Subsidies Agreement and, as a matter of prin ciple, was also opposed to all export subsidies, 
particularly considering their market-distorting and other damaging effects, especially on developing countries. He therefore encouraged Jord an to consider alternative policy options, and 
looked forward to listening to Jordan's responses to the concerns raised. 
14.30.  The delegate of Canada joined delegations that had indicated that the General Council's 
2007 Decision clearly obliged Jordan to phase-out its export subsidy programme by the end of 
2015, and eliminated the possibility of further requests for extension. Canada believed that this 
decision might be respected. All the intervention s today had recognized that Jordan was facing 
extenuating circumstances, and that Canada, like others, was deeply engaged in such matters. Therefore, the question before Members was how to reconcile the unfortunate situation Jordan 
faced in a WTO-consistent manner, such as other export subsidies programmes that might be 
explored. In this regard, Canada looked forward to further consulting and working with Jordan on this issue. 
14.31.  The delegate of the Republic of Korea th anked Jordan for its thorough presentation, which 
had permitted a clearer understanding of the situ ation Jordan now faced. Acknowledging Jordan's 
situation and geo-political tensions in the Middle East area, Korea supported the granting of the waiver request by Jordan. 
14.32.  The delegate of Jordan thanked delegation s for their interventions, those that welcomed 
the waiver request for their support, and the others for their interest, questions, and comments on 
the issue. She emphasized that Jordan was en gaged in fulfilling its commitments under the 
WTO Agreements, including the obligations under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing 
Measures, and the phase-out of the export subsidy programme in due time. However, Jordan's request for the additional phasing-out period in a form of a waiver was an exceptional request, 
submitted because of exceptional and extraordin ary circumstances. She noted that the request 
was limited in scope to extending the transitional  period after 2015 in order to assist Jordan in 
providing its SMEs with the opportunity to deal with the unprecedented difficult situation and challenges in the region in addition to sustaining their existing export markets. 
14.33.  Jordan was ready to continue consultations with concerned Members towards a positive 
outcome that could address its economic, financial, and development needs. She was ready to meet interested delegations in Geneva during the following days. 
14.34.  The Chairperson thanked delegations for their interventions and proposed that the Council 
take note of the statements made and revert to this issue at its meeting in March 2015. He 
encouraged delegations, in the meantime, to discu ss with Jordan the issues raised, and informed 
the Council that, since the 90 days for consideration of a waiver request to which Article IX:3(b) of 
the Marrakesh Agreement referred would fall on 16 February 2015, he intended to make a factual 
report to the General Council on the issue at its meeting of 20 February 2015. 
14.35.  The Council so agreed. 
15  CONSIDERATION OF ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE SUBSIDIARY BODIES OF THE 
COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS 
15.1.  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. 
15.2.  The Chairperson proposed that the Council take note of the following annual reports: 
(i) Committee on Agriculture, document G/L/1093; (ii) Committee on Trade Related Investment Measures, document G/L/1091; (iii) Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, 
document G/L/1077; (iv) Committee on Antidumpin g Practices, document G/L/1079; (v) Working G/C/M/120 
 
- 24 - 
 
  Party on State Trading Enterprises, document G/L/1090; (vi) Committee on Safeguards, 
document G/L/1087; (vii) Committee on Market Access, document G/L/1084; (viii) Committee on Import Licensing, document G/L/1078; (ix) Committee on Customs Valuation, document G/L/1086; (x) Committee on Sanitary and Phyto-sanitary Measures, 
document G/L/1086; (xi) Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in Information 
Technology Products, document G/L/1088; (xii) Preshipment Inspection - Independent Entity, document G/L/1083; (xiii) Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade, document G/L/10.92; 
(xiv) Committee on Rules of Origin, document G/L/1085. 
15.3.  The Council so agreed. 
16  ADOPTION OF THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS TO THE 
GENERAL COUNCIL (G/C/W/706) 
16.1.  The Chairperson recalled that the draft Annua l Report of the Council had been circulated in 
document G/C/W/706. 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 mo del of the GATT 1947 Council reports to the 
CONTRACTING PARTIES". He noted that the draft repo rt would be updated in light of this meeting. 
16.2.  The Chairperson proposed that the Council agree to adopt the report, subject to the update 
and revision to take into account the Council's work at this meeting.2 
16.3.  The Council so agreed. 
17  WORK PROGRAMME ON  ELECTRONIC COMMERCE 
17.1.  The Chairperson recalled that, at the last meeting of this Council, the then Chairperson had 
recalled to delegations that Ministers in Bali agreed, first, to continue with the positive work under 
the Work Programme on E-Commerce based on its existing mandate and guidelines and on the 
basis of proposals submitted by Members in the respective WTO bodies; and second, to instruct 
the General Council and its relevant bodies, including this Council, to continue to reinvigorate this work, especially under the initiatives taken in relation to commercial issues, development, and evolving technologies; and third, that any rele vant body of the Work Programme might explore 
appropriate mechanisms to address the relationship between electronic commerce and 
development in a focused and comprehensive manner. 
17.2.  In this vein, and in order to fulfil the mandate, at the June meeting delegations were invited 
to express their opinions and to make suggestions as to how to work on the preparations of the 
periodic reviews to be held in the General Council at its sessions in July and December of 2014, and in July of 2015. 
17.3.  In order to prepare his factual report to the General Council on the discussions that had 
taken place in this Council during 2014, he invited delegations to make further comments on this issue. 
17.4.  In the absence of further comments on this  issue he indicated that he would prepare his 
factual report to the General Council at its meeting on the 27 November 2014.
3 
17.5.  The Council so agreed. 
                                               
2 The Annual Report to the General Council was circulated in document G/L/1094. 
3 The factual report to the Genera l Council on the Work Programme on  E-commerce was circulated in 
document G/C/55. G/C/M/120 
 
- 25 - 
 
  18  OTHER BUSINESS 
18.1.  The Chairperson recalled that, under this agenda item, there were two points: a request by 
the European Union to address the issue of the notification form Armenia, and the information 
about the date of the next meeting of this Council. 
18.1  ARMENIA - NOTIFICATION OF CHANGES TO ITS BOUND TARIFFS UNDER 
GATT ARTICLE XXIV.6 
18.2.  The Chairperson recalled that, at the start of the meeting, the delegation of the European 
Union had requested the inclusion of this i ssue under the agenda item "Other Business". 
18.3.  The delegate of the European Union said that his delegation was of the view that the 
notification made by Armenia in document G/SECRET/37, dated 4 November 2014, should have 
been included in the agenda of this Council in accordance with the procedures for negotiations 
under Article XXVIII of the GATT. In its notification, Armenia had indicated its intention to apply 
the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) common external tariff as from the date when the Treaty of Accession of Armenia to this Union would be ratified. The ratification could take place on 
2 January 2015, thus there would be a particularly short time between the date of the notification 
and the date of the application of the common external tariff, particularly given that the application of the EEU common external tariff im plied for Armenia the revision of nearly 6536 tariff 
lines. Armenia should indicate whether such review would be considered in Armenia's application 
of the Eurasian common external tariff. 
18.4.  He also indicated that the statistics Armenia had provided on the respective tariff lines did 
not allow Members properly to ascertain their claims for compensation. Indeed, the concepts of 
Principal Supplier and Substantive Interest were not reflected in the statistics provided. There were 
other technical issues that, if addressed, would avoid delaying the process further, in particular all relevant tariff and import data should be provided  at 8-digit level, and imports from the EU should 
be grouped in an EU-28 global figure, but this ha d not been the case in the current notification. 
Additionally, total imports should be imports with  exclusion of those coming from the Eurasian 
partners. The EU asked Armenia to review its notification promptly and to ensure that it would be 
properly addressed in the CTG. 
18.5.  The delegate of Japan, when referring to  Armenia's notification, acknowledged that Armenia 
would become a member of the EAEU at the beginning of 2015, and was of the view that the 
EAEU, once entered into force, should be a customs union consistent with Article XXIV of the 
GATT. With regard to the notification itself, Ja pan had systemic concerns given the large number 
of tariff lines subject to modification; thus, Japan looked forward to discuss this issue with Armenia and other interested Members. 
18.6.  The delegate of Armenia thanked delegations for their interest in its notification, submitted 
on 26 October 2014 and distributed on 4 November 2014, which specified that: "[…] following the 
signing of the Treaty of Accession of the Republic  of Armenia to the Eurasian Economic Union on 
10th of October 2014, and pending finalization of ra tification procedure leading to the entry into 
force of the Treaty of Accession, the Republic of  Armenia notifies the WTO and Member states of 
its decision to become a member of the Eurasian Economic Union". 
18.7.  Therefore, Armenia believed it had notified  the modification of its Schedule of Concessions 
within the deadlines and procedures laid down in GATT Article XXIV, and expected to apply the 
Common External Tariff of the EAEU upon the entr y into force of the Treaty of Accession, most 
likely in early January 2015, depending on the comp letion of the ratification procedures. Armenia 
had informed the WTO membership that it was ready to enter into the renegotiation process 
according to GATT Article XXVIII, including tariff negotiations and/or consultation to address the compensatory adjustments provided under GATT Article XXIV. 
18.8.  He assured the EU and Japan, as well as all Members that, during the whole process of 
upcoming consultations and negotiations, Armenia would follow and comply with the WTO rules and procedures. G/C/M/120 
 
- 26 - 
 
  18.9.  The Chairperson thanked delegations for th eir interventions and proposed that the Council 
take note of the statements made. 
18.10.  The Council so agreed. 
18.2  DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING 
18.11.  The Chairperson informed the Council that, as announced in a fax sent to delegations on 
10 November 2014, as well as in Arigram WTO/AIR/4393, another meeting of this Council had 
been scheduled to take place on Tuesday, 25 November 2014, from 10 to 11 am. 
18.12.  As to the first meeting of 2015 of this Council, he informed delegations that it was 
scheduled to take place on Thursday, 26 March 20 15, from 3 to 6 pm. The agenda would close on 
Friday, 13 March 2015. 
18.13.  The meeting was closed. 
__________