RESTRICTED  
  
G/C/M/114  
 
7 October 2013  
(13-5410)  Page: 1/24  
Council for Trade in Goods    
 
 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF TH E COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS  
11 JULY 2013 
 
CHAIRPERSON: H.E. AMBASSADOR JOAKIM REITER (SWEDEN) 
The meeting of the Council for Trade in Goods (CTG) was convened by airgram WTO/AIR/4153; 
the proposed agenda for the meeting was contained in document G/C/W/680.  The meeting 
proceeded on the basis of the following agenda: 
 
1   ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS ................. 2  
2   NOTIFICATION OF RE GIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS .................................................... 2  
3   COMMITTEE ON MARKET ACCESS ISSUES .................................................................... 3  
4   PHILIPPINES – REQUEST FOR A WAIVER RELATING TO SPECIAL TREATMENT 
FOR RICE OF THE PHILIPPI NES (G/C/W/665/ REV.1) ..................................................... 3  
5   BRAZIL – INDIRECT TAXATION: COND ITIONS TO OBTAIN TAX BENEFITS IN 
VARIOUS SECTORS – STATEMENTS BY THE EUROPEAN UNION AND JAPAN ..................... 4  
6   JAPAN – WOOD USE POINTS PROGRAMME – REQUEST FROM CANDA AND THE 
EUROPEAN UNION ........................................................................................................... 5  
7   UKRAINE – IMPORT TARIFFS ON AU TOMOBILES – STATEMENT BY JAPAN .................. 7  
8   RUSSIAN FEDERATION – IMPLEMENTATION OF WTO ACCESSION 
COMMITMENTS – REQUEST FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION, JAPAN AND THE 
UNITED STATES ............................................................................................................. 10  
9   INDONESIA'S IMPORT RESTRICTING POLICIES AND PRACTICES – REQUEST 
FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE UNITED STATES ................................................ 11  
10   NIGERIA – LOCAL CONTENT MEASURES IN OIL AND GAS – REQUEST FROM 
THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE UNITED STATES .......................................................... 15  
11   UKRAINE'S COKING COAL IMPORT QUOTA – REQUEST FROM THE EUROPEAN 
UNION AND THE UNITED STATES ................................................................................... 17  
12   UKRAINE'S ARTICLE XXVIII NOTIFI CATION - STATEMENTS BY ASEAN; 
AUSTRALIA; CANADA; CHILE; EGYPT; THE EUROPEAN UNION; GUATEMALA; HONG KONG, CHINA; ICELAND; ISRA EL; JAPAN; KOREA; MEXICO;  NEW 
ZEALAND; NORWAY; TURKEY AN D THE UNITED STATES ................................................ 18
 
13   WORK PROGRAMME ON ELECTRONIC CO MMERCE ................................................... 22  
14   OTHER BU SINESS .................................................................................................... 23  
14.1   Room Docu ment RD/CTG/1 ...................................................................................... 23 
14.2   Date of next meeting............................................................................................... 24 
 G/C/M/114 
 
- 2 - 
 
  As a result of the departure from Geneva of the Chairperson of the Council for Trade in Goods 
(CTG), Ambassador Moncef BAATI (Tunisia), the Chairperson of the General Council (GC), Ambassador Shahid BASHIR (Pakistan), started a consultation process to appoint his successor.  Since this process was still ongoing, Ambassador Bashir proposed that, in line with Rule 14 of the 
Rules of Procedure for the CTG, Ambassador Joakim REITER (Sweden), in his capacity as 
Chairperson of the Trade Policy Review Body (TPRB), be elected, ad interim,  as Chairperson to 
conduct this Council.  
 
The Council so agreed. 
 Before the agenda was adopted, the Chairperson indicated that under the agenda item "Other 
Business", he would raise the matter of the date of the next meeting, as well as inform the Council of 
the discussions that the delegations of Australia and Japan had held concerning Room Document RD/CTG/1, which contained the revised format of the "Updating of the listing of notification 
obligations and the compliance therewith as set out in Annex III of the Report of the Working 
Group on Notification Obligations and Procedures".  
The Council so agreed. 
 
1  ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS 
1.1.  Ambassador Reiter recalled that following the departure of the Chairperson of the CTG, 
Ambassador Moncef BAATI, the Chairperson of the GC had announced at the GC meeting of 4 June 
2013 that he would undertake consultations, with the assistance of Ambassador Fried (Canada), Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, and Am bassador Johansen (Norway), former Chair of 
the GC, regarding the appointment of a successor to Ambassador Baati. Ambassador Reiter also 
informed delegations that, pursuant to Rule 14 of  the Rules of Procedure of the CTG, Ambassador 
Bashir had proposed that he, in his capacity as Chairperson of the TPRB,  head this Council as an  
interim  Chairperson. 
1.2.  The Council took note of the information presented.    
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 GC 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 Canada and Panama (WT/REG334/N/1); 
 Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Jordan (WT/REG335/N/1); 
 Bilateral Protocol between Panama and Guatemal a to the Free Trade Treaty between Central 
America and Panama (WT/REG336/N/1/Rev.1); 
 Enlargement of the European Union to 28 member States - Accession of Croatia 
(WT/REG337/N/1); 
 Free Trade Agreement between Ukraine and Montenegro (WT/REG338/N/1); 
 Free Trade Agreement between the Republic  of Korea And Turkey (WT/REG339/N/1); 
 Free Trade Agreement between Malaysia and Australia (WT/REG340/N/1); 
 Free Trade Agreement between Turkey  and Mauritius (WT/REG341/N/1); 
 Free Trade Agreement between Costa Rica and Peru (WT/REG342/N/1); 
 Treaty on a Free Trade Area between memb ers of the Commonwealth Of Independent 
States (WT/REG343/N/1); and 
 Bilateral Protocol between Chile and Nicaragu a to the Free Trade Treaty between Central 
America and Chile (WT/REG344/N/1). 
2.2.  The Council took note of the information presented. 
 
                                               
1 See documents WT/REG16, WT/L/671 and G/C/M/88. G/C/M/114 
 
- 3 - 
 
  3   COMMITTEE ON MARKET ACCESS ISSUES 
3.1.  The Chairperson drew Members' attention to the draft decision on the "Derestriction of some 
GATT 1947 Historical Bilateral Negotiating Document ation" concerning the Dillon Round and some 
negotiating material of the earlier GATT Rounds contained in document G/MA/W/111/Rev.1. He 
informed the Council that at its meeting of 7 May 2013, the Committee on Market Access had 
approved this decision on an  ad referendum basis and Members had been given two months to 
comment.  As no comments had been submitted, the decision could be considered as approved by 
that Committee. He also indicated that the Committee on Market Access had also requested that 
the draft decision, once approved, be forwarded to the General Council for adoption. 
3.2.  The Council so agreed. 
4  PHILIPPINES – REQUEST FOR A WAIVER RELATING TO SPECIAL TREATMENT FOR 
RICE OF THE PHILIPPINES (G/C/W/665/REV.1) 
4.1.  The Chairperson recalled that at the CTG meeting of 25 March 2013, the Philippines had 
stated that it would engage in further consultations with various Members.  The Council had 
agreed to revert to document G/ C/W/665/Rev.1, containing a revised waiver request and a revised 
draft decision concerning  special treatment for rice of the Philippines. 
4.2.  The delegate of the Philippines reported that since the 25 March 2013 meeting, the 
Philippines had been working with interested Me mbers on a work programme.  Concrete progress 
had been made since then, which had narrowed the remaining gaps and the number of remaining interested Members.  The Philippines continued to be engaged constructively, productively and flexibly and looked forward to resolving the outstanding issues with interested Members so that a 
positive outcome could be presented at the next meeting.  He also thanked the Council for its 
patience and understanding regarding this issue.   
4.3.  The delegate of Australia stated that as on e of the interested parties, Australia wished to 
confirm that if the Philippines had recently initiated discussions with interested parties, it was 
ready to work with them towards a solution to this issue.  She also encouraged other interested parties to do likewise.  However, she noted that the Special Treatment provided for in Annex 5 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture had expired for the Philippines as of June 2012; therefore it was 
urgent to resolve this issue by October 2013.  She also stated that the Philippines might need to explore other avenues and options, including  possibl e "tariffication" for rice.  Therefore, Australia 
encouraged the Philippines to work actively betw een this meeting and the October meeting to try 
and resolve the pending issues with interested Members. 
4.4.  The delegate of Canada stated that, as in dicated previously by his delegation, Canada would 
not be in a position to support the adoption of a waiver in the CTG until bilateral negotiations had 
been concluded.  Canada reiterated that it remained available to engage in bilateral negotiations 
with the Philippines in a constructive manner; however, its authorities were concerned about the lack of concrete progress in this area and the inability of the Philippines to show the required 
flexibility to accommodate the relatively modest requests for additional tariff concessions.  It 
would be difficult for Canada to see how negotiations could be concluded in time for the October 2013 meeting. However, Canada welcomed the signs of progress.  
4.5.  The delegate of Thailand stated that her delegation continued to work bilaterally with the 
Philippines on the remaining issues and looked forward to a mutually satisfactory outcome. 
4.6.  The delegate of China indicated that, as expressed at the last CTG meeting, China shared the 
concerns of the Philippines on food security, liveli hood and rural development.  He encouraged the 
Philippines to make further efforts to find a balanced and final solution to this issue with other 
Members at an early stage. 
4.7.  The delegate of the United States noted that her authorities were still working with the 
Philippines and looked forward to continue discu ssions with it on this matter. She urged the 
Philippines to approach this issue with urgency.   Members had been discussing this waiver and 
related matters for quite some time now since the expiry of the last extension in June 2012, so she hoped that Members could resolve the issue soon. G/C/M/114 
 
- 4 - 
 
  4.8.  The delegate of the Philippines thanked de legations for their statements and the concerns 
expressed therein. This had indeed been  a long -standing issue in the Council, and the Philippines 
was concerned about further delays in the efforts towards a solution. He assured Members that his delegation would exhaust all its efforts to make sure progress was delivered at the October 2013 
meeting.  As regards the different options that had been mentioned by some delegations, he 
stated that Manila was aware of all of them, but his authorities also believed that the current process under Article IX of the Marrakesh Agreement had good momentum.  
4.9.  The Chairperson invited the Council to take note of the statements made and proposed to 
revert to this issue at the next meeting. 
4.10.  The Council so agreed. 
5  BRAZIL – INDIRECT TAXATION: CONDITIONS  TO OBTAIN TAX BENEFITS IN VARIOUS 
SECTORS – STATEMENTS BY THE EUROPEAN UNION AND JAPAN 
5.1.  The Chairperson informed the Council that in a communication dated 27 June 2013, the 
delegations of the European Union and Japan ha d requested the Secretariat to include in the 
agenda of this meeting the following item: "Brazil – Indirect Taxation: Conditions to Obtain Tax 
Benefits in Various Sectors - Statements by the European Union and Japan". 
5.2.  The delegate of the European Union stated that his authorities had increasing concerns over 
Brazil's indirect taxes as a means to protect and promote domestic manufacturing, notably through 
the use of domestic content conditions.  The EU had already had the opportunity to discuss the Industrial Product Tax (IPI) applied by Brazil in the automotive sector at the last two meetings of this Council, in November 2011 and March 2012, as well as at the last TRIMs Committee meeting 
in October 2012 and in the Committee on Market Access in October 2011. It had also raised this 
issue during the Trade Policy Review of Brazil on 24-26 June 2013.   
5.3.  Brazil's broad use of indirect taxes to a fford protection to domestic goods and to provide 
prohibited support to exporters was of serious concern. This policy extended beyond the 
automotive sector; thus, the EU called upon Brazil to refrain from adopting or implementing provisions that would create discrimination against imported goods with regard to indirect 
taxation. 
5.4.  The delegate of Japan reiterated the concer ns expressed by his delegation at the previous 
meetings of the TRIMs Committee and this Counci l regarding the assistance programme for the 
automobile sector in Brazil, INOVAR Auto. With the implementation of this programme, companies 
meeting the conditions would enjoy of a tax reduction from the beginning of 2013 until the end of 
2017.  Japan believed that these measures, envisage d to protect domestic industry and to provide 
advantages pertaining to internal taxes on products of specific countries, could be implemented 
inconsistently with GATT/94 Articles I and III,  and Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement.  
5.5.  He added that at the end of May 2013, Brazil had promulgated "Decreto 8015" which 
provided that companies complying with the requirement of performance of an increasing number 
of manufacturing activities in Brazil would benefit from tax-reduction incentives up to 30%. This 
new measure reinforced Japan's doubts about the WTO-consistency of this programme. Japan appreciated Brazil's replies to the questions it had posed in document G/TRIMS/W/124; however, it was not clear how the measure at issue could be implemented while securing its consistency 
with the WTO Agreement, particularly as regards the non-discrimination principle. 
5.6.  Additionally, Japan was concerned about Brazil's continued use of indirect taxes in various 
sectors, the purpose of which was to support do mestic manufacturing and exports. Japan would 
follow the situation closely from a systemic perspective as well as in terms of the possible negative 
impact on Japanese industry. 
5.7.  The delegate of Australia thanked the EU and Japan for once again expressing their concerns 
on this issue, which had already been raised in this Council, in the Committee on Market Access 
and in the TRIMs Committee.  Australia had also  expressed similar concerns over the use of 
indirect taxes with local content requirements that  had been broadened to a range of goods.  This 
ran counter to what Brazil had explained about these measures being of a temporary nature.  G/C/M/114 
 
- 5 - 
 
  Australia thanked Brazil for its written replies to the questions posed to the TRIMs Committee by 
the EU, the US and Japan, which were circulated on 28 May 2013.  
5.8.  Australia had already expressed systemic an d commercial concerns over the approach taken 
by Brazil, particularly as regards the measures designed to assist the automotive sector.  In 
particular, Australia had indicated that the original announcement by Brazil about its special tax 
regime for the automotive sector effectively established a list of eligible beneficiaries, the so-called accredited companies.  Those eligible beneficiaries were based on motor vehicle producers 
establishing a manufacturing presence in the Brazilian market and meeting local content and other 
performance requirements.  This had created a mechanism that had entrenched distortion and 
discrimination in Brazil's market.  Australia acknowledged Members' right to tax where and when they liked so as to provide assistance to indust ry; however, certain requirements were to be met 
under the WTO rules which did not enable the use of tax exemptions linked to local content 
requirements.  Brazil's written responses had not reassured Australia, as they had indicated that the specific details on how the regime operated and how the requirements should be fulfilled were 
still under discussion. Australia asked Brazil to ensure that its market remained open to fair 
competition with imported goods and consistent with its international obligations. 
5.9.  The delegate of the United States shared ma ny of the concerns previously expressed. The US 
believed that more work needed to be undertaken at Committee level so as to enable Members to 
better understand Brazil's tax programmes.  The US  looked forward to working with Brazil and 
other Members to that end. 
5.10.  The delegate of Canada reiterated his delegation's concerns about this issue.  Although 
Brazil had indicated that these measures were temporary, the INOVAR Auto scheme was not due 
to expire until December 2017, by which time it could have had an irreversible and negative impact on trade. Canada was also concerned about the extension of these measures into other 
sectors and referred to the 29 January 2013 announcement by the Brazilian Government on new 
tax rules for the chemical and textile industries, modelled on the INOVAR Auto programme.  Canada urged Brazil to reconsider these measures. 
5.11.  The delegate of Hong Kong, China once again registered systemic concerns over the 
protectionist nature of Brazil's measures; her delegation would continue to monitor the 
development of this issue closely. 
5.12.  The delegate of Brazil thanked delegations for their comments on and interest in this issue, 
which had already been raised at the previous CTG meeting.  On that occasion, as well as in other 
fora, including bilateral meetings, Brazil had provided information on some of the Brazilian measures that had been mentioned at this meeting. Moreover, at its recent TPR, Brazil had 
provided answers to related questions put forward by several Members.  He emphasized that the 
Brazilian government was committed to improving the business climate for domestic and foreign investors and that there were ongoing efforts to rationalize and simplify the Brazilian tax system, 
which was currently considered complex and burdensome. This was taking place gradually and 
sector by sector.  As an example of this exerci se, he mentioned the shift from payroll-based to 
revenue-based taxation intended to favour labo ur-intensive firms: the REINTEGRA programme.  
The measures mentioned at this meeting might be understood in this context, as most of them 
were part of a wider plan and were designed to promote technological innovation, protect the 
environment and foster development, besides atte mpting to rationalize the tax structure. Brazil 
considered all these measures to be consistent with the multilateral Agreements, non-
discriminatory and beneficial to both domestic and foreign companies alike.  In fact, many 
European and Japanese companies had already been  accredited in the INOVAR Auto programme.  
Brazil remained ready to provide additional information to interested delegations either in Geneva 
or in their capitals. 
5.13.  The Council took note of the statements made.  
6  JAPAN – WOOD USE POINTS PROGRAMME – REQUEST FROM CANDA AND THE 
EUROPEAN UNION  
6.1.  The Chairperson informed the Council that in a communication dated 27 June 2013, the 
delegations of Canada and the European Union had requested the Secretariat to include in the G/C/M/114 
 
- 6 - 
 
  agenda of this meeting an item entitled: "Japan - Wood Use Points Programme – Request from 
Canada and the European Union" 
6.2.  The delegate of Canada expressed his delegation's concerns about Japan's Wood Use Points 
Programme, implemented on April 1, 2013. The available information on the operation and 
eligibility requirements of this programme indicated that it would negatively impact wood and 
wood products imported into Japan.  Canada urged Japan to ensure not only that imported wood and wood products were eligible for this programme, but also to specifically convey this to the 
relevant Japanese authorities and stakeholders.  Canada had recently submitted a number of 
written questions to Japan and, rather than summarising them at this meeting, would submit them to the Secretariat for distribution to Members
2.  
6.3.  The delegate of the European Union shar ed the concerns expressed by Canada. The Wood 
Points Stimulus Programme, designed in April 2013 and due to enter into force by the end of July, 
was aimed to boost the supply and usage of domestic  forest products in Japan. The EU, concerned 
by the possible discriminatory nature of certain provisions of this programme, had already 
conveyed its queries to the Japanese authorities in Tokyo at a meeting that took place in June 
2013 with the Wood Use Division of the Forestry Ag ency of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry 
and Fisheries.  However, the information provided by Japan had not clarified the EU's concerns 
which referred to: the indication that the programme explicitly mentioned local wood products, an 
issue which was problematic; and the two-track sy stem for the designation of the wood products 
eligible under the programme, where there was a limited number of designated wood products to be automatically eligible under the programme, and where only Japanese species were concerned 
while species of other wood products had to be ap proved by the Forestry Agency.  This created a 
de facto discrimination.  Finally, applicants would also have to demonstrate that their products 
originated from countries with forests the resources of which were increasing in volume, a criterion 
that went far beyond internationally agreed principles.  He asked Japan to clarify the 
implementation provisions of the programme and to provide assurance that it would not discriminate in any way against EU wood products or those originating in other WTO Members.  
6.4.  The delegate of New Zealand thanked Canada and the EU for having brought this item to the 
Council's attention and for the questions and concerns expressed. New Zealand also had an active 
export interest in forestry products; thus, it l ooked forward to Japan's response to the specific 
questions that had been put to it.  
6.5.  The delegate of the United States recalled that her delegation had asked Japan several 
questions about this programme during Japan's trade policy review earlier in 2013.  The US was 
disappointed with the answers it had received on that occasion; thus, she urged Japan to provide 
further information on this programme, particularly on how foreign wood products could qualify for 
the programme on an equal basis to domestic Japanese wood products.  She requested Japan to provide detailed written answers to the following set of questions: (i) how could foreign suppliers 
of foreign wood become eligible for Japan's "W ood Use Points Programme"? Could Japan describe 
the procedure whereby foreign suppliers could receive the "local wood (chiiki-zai)" designation that appeared to be the key criterion necessary to join the programme?  In order to qualify for the programme, would foreign suppliers be required to have a local presence in Japan or in specific 
prefectures? (ii) What legal requirements were in place to determine whether wood qualified as 
"local wood (chiiki-zai)"? and (iii) which governments or organizations were able to determine whether wood qualified as "local wood (chiiki-zai)"? 
6.6.  The delegate of Malaysia echoed the concerns expressed by the previous speakers, sought 
further clarification from Japan on the programme itself, and urged Japan to respond to the 
questions posed by Canada and other delegations on this issue. 
6.7.  The delegate of Japan indicated that th e comments and questions posed to his delegation 
would be conveyed to his capital. As regards the basic characteristics of the programme, he 
explained that its purpose was to encourage the use of forest resources while considering various environmental concerns, including forest conservati on, and therefore the use of certain categories 
of wood and wood products was encouraged. He stat ed that the criteria to be recognized under the 
environmental category had been set out with a vi ew to encouraging the appropriate use of forest 
resources, and added that one such criterion was to use resources of species that were increasing 
                                               
2 See document G/C/W/681. G/C/M/114 
 
- 7 - 
 
  in volume, so as to prevent any possible reduction of such species. The criterion was non-
discriminatory, therefore both domestic and foreig n wood or wood products could be part of the 
programme by fulfilling the requirements and procedures. It was expected that through this policy various industries using wood and wood products would be activated. Given that this was the first 
time the issue had been brought to the Council's attention, Japan would respond to all questions 
appropriately and in due course. Delegations we re invited to pose any additional questions 
bilaterally.  
6.8.  The Chairperson thanked Canada for being willi ng to share its questions with the rest of the 
WTO membership and encouraged other delegations that had posed questions to do the same so 
as to facilitate the drafting of Japan's replies.  
6.9.  The Council took note of the statements made.  
7  UKRAINE – IMPORT TARIFFS ON AUTOMOBILES – STATEMENT BY JAPAN  
7.1.  The Chairperson informed the Council that in a communication dated 28 June 2013, the 
delegation of Japan had requested the Secretariat to include in the agenda of this meeting the 
following item: "Ukraine – Import Tariffs on Automobiles" 
7.2.  The delegate of Japan reiterated the concer ns over Ukraine's imposition, as of 13 April 2013, 
of additional duties on motor cars which, presented as a safeguard measure under the Safeguards 
Agreement, went beyond Ukraine's bound tariff rates. Despite repeated requests by his authorities 
for the immediate withdrawal of such measures, a dditional duties had been collected for the past 
three months on Japanese motor cars imported into Ukraine. These had negatively affected market access to Ukraine for Japanese car producers. 
7.3.  He recalled that during the investigation period, 2008 – 2010, the total number of motor cars 
imported into Ukraine had decreased significantly; this led Japan to doubt whether the requirements under the WTO provisions to impose a safeguard measure had been met.  
7.4.  According to Article 12.3 of the Safeguards Agreement, a Member "proposing to apply" a 
safeguard measure "shall provide adequate opportunity for prior consultations" with those Members affected by the "proposed" measure. Ho wever, in this case, Ukraine had not provided 
Japan with an adequate opportunity for prior consultations with a view "to reviewing the 
information" provided under Article 12.2 of the Safeguards Agreement, which, in turn, requested the Member "proposing" the application of a measure to provide all pertinent information in writing before the imposition of the measure. Therefore, as described in documents G/L/1029 and 
G/SG/118, Japan was of the view that Ukraine had not met these requirements, since the 
consultations provided for in Article 12.3 of th e Safeguards Agreement had, to date, not taken 
place.   
7.5.  Moreover, Japan believed that the informatio n provided to date by Ukraine did not meet the 
obligations set out under Articles 3.1, 4.2 and 12.2 of the Safeguards Agreement and noted that to date the only information provided by Ukraine had been: (1) the main conclusion of the special 
investigation on motor car imports undertaken by Ukraine, which had been submitted to interested 
parties, including Japan, on 11 April 2012; (2) the notice concerning the decision of Ukraine's Interdepartmental Commission of Foreign Trade (No. SP-275/2012/4423-08), published on 14 March 2013; and (3) the notifications submitted by Ukraine to the WTO on the measures at issue, 
which had been circulated on 25 March 2013 (G/SG/N/8/UKR/3, G/SG/N/10/UKR/3, 
G/SG/N/11/UKR/1). Japan did not consider this information sufficient to meet Ukraine's obligation under Articles 3.1, 4.2 (c) and 12.2 of the Safeguards Agreement. In that regard, Japan had sent a 
letter to Ukraine on 20 May 2013. Ukraine had indicated in a communication dated 17 June 2013 
that no further information was forthcoming. Japan concluded by requesting Ukraine to immediately terminate the measures at issue; otherwise, it would consider taking further steps 
under the WTO Agreements. 
7.6.  The delegate of Australia echoed Japan's concerns over Ukraine's considerable delays in 
notifying the findings and decisions concerning the safeguard measures adopted for motor cars. 
Ukraine had notified the initiation of a safeguard investigation on imports of automotive vehicles in 
July 2011; however, the findings of serious injury or  threat of serious injury and Ukraine's decision G/C/M/114 
 
- 8 - 
 
  to impose a safeguard measure had been notified on 25 March 2013.  Accordingly, Australia 
believed that the proposed measure had been publ ished on 14 March 2013 in Ukraine's official 
journal. 
7.7.  Australia had a systemic interest in the way in which the safeguard investigations had been 
initiated and conducted, and attached considerable  importance to transparency in trade remedy 
actions, in particular global safeguard actions. As emergency measures, safeguard measures could sometimes be a blunt instrument against imports and it was therefore crucial to ensure that due 
process and full transparency were afforded to all Members in the initiation and conduct of 
safeguard investigations and their notification to Members.   
7.8.  The delegate of Korea echoed the concerns  expressed by Japan and Australia that Ukraine 
had imposed tariffs in the form of safeguard measures without meeting the requirements set forth 
in the Safeguard Agreement.  In this regard, he noted that according to import statistics submitted 
by Ukraine, the volume of automobiles imported into Ukraine had decreased in 2010 in relation to 
2008.  Therefore, Korea and other Members believed that Ukraine should have demonstrated, on 
the basis of objective evidence, the existence of a causal link between imports of motor cars and 
serious injury to its domestic industry, and should also have carefully analysed whether there were any trivial factors suggesting a possible impact of the global financial crisis or a change in 
preference of domestic customers which might have caused injury to its domestic industry.  
However, to date, Ukraine had not presented any such evidence or analysis. Ukraine had neglected its duty under Article 12.3 of the Sa feguard Agreement to provide affected Members 
adequate opportunity for prior consultations. Therefore, Korea had not been able to consult with 
Ukraine on issues such as adequate means of trad e compensation, as stipulated in Article 8.1 of 
the Safeguards Agreement.  Korea had already expressed these concerns at the previous meeting of this Council on 25 March 2013 and in the Sa feguards Committee meeting on 23 April 2013.  
Ukraine was urged to resolve this issue in an urgent and adequate manner as soon as possible, 
particularly considering the potential adverse implications for the multilateral trading system.  Korea would continue to engage in future discussions on this matter with Ukraine and other 
Members. 
7.9.  The delegate of the European Union shared the previous concerns with regard to Ukraine's 
application of safeguard measures on imported ca rs.  Those measures were being applied on the 
basis of a decision which had been adopted almost one year after the conclusion of the 
investigation and which presented legal weaknesses as regards compliance with substantial 
procedural WTO requirements. 
7.10.  He also noted that despite numerous requests by the Members concerned, Ukraine had still 
not organized adequate consultations within the meaning of Article 12.3 of the WTO Agreement on 
Safeguards.  Indeed, the EU had sent a letter on 11  June 2013 contesting that consultations under 
Article 12.3 of the Safeguards had taken place and stating that its delegation had not been offered 
the possibility to review relevant information noti fied to the WTO pursuant to Article 12.1 of the 
Safeguards Agreement, nor the opportunity to agree on the extension of Article 8 of the 
Safeguards Agreement deadlines.  The EU therefor e urged Ukraine to organize joint consultations 
with all Members that had a substantial interest in this case, as this was a basic and essential 
procedural requirement that Ukraine had to meet. 
7.11.  The delegate of the Russian Federation echoed the previous statements as her delegation 
believed that these measures lacked appropriate ev idence and transparency and were not in line 
with the procedures stipulated in the WTO Agreements. The measures had resulted in a significant 
drop in the number of Russian automobiles exported to Ukraine, thus causing an adverse effect on trade.  Ukraine had not provided Members with an adequate opportunity to hold consultations 
before the application of the measure under Articl e 12.3 of the Safeguards Agreement.  She called 
upon Ukraine to withdraw the measure as soon as possible. 
7.12.  The delegate of Turkey indicated that his country, as a supplier of motor cars to Ukraine, 
had a substantial interest in the Ukrainian market and believed that Ukraine had failed to comply 
with the procedural requirements in the Safeguards  Agreement. Turkey was also of the view that 
in light of the relevant Articles of the Safeguards Agreement, GATT 1994 Article XIX, and the related rulings of the WTO panels and the Appellate  Body on specific disputes, the decision had 
been granted not on the basis of mere facts but on  the basis of weak arguments.  Article 12.3 of 
the Safeguards Agreement obliged Members to provide adequate opportunity for prior G/C/M/114 
 
- 9 - 
 
  consultations before the application of any Safeguard Measure with a view to reviewing the 
information, exchanging views on the measure and reaching an understanding on ways to achieve 
the objectives set out in Article 8.1. of the said Agreement. Turkey had always been ready to engage constructively in consultations and, on  12 June 2013 in Kiev, had expressed its views and 
its request for the immediate termination of the me asure with a view to a mutually satisfactory 
solution. He therefore urged Ukraine to withdraw the measure and to comply with the respective 
WTO rules.  Turkey was ready to continue consultations with Ukraine on this issue and reserved its 
rights stemming from the WTO Agreements.  
7.13.  In response, the delegate of Ukraine thanked delegations for their comments and 
statements and informed the Council that Ukraine's Interdepartmental Commission of Foreign 
Trade, after having conducted an investigation an d having reached a finding of threat of serious 
injury caused by increased imports of motor cars, had approved a Decision on the application of a 
safeguard measure on imports of motor cars, irrespective of the country of origin and export. The Decision had been published on 14 March 2013 in th e official journal and, consequently, Ukraine 
had submitted a notification to the Safeguards Committee on 21 March 2013, which had been 
circulated to Members as document G/SG/N/6/UKR/9.  He also indicated that prior consultations had taken place as provided for in Article 12.3 of the Safeguards Agreement.   
7.14.  He added that the products concerned were motor cars classified under HS headings 8703 
22 10 00 and 8703 23 19 10, and that the final safegu ard measures would be applied for a  three-
year period in the form of a special duty at a ra te of 6.46% for automobiles of a cylinder capacity 
between 1,000 cm
3 and 1,500 cm3 and at a rate of 12.95% for automobiles of a cylinder capacity 
between 1,500 cm3 but not exceeding 2,200 cm3.  Data obtained in 2010 with regard to imports 
made in 2008 had registered an overall negati ve impact on the domestic industry, where 
production of the goods concerned had decreased by  78.9% and production capacity had fallen by 
74.86%. Moreover, sales of local products in the domestic market had decreased by 86.33%, 
income from operational activity had dropped by 89.9%, and employment in the domestic industry 
had fallen by 51.56%.  
7.15.  In the same vein, it had been proved that imports of motor cars, when compared to 
domestic industry production and consumption in 2008, had increased by 38% in 2010, a trend 
that had continued in 2011 and 2012. Thus, Ukraine had decided to impose these measures which, in its view, were necessary to face intensified competitive pressure due to increased imports and a 
sharp drop in domestic industry indicators.  Consequently, all the conditions for the imposition of 
measures under the Safeguards Agreement had been fulfilled. 
7.16.  Ukraine believed the measure would have a positive effect on the financial and commercial 
situation of its domestic industry and help ease economic adjustment to face intensified 
competition, as envisaged by the Safeguards Agreement. The speaker added that there were social tensions in the car-making region where thousands of workers depended on the 
performance of this industry and where there were scant budgetary means for labour force 
adjustment programmes.  
7.17.  He emphasized that the safeguard measure was of a temporary nature, imposed 
irrespective of the source and exporting count ry, and that it had been taken following an 
investigation which demonstrated that all the conditions for the imposition of such measures had 
been met.  He added in that regard that Ukraine, as a recently acceded Member (RAM), was in the process of adjusting its economy to the new market access situation, and that GATT Article XIX 
and the Safeguards Agreement allowed RAMs to adopt measures to ease the adjustment of their 
trade policy to challenges posed by an open market situation. 
7.18.  Ukraine believed that the measure did no t have an unnecessary trade-restrictive impact; 
moreover, it had opted for a transparent measure of a temporary nature and had constructively 
sought to engage in meaningful consultations with  affected Members, as required by WTO rules.  
Ukraine had not resorted to grey area measures or other informal, non-transparent and unpredictable trade-restrictive measures, and was also open to discuss the measure with the 
Members concerned. This demonstrated Ukraine's willingness to adhere to the rules-based system 
which allowed WTO Members to adopt temporary safeguard measures when confronted with difficult situations. G/C/M/114 
 
- 10 - 
 
  7.19.  Ukraine therefore remained open to further discussion of the issue with interested Members 
with a view to finding an outcome that would maintain an equivalent level of concessions. In this regard, his authorities had been in contact with practically all the Members concerned, and, in July 2013, experts back in the capital had held meetings  and consultations with trade experts from the 
various embassies.  In this context, Ukraine was also considering an extension of the 90-day 
consultation period and had suspended the measure and would not apply it to imports of hybrid cars. He also indicated that the measure did not cover diesel automobiles, thus, its application was 
as limited as possible. 
7.20.  He regretted that despite the justifications  and transparent nature of Ukraine's actions, as 
well as the limited scope of the measure, some Members had notified their intention to suspend unilaterally their concessions, rather than continui ng the dialogue with Ukraine. He therefore called 
upon Members to continue engaging with Ukraine in constructive consultations with a view to 
finding a solution to this particular case, and to refrain from actions that might be prompted by certain procedural provisions of the Safeguards Agreement, something that might set a negative 
precedent and undermine the purpose of the Agreement. 
7.21.  The Chairperson invited the Members concerned to continue their dialogue on this issue.  
7.22.  The Council took note of the statements made. 
8  RUSSIAN FEDERATION – IMPLEMENTATION OF WTO ACCESSION COMMITMENTS – 
REQUEST FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION, JAPAN AND THE UNITED STATES 
8.1.  The Chairperson informed the Council that in a communication dated 28 June 2013, the 
delegations of the European Union, Japan and the United States had requested that the item 
"Russian Federation - Implementation of WTO Accession Commitments - Request from the 
European Union, Japan and the United States" be included in the agenda of the present meeting. 
8.2.  The delegate of the United States celebrated the one-year anniversary of Russia's accession 
to the WTO; she considered it an important ac hievement for Russia and for the global trading 
system.  However, some of Russia's actions to date were disappointing, particularly its lack of transparency, as this was a core WTO principle that enabled the Organization to achieve one of its 
key functions as a forum in which Members could ask questions about and discuss trade concerns.  
Therefore, in order to have a fruitful discussion , Members must provide information on their trade 
regimes.  
8.3.  She recalled that at the previous two CTG meetings in November 2012 and March 2013, the 
US had raised concerns about Russia's automotive recycling fee and the possibly discriminatory 
treatment of imports. At the November 2012 meet ing her delegation had posed questions to the 
Russian Federation on this recycling programme. Si nce Russia had failed to respond, she urged the 
Russian delegation to provide written answers to the questions posed, which remained valid. Her 
authorities looked forward to receiving those answers.  
8.4.  The US acknowledged that at the end of May 2013, the Duma had issued draft amendments 
to the recycling law that would extend the fee to domestic manufacturers.  This was positive news; 
however, it seemed that the new regime might not be put into place until 2014. The US delegate therefore sought explanations from Russia as to th e reasons for this delay and as to why, if the 
original legislation had been introduced in April 2013 and adopted within approximately three 
months, the Duma had required more than six months to enact such amendments. 
8.5.  With regard to the Information Technology Agreement (ITA), she noted that Russia had not 
yet joined the ITA, a commitment it had made upon its accession to the WTO.  Moreover, even 
though Russia had sent the revised ITA schedule to the Eurasian Economic Commission in April 
2013, after three months Members had still not been able to see Russia's revised ITA schedule.  
8.6.  The US also remained concerned about how the Russian Federation would implement some of 
its sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) obligations, such as harmonization with the relevant 
international standards, the adoption of inspection guidelines in accordance with the Codex Alimentarius, ensuring that SPS measures that were more restrictive than international standards were based on scientific evidence and duly accomp anied by a risk analysis, and the approval of G/C/M/114 
 
- 11 - 
 
  establishments to export to the Russian Federation and the Customs Union territory.  Some 
constructive discussions had taken place in this regard and the US looked forward to continuing its engagement with Russia on these issues. 
8.7.  The delegate of the European Union also welcomed Russia's accession to the WTO, a process 
strongly supported by the EU as Russia's WTO membership would further promote the integration 
of its economy into world markets.  However, the surge of protectionist measures recently adopted 
by Russia was not in line with Russia's commitments when joining the WTO and undermined the 
positive effects of its accession to the Organization.   
8.8.  He added that after a year of continued co nsultations with Russia to solve these issues, the 
EU had been compelled to launch a request for cons ultations on the automobile recycling fee.  In 
the same vein and after almost a year of bilateral discussions, neither solutions nor a positive 
outcome had been reached as regards other measures of concern to the EU, such as the 
implementation of SPS measures and wood exports. With regard to the former, the EU was concerned by the increased number of measures  implemented by Russia against EU products 
during the month of June 2013. Indeed, in additi on to the import ban on live animals that had 
been in place for more than a year, new bans had been introduced on products such as dairy and meat ready-to-eat products, potatoes, chilled meat and potting material. The EU would continue to 
engage with Russia to find solutions to all of these issues and also expected Russia to take the 
necessary steps to ensure full compliance with its WTO obligations. 
8.9.  The delegate of Japan stated that since Russia's accession to the WTO, Japan like other 
delegations, had carefully followed Russia's effo rts to implement its accession commitments. In 
this regard Japan was concerned about the followi ng: (i) the imposition of recycling fees on 
vehicles, a measure which appeared to be discriminatory against foreign companies and regarding which Japan, together with other Members, had expressed doubts as to consistency with WTO 
provisions.  Although in early July 2013 Russia had announced its intention to reform the 
framework so as not to discriminate against foreign companies, the process seemed to have been delayed until October 2013. Japan therefore re quested Russia to provide information on the 
prospect of the revision of the measure, and urged it to redress the current discriminatory 
framework so as to ensure equal treatment for imported and locally produced vehicles; (ii) Russia's delay in joining the ITA - a commitment made when acceding to the WTO - and the lack of further developments in this accession process.  The Japanese delegate urged Russia to 
undertake the necessary final steps to join the ITA; and (iii) the reports his authorities had 
received from Japanese industry that Russia was imposing import tariffs exceeding its bound rates, a situation which had forced Japanese companies to pay excessive charges above Russia's tariff 
schedule of concessions. Thus, he urged Russia to meet its WTO obligations, including those 
relating to its tariff schedule and the bindings therein. 
8.10.  The delegate of Chinese Taipei thanked delegations for having raised this issue, as her 
delegation was also interested in following the progress Russia had made to join the ITA.  She 
encouraged Russia to take the necessary steps in this direction. 
8.11.  The delegate of the Russian Federation thanked the previous speakers for their interest in 
Russia's implementation measures and indicated th at he would convey the various questions and 
concerns to his capital, which he expected would respond in due course. 
8.12.  The Council took note of the statements made.  
9  INDONESIA'S IMPORT RESTRICTING POLICI ES AND PRACTICES – REQUEST FROM THE 
EUROPEAN UNION AND THE UNITED STATES 
9.1.  The Chairperson informed the Council that the European Union and the United States had 
requested the inclusion in the agenda of the pres ent meeting of an item entitled "Indonesia's 
Import Restricting Policies and Practices". 
9.2.  The delegate of the United States apprecia ted the opportunity to convey once again concerns 
regarding trade policy trends in Indonesia, part icularly given that Indonesia's government and 
legislature had introduced and were implementing  a large number of new trade and investment 
restrictions, including import licensing requirements, trading rights limitations, pre-shipment G/C/M/114 
 
- 12 - 
 
  inspection requirements, local content and domestic manufacturing requirements, including those 
in the energy sector, and export restrictions including taxes and prohibitions.  These requirements affected a broad range of sectors, including agriculture, energy, information and communications technology, consumer goods, such as toys, and telecommunications.  Individually, each policy was 
a burden to traders; together they created a co mplex web of approvals that were disruptive and 
made Indonesia's market impenetrable and less attractive to foreign investment.  
9.3.  All of these concerns had not only been  discussed during CTG meetings but also in the 
appropriate WTO committees, including the Import Licensing, Agriculture and TRIMs Committees, 
as well as during Indonesia's Trade Policy Review. Rather than addressing all of these concerns, Indonesia continued to restrict and, in some cases,  close its market by making its regulations even 
more complicated and disruptive.  
9.4.  In addition to the above-mentioned regime s and concerns, the US was also concerned about 
the lack of transparency.  Despite the US delegati on's long-standing request for Indonesia to notify 
its pre-shipment inspection requirements, the country had so far failed to do so.  There were also 
concerns regarding the number of instances when the authorities had failed to notify measures 
related to technical regulations, conformity asse ssment procedures and sanitary and phytosanitary 
measures, as required by the relevant agreements; for instance, the US had learned of new 
testing requirements for information technology products that had been adopted in May but 
applied retroactively to March 2013. This kind of situation was completely unacceptable.  
9.5.   There were additional concerns about Indonesia's ILPs, beyond those related to the 
measures already pursued through the dispute settlement mechanism, and the whole IL regime's 
relationship to the Agreement. Such complicated  system-wide licensing requirements indicated 
that Indonesia's market was closed for business. 
9.6.  Concerns also remained about local content requirements in a growing number of sectors, 
including telecommunications, mining, oil and gas.  These had been expressed in the Committee 
on Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs), and in Indonesia's TPR. Instead of having addressed these measures, Indonesia had expanded their use to new sectors, including to the raw 
materials, equipment and merchandise for sale at restaurant and retail franchises.   
9.7.  The new Indonesian Law on Food seemed to provide the legal framework to achieve self-
sufficiency through various means including through various import and export regulations, as well as by managing food supply, reserves and price. In particular, the Food Law appeared to allow 
food and agricultural imports into Indonesia only when national demand could not be met 
domestically, and Indonesian exports when demand had already been met.  This law seemed to extend to all food products and included policies similar to those mentioned when the WTO 
membership had expressed concerns regarding horticulture and livestock.  
9.8.  Regarding the management of food supply an d reserves, Indonesia was expanding the role of 
its state-owned agency, BULOG, to soybeans and beef.  The US delegate therefore urged 
Indonesia to notify these and any other implementi ng measures to the WTO, and to ensure that 
any such measures adopted by the Government we re consistent with Indonesia's WTO obligations. 
9.9.  Her authorities were also closely monitoring the draft Law on Industry and the Law on Trade 
being discussed in Indonesia's parliament. Both draft laws contained language the implementation 
of which could lay the framework for further trade-restricting measures.  For instance, the draft 
Trade Law included provisions to promote the use of national standards over international standards, and potentially restricted or prohibited  trade in goods and services.  In turn, the draft 
Industry Law included provisions for local content and technology transfer requirements.   
9.10.   Indonesia was a market of huge potential, with an economy of 240 million people and more 
than 60 million low-income Indonesian workers projected to join the middle class in the coming 
decade, significantly increasing already strong consumer demand. Indonesia had also sought a 
larger leadership role on the international stage; however, Indonesia's policies to restrict market access were not in keeping with those of a country seeking to take a global leadership role in trade. G/C/M/114 
 
- 13 - 
 
  9.11.  She therefore encouraged Indonesia to re-e valuate its laws and regulations with a view to 
ensuring that they were in line with its WTO commitments, including those related to market access, non-discrimination and transparency. She asked Indonesia to confirm whether or not it was revising its BSE restrictions and, if so, what  exactly the revisions would entail.  She welcomed 
any action that would open Indonesia's market to  US beef and beef products and encouraged the 
Indonesian government to take similar actions to eliminate trade restrictions in all other areas of concern.  
9.12.  The delegate of the European Union reiterated his delegation's continued concern over 
Indonesia's extensive use of import restrictions, which had already been raised in this Council and 
other WTO Committees. However, Indonesia continued to fail to provide satisfactory answers to Members' concerns.  It was also troubling that Indonesia continued to present trade restrictions as 
"emergency measures" or "food safety-related polic ies".  While import licensing could be imposed 
to address general concerns like preventing parallel trade or governance issues, it should be as least trade-restrictive as possible and preferably applied through automatic ILPs. 
9.13.  In particular, the EU had concerns and sought clarification on the following measures: 
Ministry of Trade Regulation 27/2012, which imposed new licences for imports related to production ("API-P"), and ILPs related to distribution ("API-U"). In particular, the EU asked for 
clarification as to whether Indonesia had considered changing its licensing regime to an automatic 
one which would involve less time and money for importers. The Indonesian Ministry of Trade had indicated that since the implementation of the re gulation on 1 April 2013, only 54% of importers 
had obtained a new licence. The EU delegate asked what Indonesia would do to ensure that trade 
– which often supported Indonesian production – continued undisrupted by this import licensing 
system, particularly if not all economic operators had obtained a new licence. In order to continue imports for distribution, the regulation also required evidence that there was a "special 
relationship" with the exporter, and established that Indonesian embassies around the world 
should approve such evidence. Since different Indonesian embassies in the EU not only charged different rates but also followed different procedur es, he asked Indonesia to clarify the amount of 
the fees and what the procedures were to obtain such approval. 
9.14.  As regards Ministry of Trade Regulation 83/2012 extending pre-shipment controls, port 
restrictions and import licenses for over 500 categories of products, an "emergency measure" introduced three years ago, he asked Indonesia to explain why an "emergency measure" needed 
to be extended, and what the reasons were for no longer allowing European companies to benefit 
from priority lane status, as had been the case under the previous two regulations on these issues 
(Regulations 56 and 57 of 2008 and 2010, respectively).  
9.15.  With regard to Ministry of Agriculture Re gulations 42 and 43, which restricted horticulture 
imports to a limited number of ports and excluded  Jakarta, Indonesia was asked to clarify when 
the capacity of the Jakarta Tanjung Priok Port would once again be considered appropriate to 
import directly from Europe. Explanations were also required as to the ban on a number of food 
products from the EU, particularly when Indonesia had not yet found a single EU food product that did not meet Indonesian food safety requirements. 
9.16.  Like other Members, the EU was also concerned about the new Food Law adopted in 
November 2012 containing provisions that could negatively impact EU exports of food products to 
Indonesia. WTO-consistent import conditions should be transparent and aimed at preventing trade distortions. However, the new legislation introduced several burdensome requirements that could 
potentially have a negative impact on trade. Indonesia was asked to clarify the following points: (i) 
According to Art. 36 of the Law, imports of food  products were authorised only if domestic 
production was insufficient or if the product could not be produced domestically. How did 
Indonesia intend to respect its WTO obligations, in particular the commitment not to maintain, 
resort to, or revert to any measures, including quan titative import restrictions, provided for in Art. 
4.2 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture and in GATT Art. XI? (ii) Articles 96 and 97 provided that food labels, including detailed and specific informat ion, might be affixed on imported food products 
when entering into the Indonesian territory. Ho wever, many of these information requirements 
were only expressed in vague terms. i.e. "origin of certain food"; "halal for those required", etc. This created uncertainty and unpredictability, particularly considering that Article 98 of the Law 
appeared to exempt from such requirements "cer tain food wrapped in front of shoppers", which 
might have resulted in imported and domestic products being treated differently. The EU delegate requested that Indonesia explain how it intended to respect its WTO obligations, in particular the G/C/M/114 
 
- 14 - 
 
  commitment not to prepare, adopt or apply technical regulations with a view to or with the effect 
of creating unnecessary obstacles to international tr ade, as provided for in the TBT Agreement.  He 
wanted to know if Indonesia's import licensing would be used to amend the new Food Law. 
9.17.  He indicated that similar restrictions were foreseen in the draft Industry and Trade Laws 
that were being prepared; this also was a matte r of concern to the EU.  The above-mentioned 
import requirements were burdensome and had le d EU industry to refrain from exporting to 
Indonesia. This did not benefit Indonesia or the EU, and went against the G-20 pledge to keep 
trade as open as possible and refrain from introducing trade protectionist measures.   
9.18.  He concluded by apologizing for a long and re petitive statement, but this was a reflection of 
the EU's deep concern over Indonesia's import-res trictive policies and the lack of meaningful 
response and engagement from Indonesia to address genuine trade barriers for the EU and other 
WTO Members. The EU hoped that Indonesia would engage urgently in a constructive manner to 
bring its measures into line with its WTO obligations. 
9.19.  The delegate of Thailand echoed the concerns previously expressed about Indonesia's 
import restrictions, policies and practices, which impeded the export of Thai fruits, vegetables and 
horticultural products to Indonesia.  Indeed, duri ng the first 5 months of 2013, Thailand's exports 
of such products to Indonesia had substantially decreased.  Statistics showed that exports of 
longans had decreased by 48.46% (from 562.10 million baht to 289.70 million baht), exports of 
shallots by 31.38% (from 323.66 million baht to 2 22.08 million baht), and exports of durians by 
96.41% (from 248.20 million baht to  8.90 million baht). Even though Thailand had welcomed 
Indonesian regulations No. 16/2013 of the Ministry  of Trade and No. 47/2013 of the Ministry of 
Agriculture, enacted earlier in 2013 with the aim of  simplifying the licensing process by reducing 
the number of restricted products and implementi ng online systems, Thailand was concerned that 
imports of Thai fruits, vegetables and horticultural products were still regulated under the new, 
complex and burdensome process. Furthermore, Thailand was concerned that Indonesian imports 
of Thai fruits such as longans and durians were limited to certain amounts that did not reflect the demand for exports and imports of such products . He therefore urged Indonesia to review its 
policies and practices with a view to eliminating these trade obstacles as soon as possible.  
9.20.  The delegate of Japan recalled that at previous CTG meetings Japan had raised its concern 
over Indonesia's import licensing restrictions for industrial products and import restrictions on 
horticultural products. Japan would monitor the issue closely and encouraged the Indonesian 
authorities to improve their procedures so as to ensure their consistency with the relevant WTO 
Agreements. 
9.21.  The delegate of Hong Kong, China stat ed that Indonesia was not only an important 
economy in south-east Asia but also one of Hong Kong's major trading partners in the region.  She 
shared the systemic concerns expressed by th e previous speakers and indicated that her 
authorities would follow the further development of these measures.  
9.22.  The delegate of Canada indicated that as an exporter of high-quality agriculture and agri-
food products, Canada also had a systemic interest in the use of measures that impeded or 
inhibited imports. He echoed the concerns expressed by other delegations and encouraged Indonesia to respect its WTO obligations, particularly with regard to import licensing. 
9.23.  The delegate of Australia reiterated the concern about Indonesia's import-restricting policies 
and practices. These policies were of significant in terest to Australian exporters and his delegation 
looked forward to working in collaboration with Indonesia to resolve these issues. 
9.24.  The delegate of Uruguay joined the concerns  expressed by other delegations, particularly in 
respect of Uruguayan fresh fruit exports and citrus fruits, which had been affected by Indonesia's 
measures. These issues were also under discussion in other committees such as the SPS 
Committee. 
9.25.  The delegate of New Zealand stated that his delegation would follow with interest how 
Indonesia responded to the questions and requ ests posed by Members at this meeting. G/C/M/114 
 
- 15 - 
 
  9.26.  The delegate of Indonesia stated that Indonesia had already provided replies to some of the 
concerns raised today and in other WTO committees and also during bilateral meetings, however, 
he would convey the further requests to his capital. As regarded the concerns on agriculture, he indicated that in order to address Members' concerns as well as to fulfil Indonesia's national 
interest to develop its domestic agricultural sect or, Indonesia had carried out some revisions to the 
regulation on the importation of horticultural products and meat. On the port restriction and the implementation of food safety systems, he in dicated that these policies were implemented to 
ensure consumer safety.  Indonesia might reconsider the possibility of reopening ports of entry, 
but this could only be done once there were adequate facilities and human resources to support this. 
9.27.  Regarding TRIMs issues, there was already an ongoing process of consultation at Committee 
level. However, Indonesia had undertaken institutional reforms following the dissolution of the 
body in charge of supervising the oil and gas sect or. He also indicated that, despite the concerns 
expressed by some Members regarding Indonesia's importation policy, current data showed that 
until June 2013 Indonesia's trade balance had faced an increasing deficit.  In this regard he 
mentioned that imports from the US had increased by 8.2%, from Japan by 18.13%, and from China by 9.81%. The increase in such exports wa s proof that Members had obtained better market 
access facilities to Indonesia for both agricultural and non-agricultural products.  Nevertheless, the 
concerns raised at this meeting would be the subject of further consultations with the capital. 
9.28.  The council took note of the statements made.  
10  NIGERIA – LOCAL CONTENT MEASURES IN OIL AND GAS – REQUEST FROM THE 
EUROPEAN UNION AND THE UNITED STATES 
10.1.  The Chairperson informed the Council that the delegations of the European Union and the 
United States had requested the inclusion in the ag enda of the present meeting of an item entitled 
"Nigeria – Local Content Measures in Oil and Gas". 
10.2.  The delegate of the European Union informed  the Council that this issue related to concerns 
over the Local Content Act of April 2010, which requ ired achieving a specified level of local content 
in all listed activities, services and material used  in the oil and gas sector. The EU had raised this 
issue in the TRIMs Committee on several occasions and had also submitted written questions to Nigeria, which had not yet provided replies, particularly as regards compatibility with the provisions of the TRIMs Agreem ent, the GATT 1994 and the GATS. 
10.3.  A very specific question on the review of Schedule A of the Act had first been raised by the 
EU at the TRIMs meeting in May 2012 and reiterated in October 2012.  This review was meant to comprise the list of detailed local content requirements per good or service, and was originally 
foreseen to take place in spring 2012.  Being as this review had not yet taken place after almost a 
year, he asked Nigeria to specify the date of the said review and clarify the manner in which it would be carried out.   
10.4.  The EU had also understood that an Amendment Bill was pending before the National 
Assembly; this could provide an opportunity to review certain provisions of the Act, including Schedule A, and also address questions related to WTO compatibility.  The EU asked Nigeria to use this opportunity to look at whether the legislative scheme, particularly the local content 
requirement, was the appropriate tool to achieve the goal of enhancing domestic capacity in the oil 
and gas industry.  Other issues related to the prod uctive capacity and supply possibilities of the 
relevant Nigerian sectors could be addressed within this context, as well as some apparent 
distortions introduced by the law, notably the fact that the requirements in Schedule A favoured 
pure agency intermediation over genuine local in vestment. The EU looked forward to the review 
and was confident that all the concerns expressed would be addressed by the Nigerian authorities 
in order to ensure full compliance with its commitments under the WTO Agreements. 
10.5.  The delegate of the United States stated that for almost two years the US, the EU, and 
other WTO Members had been attempting to engage with Nigeria in the WTO TRIMs Committee on 
their concerns about certain measures which appeared to require the use of local content in 
Nigeria's oil and gas industry.  In September 2011 in document G/TRIMS/W/89, the US had posed 
written questions to Nigeria, and in the October 2011 meeting of the Committee it had also G/C/M/114 
 
- 16 - 
 
  described its understanding of the Nigerian measures.  However, Nigeria had failed to provide 
answers to the questions. Therefore, the US had raised this issue again at the Committee 
meetings in May and October 2012. On both occasi ons the Nigerian delegation had been unable to 
provide any response.  Since no Nigerian delega te attended the April 2013 meeting of the TRIMs 
Committee, there was no certainty as to the status of the replies to the questions. 
10.6.  The WTO Committee system provided a forum in which to gain a basic understanding of the 
trade policies of other Members and raise concerns outside of the context of the dispute settlement 
mechanism.  Energizing this system was a key objective of Members; in this vein capitals had to 
provide their Geneva-based delegations with the necessary support and information to fully participate in the WTO Committee system, including the authority to answer basic factual questions about national trade policy regimes and measures.  The US could understand that it 
might take time to compile replies to formal questions, particularly for smaller delegations.  
However, after two years of repeating the same questions and request, Nigeria was urged to participate fully as a Member of the TRIMs Committee and clear up any misunderstandings other 
Members might have about the measures in question. 
10.7.  The US understood that, in addition to the ge neral requirements to give "first consideration" 
to goods manufactured in Nigeria, the law established minimum local content requirements for 
specific goods such as steel plates and pipes, cables, valves, cement, and pipes.  Moreover, the 
law required the mandatory use of locally-manufactured welded and fabricated products. 
10.8.  The Local Content Act also directed the Minister of Petroleum Resources to develop "a fiscal 
framework and tax incentives" for companies that established facilities or operations in Nigeria "for 
purposes of carrying out production, manufacturing or for providing any services and goods 
otherwise imported into Nigeria". All of these issues generated concerns under the TRIMs Agreement and therefore clarification from Nige ria about the process under the measure, the 
participants, the standards by which findings were measured, the method of application of any 
outcomes, and expected timeframes of implementation would be welcomed by the US.
 
10.9.  The US delegate also asked Nigeria to update Members on any developments with respect 
to the operation of this measure, and to inform them whether there were any plans to expand it, 
either by applying its requirements to additional goods and services, or by increasing local content 
requirements on goods and services already covered.  The US would also appreciate clarification and information as to the authority and conditions to grant waivers of the Act.
 
10.10.  The delegate of Australia appreciate d the opportunity to discuss the local content 
requirements enacted by Nigeria, an issue th at Australia had been following in the TRIMs 
Committee but on which it had not intervened. He asked Nigeria to explain how the preferential 
treatment accorded in the Act to local goods and services was consistent with Nigeria's national 
treatment obligations under the TRIMs Agreement,  the GATS and the GATT 1994.  In particular, 
Australia had noted that Section 11(1) of the Act established minimum percentages of Nigerian 
local content in goods, services and investment for any project in the Nigerian oil and gas industry, 
and that Section 7 of the Act required operators to submit a Nigerian Content Plan demonstrating compliance with the Nigerian content requirements.  Australia looked forward to Nigeria's responses. 
 
10.11.  In response to the previous speakers, the delegate of Nigeria confirmed that his authorities 
had received questions from the US and the EU wh ich they were still responding to and that the 
relevant replies would, in turn, be submitted to the TRIMs Committee. Like the US delegation, 
Nigeria believed that the WTO provided a forum for transparency where Members shared 
information on their trade policies and practices.   
 
10.12.  As to the absence of a Nigerian delegate at the TRIMs Committee meeting on 1 October 
2012, he indicated that at the end of that meeting,  it had been agreed that the following meeting 
of that Committee would take place on 4 October 2013.  Thus, his delegation was preparing for the October 2013 meeting. Nigeria acknowledged Members' right to call for meetings at any time; 
however it was important that such requests gave special consideration to the size of delegations 
such as his. He also indicated that the messages received at this meeting would be conveyed to Abuja. G/C/M/114 
 
- 17 - 
 
  10.13.  The Council took note of the statements made.   
11  UKRAINE'S COKING COAL IMPORT QUOTA – REQUEST FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION 
AND THE UNITED STATES 
11.1.  The Chairperson informed the Council that in a communication dated 27 June 2013, the 
European Union and the United States had requeste d the Secretariat to include in the agenda of 
the present meeting the issue of "Ukrai ne's Coking Coal Import Quota".   
11.2.  The delegate of the European Union reiterat ed the concern of his delegation over Ukraine's 
introduction in March 2013 of quantitative restrictions on coal and a ban to import coke; he urged 
Ukraine to explain these licensing requirements and quotas, and, in particular, to demonstrate how the zero tonnes quota for metallurgic coke and the quotas on imports of coking coal could be justifiable under WTO rules. 
11.3.  He added that explanations previously pr ovided by Ukraine had led the EU to understand 
that Ukraine intended to justify those restrictions under GATT Article XX; the EU had reservations in this regard but welcomed the ruling of the Ukrainian Court of 10 June 2013 which declared the 
Decree illegal as the government had failed to prov ide evidence and support of its claims that the 
stocks of coal caused a risk of self-inflammation .  However, concerns remained as the Ukrainian 
government had decided to appeal the ruling and the final decision was pending.   
11.4.  The EU was of the view that the environmen tal public health risk seemed to be the only 
argument put forward by the Ukrainian government to justify the implementation of import restrictions under the GATT 1994; such justifications could not stand in the absence of relevant evidence.  Therefore, Ukraine was requested to reconsider these trade-restrictive measures, as 
they were incompatible with its WTO commitments, an issue that also raised systemic concerns. 
11.5.  The delegate of the United States re called that on 22 April 2013, Ukraine had issued 
Resolution No. 312 of the Cabinet of Ministers "On interagency commission for quotas - allocation 
for the goods subject to import licensing in 2013", a measure which imposed quotas on coking 
coal, bituminous coal and coke used in the production of metals, including steel.  Ukraine had notified this Resolution under Article 5 of the Agreement on ILPs, and the US delegation, as well as 
other Members, had raised concerns in this regard not only at the 22 April 2013 meeting of this 
Committee but also at the 7 May 2013 meeting of the Committee on Market Access. 
11.6.  The US considered that the measure not only limited imports of coking coal to 10.1 million 
metric tonnes and imposed a quota of zero on imports of metallurgical coke during the period 1 
June to 31 December 2013, but had also not been administered in a transparent manner and 
might unduly impose barriers on imports of these coal products.  She therefore asked Ukraine to 
clarify the following: (i) Given the appeal to the ruling of the Court which found the measure illegal 
and inconsistent with Ukraine's Protocol of Accession, what was the status of the measure? (ii) 
Was the repealed measure still in effect? If so, what was the effective date of the repeal? If the measure had not been repealed, how had quotas for coking coal been allocated under the 
measure?  (iii) Where could the applications for quota allocations be obtained and where had the 
procedures for allocation of the quota under the measure been published?  (iv) Would the measure 
automatically end on 31 December, 2013? If not, what action had to be taken in order for it to end? (v) Was the zero quota on imports of coke an effective ban on imports?  If so, how was the 
ban implemented? Would the entry of imported go ods subject to the quota system but without a 
licence be refused?  
11.7.  When recalling that at the Committee on Market Access Ukraine had indicated that it had 
concerns about excess coal and coke creating sa fety problems in Ukraine, she asked about the 
measures that Ukraine had taken to address the pr oblem of excess stockpiles of coal and coke and 
if production restrictions had been imposed. She also asked if Ukrainian officials had instituted 
domestic environmental and safety measures to address the perceived problems and, if so, to 
provide information on the domestic measures adopted by Ukraine's authorities. Her delegation would provide these questions in writing and sought written responses from Ukraine.  
11.8.  The delegate of Australia shared the conc erns and questions over the imposition of an 
import quota on coking coal notified by Ukraine on 30 April 2013. Australia believed that these G/C/M/114 
 
- 18 - 
 
  regulations created uncertainty for foreign supplie rs and domestic producers of coking coal. He 
asked Ukraine to clarify how by restricting access to imported coal and forcing domestic producers to buy domestic coal, environmental concerns wo uld be eased, and also to explain how those 
measures were consistent with the GATT 1994 an d the Agreement on ILPs. Australia had also 
heard that a Ukraine Court had ruled against the Cabinet Resolution of 13 March 2013 and looked 
forward to receiving clarification from Ukraine on the current status of this issue.  
11.9.  The delegate of the Russian Federation ex pressed her support for the previous statements, 
as Russia was one of the major exporters of coal to the Ukrainian market. The measure itself and 
the procedure of quota allocation restricted acce ss to Ukraine and did not seem in line with the 
relevant WTO Agreements, in particular GATT Article XX. Russia had conducted bilateral consultations on this issue and looked forward to a positive and prompt outcome. She invited 
Ukraine to withdraw the measure in accordance with the ruling of the Ukrainian court that 
considered it in violation of Ukraine's international obligations. 
11.10.  The delegate of Ukraine stated that her delegation had notified the Governmental Decision 
under Articles 5, 1.4 and 8.2 of the Agreement on ILPs, and had provided translated copies of the 
Resolution and its amendment (G/LIC/N/1/UKR/3 and G/LIC/N/2/UKR/3).  With respect to the 
expected duration of the ILP she indicated that it was until 31 December 2013, and added that her 
authorities had been engaged in consultations with the major coal consumers and steel producers, 
the outcome being an amendment to the initial Resolution fixing a new quota volume per coke and coal of 210,000 tonnes. This corresponded to traditional supplies of those products; thus, there was no longer any zero quota.  This decision had been adopted on 3 July 2013 and would enter 
into force on the date of its publication.  She also informed the Committee that a new notification 
was being prepared and that Ukraine would also pr ovide written replies to the questions posed by 
Members at this meeting once they had been forwarded to her mission in Geneva.   
11.11.  The Council took note of the statements made.   
12  UKRAINE'S ARTICLE XXVIII NOTIFICATION - STATEMENTS BY AS EAN; AUSTRALIA; 
CANADA; CHILE; EGYPT; THE EUROPEAN UNION; GUATEMALA; HONG KONG, CHINA; 
ICELAND; ISRAEL; JAPAN; KOREA; MEXICO;  NEW ZEALAND; NORWAY; TURKEY AND THE 
UNITED STATES  
12.1.  The Chairperson informed the Council that in a communication dated 28 June 2013, the 
United States, on its own behalf and that of the delegations of ASEAN; Australia; Canada; Chile; 
Egypt; the European Union; Guatemala; Hong Kong, China; Iceland; Israel; Japan; Korea; Mexico; 
New Zealand; Norway; and Turkey, had requested the inclusion of this item on the agenda of the 
present meeting. 
12.2.  The delegate of the United States recalled that at every opportunity since September 2012, 
an unprecedented number of Members had taken th e floor, including in this Council, to express 
concern about Ukraine's proposed action under Article XXVIII. The message from these meetings 
had been very clear.  The US regretted the need to repeat itself but wished to highlight various 
points.  
12.3.  Ukraine had argued that its Article XXVIII no tification only covered 3% of its tariff schedule; 
however, the 371 tariff lines listed were of critical importance to Ukraine and those who exported 
to it.  So the issue was not just a quantitative one, but a qualitative one. Ukraine had also 
repeatedly argued that it had not indicated an intent to withdraw any concession and that it might not raise its bound duties to higher levels.   
12.4.  The US had a number of reasons to seriou sly doubt this. Principally among them was the 
fact that Ukraine's Rada had recently raised some applied tariffs to their bound levels.  This indicated that where Ukraine had room within its bound tariff rates to raise its tariffs, it would do 
so. Moreover, as discussed at this meeting under agenda item 7, Ukraine intended to raise two 
autos tariff lines to levels above their bound rates.  These two lines were covered in Ukraine's Article XXVIII notification.   
12.5.  Her delegation continued to question Ukrain e's use of Article XXVIII if it did not intend to 
raise its tariff bindings. Members used Article XXVIII to update their entire tariff schedule G/C/M/114 
 
- 19 - 
 
  according to the World Customs Organization's periodical updates of the Harmonized Tariff 
System; however, these were technical exercises that did not strike at the basic balance of concessions reflected in Members' tariff schedules, whereas Ukraine's action had made clear that the country intended to use Article XXVIII to rene gotiate the terms of its recent WTO accession.   
12.6.  Procedures under Article XXVIII plainly stated that "if a concession is to be modified, the 
proposed modification should be stated in the notification or circulated as soon as possible thereafter."  Notwithstanding the fact that Ukraine's notification had been filed nearly ten months 
before and that the US had submitted a claim of interest over six months before, Ukraine had yet 
to meet this most basic Article XXVIII requirement.  The lack of respect for the provisions of Article 
XXVIII only added to the fundamental reservations  that the US had expressed with regard to 
Ukraine's proposed action. She therefore urged Ukraine's government to take heed of the outcry of 
concern from Members in Geneva, change course and abandon its proposed action under Article 
XXVIII. 
12.7.  The delegate of Singapore indicated that she would make her statement on behalf of 
ASEAN, as ASEAN joined other delegations on the systemic implications that could arise from the 
notification circulated by Ukraine. Over a year after Ukraine had tabled its notification, Members 
still did not know what the real objectives were.  Since Ukraine had already raised tariffs on a 
number of lines, she asked it to provide further information on this, including a translated copy of 
the law regulating these changes.  ASEAN members were also concerned that Ukraine had not provided any update as to how it intended to compensate Members. Given the significant number 
of tariff lines affected by the noti fication, some of which were of export interest to ASEAN, it was 
difficult, especially for developing country Members, to assess the impact of such a move without 
being clear as to the rationale and objectives behind the notification. 
12.8.  The situation was particularly worrying for Members without Initial Negotiating Rights 
(INRs) or principal or substantial supplying interests, since they would not have the opportunity to 
see the developments in Ukraine's consultations with Members with such INRs.  She therefore asked Ukraine to inform the WTO membership about the progress of its negotiations with Members 
with INRs or principal or substantial interests. 
12.9.  The WTO thrived on transparency, inclusiven ess and predictability, and the binding of tariff 
reductions was a fundamental WTO principle that gu aranteed the security and predictability of the 
multilateral trading system.  Thus, in the interests of the multilateral trading system and the global 
economy, ASEAN urged Ukraine to withdraw its notification. 
12.10.  The delegate of the European Union recalle d that over the course of the previous nine 
months, a significant number of Members had taken the floor, including in this Council, to express 
concern about Ukraine's proposed action under Article XVIII.  This demonstrated the seriousness 
of this issue both to individual Members and to the WTO as a whole.  The message to Ukraine had 
been very clear: it would be in the interest of all WTO Members for Ukraine to withdraw its 
notification.  Nonetheless, Ukraine had maintained its notification and had stated that it would like 
to start negotiations with a certain number of WTO Members.   
12.11.   The EU continued to believe that the extent of Ukraine's notification went far beyond the 
intended scope of Article XVIII.  The binding of ta riff levels was one of the basic principles of the 
WTO and served to guarantee the security and pred ictability of the multilateral trading system.  
Ukraine's notification, submitted so soon after its WTO accession, challenged the aforementioned basic principle and raised systemic concerns.   
12.12.  The size of the tariff changes in the noti fication was also of concern to the EU, which 
believed that it would be very difficult to maintain a general level of reciprocal and mutually advantageous concessions not less favourable to trade as required by Article XXVIII. The EU 
considered that the action undertaken by Ukraine could destabilize the multilateral trading system, 
notably by undermining the legal certainty and va lue of the commitments taken by Members upon 
their accession to the WTO.  He therefore asked Ukraine to abandon its proposal under Article XXVIII. 
12.13.  The delegate of Turkey recalled that on several occasions and in various fora his delegation 
had expressed concerns over Ukraine's request to renegotiate 371 tariff lines. The proposed G/C/M/114 
 
- 20 - 
 
  changes raised systemic concerns and would create bilateral trade-related consequences.  The 
basic principle of bound rates and market predicta bility would be affected and the multilateral 
trading system harmed.  Ukraine had not taken any further steps to elucidate on the application of the changes and how it would address and accommodate Members' concerns.  On the contrary, 
recent steps undertaken by Ukraine further exacerbated the concerns that Ukraine could be using 
its proposed action in the most protectionist wa y.  He therefore urged Ukraine to withdraw its 
request under GATT Article XXVIII. 
12.14.  The delegate of Canada regretted to raise once again Canada's concerns on this issue.  He 
indicated that on several opportunities, both bilaterally and in various WTO bodies, Canada had 
sought clarity from Ukraine over its intentions in respect of the notification, but Ukraine had failed to provide adequate responses. 
12.15.  Even though Canada had submitted, in December 2012, a claim of interest in order to 
safeguard its multilateral rights, no acknowledge ment of this claim had been forthcoming from 
Ukraine.  Ukraine's notification and its subsequent lack of engagement on this file had created 
uncertainty for traders and severely and negatively impacted the multilateral trading system.  In 
order for Ukraine to respect its WTO commitments and positively contribute to global trade, 
Canada urged it to withdraw its notification at the earliest opportunity. 
12.16.  The delegate of Japan stated that since no serious action had been taken by Ukraine on 
this issue, Japan was compelled to reiterate that the notification by Ukraine, covering over 300 
tariff lines, posed a serious challenge to the multilateral trading system, which was based on mutual trust among Members. If Ukraine proceeded with its proposal, it would endanger trust in 
the global trading system as a whole. Japan once again urged Ukraine to withdraw its notification. 
12.17.  The delegate of Mexico stated that it was regrettable that Members that had persistently 
and in many WTO bodies expressed their concerns over Ukraine's intention to increase its tariffs 
on a number of products were compelled to reiterate those concerns once again.  Members still did 
not understand the reasons behind Ukraine's notification and particular concerns had been raised as regards the lack of a proper response by Ukrain e to the idea of reconsidering its notification.  
This created a negative precedent, particularly by the fact that a recently acceded Member had 
invoked GATT Article XXVIII to file a large range of products. The trade rules that governed the work of the WTO were intended to strengthen co nfidence and trust in the multilateral trading 
system, not to undermine it.  A key principle of the WTO was progressive, not regressive, 
liberalization.  Mexico joined others in requesting Ukraine to reconsider its decision to modify its 
bound tariffs. 
12.18.  The delegate of Hong Kong, China also reit erated the concerns about Ukraine's intention to 
modify its tariff concessions on more than 370 ta riff lines and the lack of clarity regarding the 
proposed modifications.  The process that Ukra ine intended to pursue lacked transparency.  
Ukraine's intention and action had systemic implications given the large scope of the modification 
of tariff concessions.  She therefore urged Ukraine to reconsider its proposed action. 
12.19.  The delegate of Guatemala also regretted to reiterate the concerns of her delegation and 
other Members regarding Ukraine's intention to modify a large number of tariff concessions.  
In particular, Guatemala was concerned by the impact on its trade interests and the implications 
that this exercise would have at the multilateral level.  Like other Members, Guatemala had 
reserved its right to use the rights and flexibilities established in the WTO Agreements.  However, it acknowledged that such rights and flexibilities must be exercised with due consideration, in a 
spirit of cooperation, and with due respect for the multilateral trading system in existence since 
the GATT.  In December 2012, Guatemala had sent a communication to Ukraine expressing these concerns and reservations; however, to date it had not received any response.  Guatemala sought 
transparency from Ukraine as to its intention to modify its tariff concessions and called upon 
Ukraine to reconsider its position, particularly in light of the impact it might have on the multilateral trading system.   
12.20.  The delegate of El Salvador stated that her delegation continued to monitor the 
developments of Ukraine's notification. As on previous occasions, El Salvador urged Ukraine to 
carry out a transparent process and to submit information on the concrete objectives it intended to G/C/M/114 
 
- 21 - 
 
  achieve through this initiative.  El Salvador also hoped to receive a response from Ukraine to the 
letter it had sent outlining its request for further information. 
12.21.  The delegate of Colombia also indicated that in the nine months since Ukraine had 
submitted its notification, Colombia like many other Members had outlined its systemic trade 
concerns over this issue. There was a practical difficulty in this process with regard to proper 
compensation with such a large number of tariff lines involved; this entailed a risk for the multilateral trading system.  Colombia had already outlined that several of the tariff lines in the 
notification affected a large percentage of its bila teral trade with Ukraine. To date, these concerns 
had not received any satisfactory response; Colombia sought clear indications from Ukraine as to its intentions in this area and urged the country to reconsider its position in this matter and withdraw its notification given the impact on the stability and credibility of the multilateral trading 
system. 
12.22.  The delegate of Chile also regretted to repeat what other countries had said regarding this 
issue.  Chile had systemic concerns about the way in which Ukraine was trying to renegotiate its 
tariff schedule.  Chile believed this went beyond the provisions of GATT Article XXVIII, which were 
originally intended for use under very specific and special circumstances, i.e. for a very limited number of products, but not for the 371 tariff lines involved in Ukraine's notification.  Indeed, 
Article XXVIII used the term "a" concession, which meant that it should not be used as an excuse 
to reopen or renegotiate the current level of commitments.   
12.23.  Chile's concerns were of a systemic nature .  A notification like this might undermine the 
whole predictability of the entire multilateral trading system, particularly for developing Members.  
Article XXVIII would have an undesired and indirect  impact if no agreement were reached between 
the requesting Member and Members with INRs.  In such a situation, the Member or Members affected might withdraw the initial concessions granted to the Member requesting the 
renegotiation, something that would be done on an MFN basis.  In other words, if no agreement 
could be reached between Ukraine and interested Members, Chile would also be negatively impacted by those Members which did not accept Uk raine's proposal.  Therefore, Chile like other 
Members, urged Ukraine to withdraw its Article XXVIII request. 
12.24.  The delegate of Israel echoed the previous statements concerning Ukraine's notification, 
an issue that his delegation had followed since the beginning. Ukraine's proposed action went well 
beyond the technical exercise intended under Arti cle XXVIII.  Above all, Uk raine had not followed 
the basic requirements under GATT Article XXVIII,  by failing to clearly indicate the proposed 
modifications.  These two situations heightened Israel's concerns over Ukraine's fulfilment of its WTO obligations.  Israel looked forward to a satisfactory solution to this matter in accordance with 
the WTO rules. 
12.25.  The delegate of Korea reiterated the concerns of his delegation, already raised on multiple 
occasions including at the March 2013 meeting of this Council. Korea believed that Ukraine's 
notification would be neither appropriate nor desirable in terms of the spirit of the relevant WTO 
rules and provisions and that it would also undermine the credibility and predictability of the multilateral trading system which was currently at a cross-roads. Korea like other delegations urged Ukraine to address these concerns in a manner consistent with its WTO obligations and WTO 
rules and regulations, particularly since Ukraine had failed to address this matter.  Thus, Ukraine 
should carefully listen to and address all of thes e concerns and respond to the request to withdraw 
all of its WTO-inconsistent measures and notifications. 
12.26.  The delegate of New Zealand stated th at his authorities had attempted to understand 
Ukraine's intentions but still struggled with the very basic transparency Ukraine had provided on 
this matter. He therefore requested that Ukraine withdraw its notification. 
12.27.  The delegate of Iceland also joined all the concerns expressed by the previous speakers. 
Iceland remained sceptical regarding the use of Article XXVIII by Ukraine and the intention behind 
it; it was a wrong message to send at the wron g moment.  Ukraine needed to explain how the 
proposed actions did not serve protectionist purposes, but had failed to do so. Iceland also had 
systemic concerns because if individual WTO Members were allowed to raise their tariff bindings 
unilaterally, the predictability and transparency  of the rules-based system would be seriously 
undermined, and in such a case, smaller economies like Iceland which relied mostly on G/C/M/114 
 
- 22 - 
 
  international trade would be seriously affected.  Ukraine was urged to reconsider its proposed 
action under Article XXVIII as it appeared to  go beyond the scope of that provision. 
12.28.  The delegate of Australia stated that Australia was disappointed that Ukraine continued to 
avoid reconsidering its notification even in the face  of widespread expressions of concerns from the 
entire WTO membership.  Australia's concerns were well known and had been raised in the 
General Council in October and December 2012 and February 2013, in the joint statement made to this Council on behalf of 50 delegations in November 2012, and again in March 2013.  Ukraine's 
failure to respond to Members' concerns had left Australia with no choice but to submit a claim of 
interest on 11 December 2012, which it had done without prejudice to its position on the legal validity of Ukraine's notification. Ukra ine, however, had not yet responded. 
12.29.  The delegate of Norway shared the concerns raised by the US and a large number of other 
delegations on this issue. Like many other Member s, Norway had submitted a claim of interest in 
December 2012, and had also raised this issue bilaterally, including at the highest political level. However, it was regrettable that Norway had yet to receive any further indication or information 
from Ukraine on how it intended to bring this matter forward. Ukraine's request raised systemic 
concerns related to the predictability of multil ateral trading system commitments and Ukraine was 
urged to reconsider its request.  
12.30.  The delegate of China joined the previous speakers in expressing concern on this issue. 
China had made its claim of interest to Ukraine in December 2012, but had still not received any 
response; nor had Ukraine notified it of any progress on this issue. He therefore urged Ukraine to inform Members of its intentions and next steps regarding this issue, particularly given that 
Ukraine had recently raised some applied tariffs to their bound levels. The latest report on G-20 
trade measures indicated that increasing tariffs had more trade-reducing effects than any other import-restrictive measure; therefore China urged Ukraine once again to address Members' 
concerns in a WTO-consistent manner.   
12.31.  The delegate of Ukraine thanked Members fo r their views and opinions and stated that the 
provisions under Article XXVIII had been invoked by Members on a regular basis in order to 
introduce tariff modifications in their trade policy frameworks.  It was an established practice that 
should not be perceived as protectionism or as an intention to raise bound tariffs across the board.  Ukraine had taken this step in a transparent manner and the notification it had made did not contain Ukraine's intention to raise its bound tariffs. She also indicated that, as stated on previous 
occasions, Ukraine's notification covered only 3% of a total of 11,000 Ukrainian HS tariff lines at 
10-digit level and explained that the notification was based on a 10-digit level while there had been cases in the WTO where Members had indicate d groups of products to be modified. Ukraine 
respected Members' concerns, would bilaterally address the sensitivities that had been expressed, 
and intended to propose country-specific compensation. She thanked those countries that had submitted their claim of interests and that had responded to the notification in accordance with 
WTO procedures. 
12.32.  She concluded by indicating that Ukraine believed in the WTO's ability to accommodate the 
needs of each individual Member, and in response  to a comment made by the US delegation, she 
stated that the imposition of a safeguard duty was a trade instrument to deal with a particularly 
serious situation, while GATT Article XXVIII was a warranted right for transparent trade policy 
adjustment which also served to improve the legal certainty of a Member's tariff policy. 
12.33.  The Council took note of the statements made.   
13  WORK PROGRAMME ON ELECTRONIC COMMERCE 
13.1.  The Chairperson recalled that at the last meeting of the Council it had been agreed to 
include the issue of the Work Programme on Elec tronic Commerce on the agenda of the present 
meeting in order to fulfil the mandate of the Ministerial Decision contained in document WT/L/843 
where Ministers had decided: 
13.2.   "To further instruct the General Council to hold periodic reviews in its sessions of July and 
December 2012 and July 2013, based on the report s submitted by the WTO bodies entrusted with 
the implementation of the Work Programme, to assess its progress and consider any G/C/M/114 
 
- 23 - 
 
  recommendations on possible measures related to electronic commerce in the next session of the 
Ministerial Conference". 
13.3.  The delegate of Cuba noted the progress made to date in the Committee on Trade and 
Development (CTD) and in the Council for Trade in Services (CTS) with regard to the 
reinvigoration of the Work Programme from the development perspective and in favour of small 
and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).  The consen sus obtained in the CTD with regard to Cuba 
and Ecuador's proposal to hold a workshop on e-commerce had been a success. As a result, 
Members had identified in a transparent manner a number of non-tariff barriers which developing 
countries and, more specifically, least developed countries (LDCs) had to face. Discrimination with regard to access to internet networks and information and communication technologies had also been addressed. Cuba would continue working in a constructive manner on this issue in order to 
obtain concrete results that would benefit all WTO Members. 
13.4.  The delegate of the United States stated that the two workshops on e-commerce had been 
very useful for identifying important issues related to e-commerce.   While those workshops 
focused on development and some services-related issues, there were clearly impacts on trade in 
goods that might be examined in the future in more depth.  
13.5.  The delegate of the European Union expr essed his delegation's satisfaction with the 
reinvigoration of the Work Programme and welcomed the various initiatives in this regard.  The 
two workshops had been a success.  From the EU pers pective, the conditions were met to report to 
the MC9 that progress had been made under the Work Programme; Members should proceed as usual and renew the e-commerce moratorium at the MC9. 
13.6.  The Chairperson thanked delegations for their statements reiterating the importance of the 
continued efforts to reinvigorate the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce, based on its 
existing mandate and guidelines and on the propos als submitted by Members. He also proposed to 
report, on his own responsibility, to the General Council on 24 July 2013 on the discussions held in 
this Council during 2012 and 2013, including today's discussion3.  
13.7.  The Council so agreed.  
14  OTHER BUSINESS 
14.1  Room Document RD/CTG/1 14.1.  The Chairperson recalled that, as announced at the start of the meeting, under this agenda 
item he would inform delegations of the discussions held by the delegations of Australia and Japan 
concerning Room Document RD/CTG/1, which contai ned the revised format of the "Updating of the 
listing of notification obligations and the compliance therewith as set out in Annex III of the Report of the Working Group on Notification Obligations and Procedures". In this regard, he stated that, 
as recorded in the minutes of the previous meet ing of the Council (G/C/M/113, Paragraphs 3.1 – 
3.6), the delegations of Australia and Japan had in dicated that they would hold consultations on 
the reduced format that had been proposed by th e Secretariat. These delegations had stated that 
they were continuing to explore and discuss idea s with a view to suggesting some pertinent 
changes at the October 2013 meeting. The Chairperson proposed to take note of the information he had provided and to revert to this issue at the next meeting under "Other Business".  
14.2.  The Council so agreed. 
                                               
3 See document G/C/53 G/C/M/114 
 
- 24 - 
 
  14.2  Date of next meeting 
14.3.  The Chairperson informed the Council that the next meeting of the Council was scheduled to 
take place on Friday 18 October 2013 and that the agenda would close on Monday 7 October.  
Additional meetings would be convened if necessary. 
14.4.  The meeting was adjourned. 
__________