RESTRICTED  
 
  
G/TRIMS/M/44  
 
26 September 2018  
(18-5952) Page: 1/19 
Committee on Trade -Related Investment Measures    
 
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETI NG HELD ON 1 JUNE 2018  
CHAIR: MR ALI ALWALEED AL -THAN I (QATAR ) 
1.  The Chair  referred to the proposed agenda circulated in document WTO/AIR/TRIMS/ 7 dated 
22 May 2018. The Chair asked if any Member wishe d to raise any matter under "Other Business ". 
The European Union  notified that it wished to raise a matter under that item.  The Committee adopted 
the following agenda:  
1   CHINA – LOCAL CO NTENT IN CYBERSECURI TY MEASURES (INCLUDI NG PROVISIONS 
ON INSURANCE SYSTEM INFORMATIZATION) ................................ ................................ . 1 
2   INDONESIA – LOCAL CONTENT REQU IREMENTS FOR 4G LTE MOBILE DEVICES ..........  3 
3   INDONESIA – CERT AIN LOCAL CONTENT PR OVIS IONS IN THE ENERGY S ECTOR 
(MINING, OIL AND GAS ) ................................ ................................ ................................ . 6 
4   INDONESIA – INDU STRY LAW AND TRADE L AW ................................ ........................  8 
5   INDONESIA – MINI MUM LOCAL PRODUCT RE QUIREMENT FOR MODERN  RETAIL 
SECTOR  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  9 
6   INDONESIA – CERT AIN MEASURES ADDRESS ING LOCAL CONTENT IN  INVESTMENT 
IN THE TELECOMMUNICA TIONS SECTOR  ................................ ................................ ....... 10 
7   INDONESIA – LOCA L CONTENT REQUIREMEN TS FOR DAIRY IMPORTA TION AND 
DISTRIBUTION  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  11 
8   NIGERIA – GUIDEL INES ON NIGERIAN CON TENT IN INFORMATION 
COMMUNICATIONS TECHN OLOGY (ICT)  ................................ ................................ ........  12 
9   RUSSIAN FEDERATION  – MEASURES IMPLEMEN TING RUSSIA'S IMPORT  
SUSBTITUTION POLICY  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 13 
10   ARGENTINA – ACT 27,263 ON THE DEVEL OPMENT AND STRENGTHE NING REGIME 
OF THE ARGENTINE AUT OPARTISM  ................................ ................................ ...............  15 
11   TURKEY – LOCALI SATION POLICY IN THE  PHARMACEUTICAL SECT OR ...................  16 
12   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 18 
13   ELECTION OF CHA IRPERSON AND VICE -CHAIRPERSON  ................................ .........  18 
14   DATE OF THE NEX T MEETING  ................................ ................................ .................  18 
 
1  CHINA  – LOCAL CONTENT IN CYBERSECURITY MEASURES (INCLUDING PROVISIONS 
ON INSURANCE SYSTEM INFORMATIZATION ) 
2.  The Chair recalled that this item was  first considered by the Committee in June 2016, and was  
on the agenda at the request of the European Union and the United States. Questions were posed 
to China by the United States in document G/TRIMS/Q/CHN/1 dated 3 June 2016. To date no written 
replies had been submitted.  
3.  The United States  remained  concerned about China 's Cybersecurity Law and related 
implementing measures that appear ed to require local content and that raise d questions about their 
consistency with China 's obligations under the TRIMS Agr eement. According to the United  States, G/TRIMS/M/44  
 
- 2 - 
 
  China 's Cybersecurity Law entered into force on 1 June  2017, in spite of serious and long -standing 
concerns from the United States and many other international stakeholders.  Since then, China has 
continued to develop , and in certain cases, finalize related implementing measures that are 
sometime general in scope, and sometimes sector -specific. The United States stated that it had  
many concerns regarding China 's Cybersecurity Law and related measures, including those t hat 
restrict the ability of companies operating in China including foreign investors to procure the 
technology of their choice, through "secure and controllable " requirements, enforced by 
cybersecurity review regime checks.  According to the United States, such requirements were largely 
based on a planned update and expansion of the Ministry of Public Security 's Multi -Level Protection 
Scheme  ("MLPS "). As one very recent example, China 's draft measure  released 25 January  2018, 
"Information Security Technology  – Guidelines for Grading of Classified Cy bersecurity Protection, " 
appeared  to repeat and elaborate upon China 's MLPS. The United States recalled that at  prior 
meetings of this Committee, it had raised concerns relating to "secure and controllable " procurement 
guidelines for both the banking and insurance industries.  The United States recalled that, i n those 
meetings, it had  observed that the respective guidelines indicated a requirement for the purchase 
of Chinese rather than foreign technology. According to the United  States, the  "secure and 
controllable " was now being  standard applied to additional industry sectors as well as to  individual 
technology products  to the detriment of foreign investors and trade in ICT products more generally, 
and with potential implications for China 's TRIMS obligations. The United States reiterated its 
position that China 's policies are of major concern for investors across industries and sectors as well 
as for ICT suppliers, given that the "secure and controllable " and similar technical standards had not 
been clarified.  The United States was  concerned that , because no further clarity ha d been provided 
on the meaning of such standards, and because it ha d been understood in the past to refer to 
domestic technology requir ements, companies sourcing ICT products were already interpreting this 
language conservatively, meaning that they believe they are required to purchase only domestic 
goods. The United States indicated it would  continue to carefully monito r developments wit h respect 
to China 's Cybersecurity law and its implementing measures, with a particular eye on any policies 
that would further propagate  "secure and controllable technical standards.  The United States 
requested that  China refrain from moving forward with a ny such measures until and unless it ha d 
fully addressed concerns of WTO Members.  
4.  The European Union  shared the concern expressed by United States. The European Union also  
noted the entry into force of China 's Cybersecurity Law in June 2017 and  the differe nt guidelines 
and administrative measures designed to implement the law. The European Union reiterated its 
statements from previous meetings of the Committee that it had concerns that this package of  
measures might  inadvertently lead to possible discrimina tory practice s against foreign enterprises. 
The European Union requested that China provide an update of the developments  with respect  to 
the draft measures, in particular whether and how the key concerns, including those expressed by 
the industry, had been addressed.  
5.  Canada  shared the concerns of the United States and the European Union. In particular, Canada 
expressed concerns about China 's Multi -Level Protection Scheme, which requires firms to procure 
Chinese -made technologies where their networks are  designed at Level 3 security and above. 
Canada stated that, as many countries and industry associations have indicated, limiting the ability 
of network operators to procure the world 's most cutting -edge technologies would not maximize the 
security of Chin a's critical networks. Canada indicated it would appreciate an update from China, 
including whether China is contemplating revising the Multi -Level Protection Scheme to remove such 
requirements.  
6.  Japan  shared  the concerns raised by the United States and the  European Union . Japan sought to 
point out that the provisions on Insurance System Informatization would be inconsistent with the 
WTO Agreement, because, depending on the manner in which they are implemented, some articles 
of the provisions could constitut e a de facto requirement to use products originating from China. In 
particular, according to Japan, Article 56 of the Provisions could oblige to use products of domestic 
origin, by requiring Chinese intellectual property in core technologies or requiring d omestic 
certification in China, according to some levels of security classifications.  In this regard, Japan 
request ed China to elaborate upon how China applies the "multi-level protection requirements " 
stipulated in this article. Japan was also concerned a bout the meaning of "secure and controllable 
products " under Article 52 of the Provisions. While China  had explained that "secure and controllable 
products " means that, among others, products or service providers should not illegally obtain users ' 
data and  curtail the users ' right of control, Japan  consider ed this phrase to be vague , and indicated 
that it remained concerned  that this phrase could also constitute a de facto requirement to use G/TRIMS/M/44  
 
- 3 - 
 
  products originating from China. Japan requested  China to clarify whether the meaning of "secure 
and controllable products " is stipulated in regu lations regarding this measure.  If so, Japan also 
requested clarification of  the name of regulations. Regarding the Cybersecurity Law, Japan was also 
concerned that Chinese auth orities could  require  the use of  products originating from China through 
the multi -level protection requirements applicable to critical information infrastructure or through 
the review process about security and controllability of network products and services. Japan 
request ed China to e laborate the meanings of "multi-level protection requirements " and "security 
and controllability " in this regard. Finally, with regard to China 's explanation that the drafting process 
had been open  and transparent, Japan requested  China to provide updates on both the provisions 
on Insurance System Informatization and Cybersecurity Law.  
7.  Australia  welcomed  China 's ongoing efforts to consult on its Cybersecurity law and related 
measures. Australia reiterated its  concerns and the concerns raised by others that aspects of China 's 
Cybersecurity Law and its implementing measures were ambiguous in scope and application. 
Australia  remain ed concerned that such measures may lead to trade restrictive practices that are 
inconsistent with Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement.  Australia  share d the view that safeguarding 
cybersecurity is a legitimate policy objective by governments, but believe d in finding the least trade 
restrictive manner to achieve that objective.  
8.  China  thanked  the delegation s of the European Union , the Unite d States, Canada,  Japan and 
Australia for raising their concerns on this issue. China  stated that it attached  great importance to 
efforts concerning  cyber and information security. According to China, t he purpose of drafting the 
Provisions on Insurance Sys tem Informatization was to guarantee security of informa tion in the 
insurance industry.  In the process of drafting, China had maintained an  open and transparent  
process , and considered that it had  fulfilled the relevant WTO requirements on transparency. China 
explained that  its relevant authorities were evaluating the comme nts raised by WTO M embers, and 
that they were exchanging  views and cooperating bilaterally with other WTO M embers.  China 
emphasize d that it would continue to exchange views with other W TO M embers and relevant 
stakeholders on these issues.  
9.  The United States  responded by thanking China for its explanation and for its consultation on 
this matter with other WTO Members, including bilaterally. However, the United States considered 
that the Co mmittee system was an important element of the functioning of the WTO and that 
Members should remain fully engaged in the Committee system. In that regard, the United States 
requested China to provide any information as to when China could respond to quest ions that had 
been submitted through the Committee process.  
10.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
2  INDONESIA – LOCAL CONTENT REQUIREMENTS FOR 4G LTE M OBILE DEVICES  
11.  The Chair recalled that this item was first considered by the Committee in April 20 15, and was 
on the agenda at the request of the European Union, Japan and the United States. Questions to 
Indonesia had been previously circulated in document G/TRIMS/W/148, and replies had been 
circulated in document G/TRIMS/W/162.  
12.  The European Union  continued to share the concerns consistently raised by  other  Members with 
regard to the  local content requirements for 4G LTE mobile  devices contained in Indonesia 's 
Regulation No. 65/2016. The European Union recalled the background in this regard, namely that  
Regulation No 65/2016 details the technical guidelines for the calculation of the local content 
percentage and requires that a certificate  proving  the fulfilment of the local  content requirements 
be issued by the Minister of Industry following the submiss ion of a verification report attesting  a 
surveyors ' conformity check – this was the mechanism found in Articles 35 and 36 of the Regulation . 
The European Union remained unconvinced by Indonesia 's explanation given in this Committee that 
the purpose of the measures was to guarantee the safety of the devices. The European Union  saw 
no reasonable relationship between the requirement to use domestic product s and product safety, 
and invited  Indonesia to amend its legislation in compliance with WTO rules.  
13.  Japan  likewise continued  to have concern s regarding this issue. Japan recalled that  Indonesia 
had explained  at the previous meeting of the Committee  that the local content requirement  
stipulated by the Regulation 65/2016 had  been applied in a non-discrimina tory manner . However, G/TRIMS/M/44  
 
- 4 - 
 
  Japan maintained its concern  that Regulations relating to this measure , including 
Regulation  65/2016 , oblige d companies to fulfi l a certain level of local content in order to sell mobile 
phone s in Indonesia.  Japan considered  the very fact t hat Indonesia imposes a local content 
requirement to be by nature discriminatory, which affords  an incentive to use domestic products 
over the imported ones, and is therefor e inconsistent with GATT Article III:4 as stipulated in 
paragraph 1(a) of the TRIMS Annex, as well as Article 2 of the TRIMS Agreement. Japan consider ed 
that the local content requirement for 4G LTE mobile devices should be eliminated in order for 
Indonesia to ensure  its measures in this sector are consistent with the WTO Agreements  and also  
requested  Indonesia to keep the Members updated on this issue.  
14.  The United States  made  some overarching comments for Indonesia concerning what it described 
as Indonesia 's pervasive and growing use of local content requirements. First, the United  States 
noted that the number of TRIMS agenda items relating to measures by the Governme nt of Indonesia 
was significant, namely,  six out of eleven  of the meeting 's agenda items concern ed Indonesia, 
reflecting the reputation Indonesia is garnering amongst inv estors . These agenda items concern ed 
measures that affect a full range of sectors, including industrial goods, agriculture, high technology 
products, telecommunications, and energy, including with respect to  the renewable energy sector. 
According to the Un ited States, w ithin each agenda item lurk ed numerous related measures across 
these sectors that have the potential to distort international trade and investment to the detriment 
of other WTO Members. Not only had  many of these issues been before this Commi ttee for some 
time, but the United States stated that it had  repeatedly engaged with Indonesia on these and other 
issues in Washington and Jakarta, an d in other meetings of the WTO C ommittees – such as 
Agriculture and Import Licensing, and in the Council f or Trade in Goods. For the United States, t his 
engagement reflected  the fact that its concern with regard to Indonesia 's trade and investment 
policies extend ed beyond issues relevant to this Committee. As described in the Indonesia Chapter 
of the United States Government 's 2018 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers,  
the United States considered that Indonesia had  implemented a wide array of trade barriers that 
create serious negative effects on global trade. The United States ' engagemen t, however, has had 
little effect on changing the Indonesia 's chosen policy approach. Rather, according to the 
United  States,  Indonesian government officials at the highest levels have publicly touted the success 
of their local content requirements, and ha ve called for their expansion to new areas (for example, 
information technology -related "Internet of Things " products). Such measures distort trade by 
reducing the market access other Member s legitimately expect in Indonesia, and altering patterns 
of inves tment in ways that directly harm other developing countries. In the United States ' view, the  
arguments that Indonesia had advanced in defense of i ts local content requirements did  not justify 
measures that are otherwise not consistent with the GATT and the  WTO TRIMS Agreement 
obligations. For example, at various times and in connection with various measures , Indonesia ha d 
argued that these measures "involve only technical standards, " or "are applied to loca l and foreign 
investors equally ". For the United St ates, n either of these were a legitimate basis for derogation 
from the obligations of the TRIMS Agreement. The United States urged  Indonesia to reconsider all 
of the measures Members had  placed on th e agenda of this meeting . 
15.  In respect of the measure under  this agenda item in particular, t he United States  continued  to 
remain deeply concerned about Indonesia 's adoption and implementation of local content 
requirements for 4G LTE mobile devices and base stations. Although the United States had  raised 
this matter in the WTO TRIMs Committee since April 2015 and bilaterally in its TIFA meetings, it did 
not believe that Indonesia had taken sufficient steps to answer its questions or address its concerns. 
The United States  had hoped that over the ye ars Indonesia would have minimized its use of local 
content requirements.  To the contrary, the United States  now saw local content requirements for 
the 2300 MHz frequency of 4G LTE subscriber stations and base statio ns set to increase to 30 and 
40 % respec tively in 2019.  For the United States, this was  a worrisome development. While the 
United States  appreciate d Indonesia 's responses to its questions and its interventions in this 
Committee, those interventions had not resolved its underlying concerns regard ing this policy , nor 
addressed the specific concerns that its had raised.  Rather , the responses only add ed to the 
United  States ' uncertainty about how these measures were being implemented. According to the 
United States, certain measures Indonesia had  put in place require investors who wish to distribute 
4G LTE base stations and subscriber stations, such as smart phones and tablets, to meet certain 
local content requirements: i.e., they must purchase or use products of domestic origin or invest in 
the deve lopment of the availability of local content.  Local content under that measure included  local 
manufacturing, development, and software, such as apps. The United States considered that o ther 
Members should be aware that this would mean  Indonesia 's measures were successfully drawing 
investment away from other developing countries.  The United States indicated that it had  elaborated G/TRIMS/M/44  
 
- 5 - 
 
  on these concerns in prior meetings, and invite d Member s to review those detailed statements. At 
the last TRIMs Committee meeting , the United  States  also highlighted the economic cost of 
Indonesia 's local content policies.  In that regard, the United States  wished to again  note that 
Indonesia's Minister of Industry had  said that illegal cellphones imports cost Indonesia an estimated 
US$10 million/year. The United States  believe d this was due, in large part, to Indonesia 's 4G LTE 
measures. The United States referenced a recent report suggesting that as much as 40 % of the 
smart phones in Indonesia are illegal. Although Indonesia 's measur es may have diverted some 
investment from other developing countries into Indonesia, the United States contended that  the 
main beneficiary of Indonesia 's 4G LTE measure was the black market.  This was consistent with the 
experience of other Members who had attempted to impose local content requirements on popular 
consumer electronics. The United States stated that u nfortunately, notwithstanding this experience, 
Indonesia 's Ministry of Communication and Information Technology ha d publicly stated that it is 
considering similar local content requi rement on Internet of Things  devices. The United States noted 
that Indonesia had not yet imposed such measures, and had  promised to consult with stakeholders 
on any such measure s. The United States  request ed Indonesia t o inform this Committee of the status 
of any plans for such a measure, to keep this committee updated on this matter in the future, and 
to conduct an open and transparent process with stakeholders and trading partners in the 
development of the measure s. Lastly, the United States  again wish ed to stress that although some 
companies have managed to find creative solutions to Indonesia 's restrictive policies in this sector, 
it did not consider this a successful policy as Indonesia ha d previously suggested. The United  States 
hoped  that, given the renewed interest at the highest levels of the Indonesian and United States'  
governments  at building their economic relationship and removing barriers to trade, Indonesia would  
consider the elimination of its 4G LTE local  content measures.  
16.  Australia  remained  interested in this issue and was monitoring the status and implementation 
of the regulations including in other WTO Committees.  According to Australia 's understanding, 
Indonesia 's Minister of Industry regulation 65/201 6, which entered into effect from 27 July 2016 , 
imposes local content requirements for  both physical hardware as well as software and applications. 
Australia requested Indonesia to explain how this  measure, as well as Regulation  No. 69, and the 
local conte nt requirements contained in both, were consiste nt with the WTO TRIMs Agreement.  
17.  Chinese Taipei  shared the concerns expressed by the European Union , the United States,  Japan, 
and Australia  regarding the local content requirements for 4G LTE mobile devices contained in 
Regulation No. 65/2016. It remain ed deeply concerned about this matter.  In its view, these 
measures could constitute local content requirements and are inconsistent with GATT Article III:4 
as stipulated in paragraph 1(a) of the Annex and Artic le 2 of the TRIMs Agreement. Chinese Taipei  
expressed deep concern  about the negative impacts on the efficiency of investments as  well as 
manufacturers ' ability to introduce new products in Indonesia.  It urged  Indonesia to con sider 
eliminating this measure, and requested Indonesia to provide update s on any amendments or furthe r 
developments in this regard.  
18.  Indonesia  stated that,  since the early stages of drafting the regulation at issue, it had not 
intended to discourage inves tors. Instead, Indonesia had opened opportunities for investment in its 
telecommunication sector. It had provided the schemes for trading partners in order to encourage 
and gain benefit for their investment. Such schemes were open and applied fairly and eq uitably for 
both domestic as well as foreign investors without any discrimination . Indonesia noted that it was  
not mandatory  to invest in Indonesia . Indonesia indicated its view  that the regulation is consisten t 
with the principle of WTO of non -discrimin ation as well as national t reatment.  Indonesia stated that, 
as a commitment from the current administration, all relevant Ministries would  need to continue the 
deregulation and overseeing the existing policy,  in order to ensure t he flow of foreign investment  
would not be disrupted from entering Indonesia. The regulation in telecommunication sector would  
also be simplified and amended to be more efficient and transparent as to support positive 
investment climate in Indonesia.  According to Indonesia, t his simpl ification process applied  not only 
to the telecommunication sector but also to all other sectors. In the telecommunication sector, some 
issues within certain regulations were being reviewed to establish a more efficient and transparent 
procedure to facilit ate foreign investment as well as to improve business and legal certainty. 
Indonesia stated that t he proposed review was aimed at improving Indonesia 's contribution to global 
telecommunication development , and  was also directed at easing  WTO Members ' access to 
Indonesia. This was a continuing process and a work in progress. Indonesia stated that it would  
inform interested members with update s in due course. Indonesia sought to  underline one crucial 
point when it comes to investment, namely that it nee ds to be a win -win solution for investors and 
host members. As a Member of the WTO, Indonesia ensure d that it remain ed committed to the goals G/TRIMS/M/44  
 
- 6 - 
 
  of WTO. As a developing member, Indonesia need ed to utilize the remaining and narrow policy space 
to create positi ve outcomes of investment for its people and push development in a wider context. 
Indonesia  believe d there is a common goal of sustainability for that and investment would  need to 
fit within it.  
19.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
3  INDONESIA  – CERTAIN LOCAL CONTENT PROVISIONS IN THE ENERGY SECTOR 
(MINING , OIL AND GAS) 
20.  The Chair recalled that this item has been under consideration  by the Committee since 
October  2009 and was on the agenda at the request of Canada, the  European Union, Japan, and 
the United States. Questions  to Indonesia had been circulated previously in documents  
G/TRIMS/W/70, 88, 108, and 128, and replies had been circulated  in documents G/TRIMS/W/74,  79, 
100, 123, 137, and 137/ Corr.1.  
21.  Japan  remain ed concerned about the situation surrounding the Mining Law. Japan indicated that 
it was  aware of the reforms that have been made to partially lift the complete prohibition of nickel 
ore exports.  However, the period that mining companies would  be allowed to ex port their ores was 
tentatively set at five years.  In addition to the restricted period,  Japan stated that  there was a 
requirement  to meet certain conditions including that they would bu ild their own smelters within 
5 years and that at least 30 % of the sme lted ores would be supplied to Indonesia 's domestic market. 
Taking these points into account, Japan believe d that this measure was still inconsistent with 
GATT  Article XI and once again urge d Indonesia to further revise the measures to prohibit or restrict  
exportation of mineral ores including nickel and copper.  Japan would  continue to closely monitor the 
situation surrounding exportation of these ores. Finally with regard to Indonesia 's explanation that 
the amendment of the mining law is under consideratio n in the parliament, Japan requested that 
Indonesia keep WTO  Members updat ed on this issue, including in relation to the aforementioned 
amendment.  
22.  The European Union  noted that, a fter having raised its concerns for a number of  years, it was 
a relief that t he new MEMR Regulation No 34/2017 abolished the obliga tion to give preference  to 
local mining service companies. However, the European Union stated that it remained concerned 
that the license holders are required to "prioritise the utilisation of local employees and domestic 
goods and services according to the prevailing law s and regulations " contained in Article 31 . Given 
that foreign companies  were not regarded as providing "domestic services " in this regulation  even 
if they are locally incorporated, the European Union  consider ed that this creates  de facto 
discrimination. In addition, the European Union sought to  be update d on the revision of the 
Mining  Law. It recall ed that this was included in the legislative priorities for 2016 but was not 
adopted. I nstead, some of the elements that were part  of the draft revised legislation had been 
inserted in a number of government or Ministerial regulations issued in 2017 and  the Europea n Union 
therefore sought more information from  the authorities.  The European U nion remain ed concerned 
by the local content requirements in the oil and gas sector that it had  kept raising in this Committee.  
It was  pleased to note that the strict  local content requirements set in the Minister of Industry (MoI) 
Regulation s Nos. 4 and 5  of 2017, issued in  February 2017, for solar panel s had been postponed 
indefinitely but it remain ed concerned about the status of the Regulation s which, to its knowledge, 
were still in  place even if not applied. The European Union sought to ascertain  the intentions of the 
authorities in this regard.  
23.  The United States  continue d to have concerns with investment restrictions in Indonesia 's energy 
sector – mining, oil and gas, and now renewables . In its view,  many of the policies that it had 
expressed con cern about in the extractive industry were now  emerging in the renewables sector , 
and the United States sought an update in that regard . Despite trying to find a solution to the 
questions and concerns that that it had  raised in this Committee and bilateral ly, the United  States 
considered that the situation in the energy sector ha d deteriorated. The United  States recalled that 
it had elaborated on these concerns in prior meetings, and invite d Member s to review those detailed 
statements. The United States  continued to seek updates from Indonesia on developments on 
revisions to the Oil and Gas Law and whether any changes would  be made regarding the elements 
that had been discussed . The United States also continued  to be concerned with developments in 
the mining  area, where despite assurances in this Committee, it appear ed that Indonesia was forcing 
companies to switch from contracts of work to special mining licenses, as well as continuing to force 
companies to build smelters and divest 51 % of shares to be able to continue to export unprocessed G/TRIMS/M/44  
 
- 7 - 
 
  mineral ores. Moreover, it was deeply concerning for the United States that despite its concerns 
about the use of local content requirements, whether in mining, oil and gas or in the high tech 
sector, the Indonesian government appear ed to have doubled down on this approach and was now 
applying similar requirements in the renewable sector, su ch as solar power plants. While the United 
States  continue d to have specific questions about how these requirements work in practice – such 
as the function of local content certificates, rationales for different requirements depending on the 
type of plant,  and different weights depending on whether it is a good or service – it understood  
that "prioritizing " domestic content actually means "requiring " domestic content. It was precisely 
the requirement to use a certain amount of domestic content that raise d questions about the 
consistency with TRIMs obligations. Moreover, such policies, while appearing to work in the short 
term, in the longer -term adversely hinder ed Indonesia 's power sector development goals by driving 
up the costs and hampering access to the most innovative technologies and companies. The 
United  States continued  to seek resolution to these concerns and hope d that Indonesia would  
reconsider these policies.  
24.  Canada  stated that it continued to closely follow these developments in Indonesia 's minin g 
regime as Canadian companies were directly affected by the new regulations. Canada continued to 
be very concerned about the negative impact on both current and future foreign mining investments 
in Indonesia, particularly in relation to investment ownersh ip requirements, the export ban and local 
processing requirements. Canada encouraged Indonesia to abide by its existing contractual 
commitments and ensure that future revisions to the 2009 Mining Law be consistent with Indonesia 's 
WTO obligations. Canada t ook note of the Joint -Split Production Sharing Contract scheme and 
encouraged Indonesia to reduce the discretionary elements by developing a set of clear, predictable 
and transparent guidelines on which this discretionary split is based. For Canada, invest ors require 
legal certainty and transparency and the rules must be clear and consistent.  
25.  Australia  indicated that it remained  concerned about ownership divestment requirements, 
measures to convert Contracts of Work to Special Mining Business Licences and r estrictions on 
obtaining approvals for expatriate employees . In particular, Australia stated that, in its view: 
(i) these regulations create uncertainty for foreign and Indonesian mining ventures operating in 
Indonesia; (ii) these regulations are affecting  investor confidence more broadly and large foreign 
players are leaving the market; and (iii)  companies should be treated fai rly during negotiations . 
Australia looked forward to ongoing discussion and further clarification on the implementation of 
these regulations.  
26.  Indonesia  stated that, c onsistent with its previous intervention, there was no requirement and 
obligation for investors to use local goods and services in the energy sector. The requirement to 
utilize domestic goods and services in this contex t must meet with the standard of quality, 
competitive pricing, availability, after sales services, and continuity. For Indonesia, i f there is no 
domestic goods and services provider that is able to meet these criteria, investors could  import the 
required p roducts.  Indonesia stated, h owever, that such utilization was not mandatory.  Regarding 
the exportation of mineral ore, Indonesia stated that there is no export prohibition as long as the 
materials meet the purification lev el as required in Regulation No 5/2017. The requirement to comply 
with pre -specified purification thresholds to export mineral ores was not a prohibition of exports as 
such. Rather, according to Indonesia, t his measure is a standard on the processing/refining of 
mineral products that could  be exported.  Regarding the amendments to the Mineral, Coal, Oil, and 
Gas Law , Indonesia noted that these are  currently the subject of  discussion between the government 
and parliament. Indonesia  took note of maintaining  business certainty while ensuring  sound fiscal 
policy in mining. Indonesia also  took note  of the concerns of other Members and indicated its 
willingness  for further discussion. Indonesia stated it would  inform interested Members o f 
development s when such information becomes  available.  Regard ing the matter of the  conversion of 
contract s, Indonesia stated that the same considerations applied, and that the government had 
guaranteed the continuation of converted contract s. Regarding the  divestment policy imposed on 
mining companies , Indonesia explained that  it is essentially a formalized form of agreement that 
had been reflected  in the contract s of work for mineral and coal since the commencement  of the 
contract regime . As for foreign labour, President Regulation  20/2018 eliminated  the limitation on 
foreign workers, and the recommendation of the Minister for Energy and Mineral resources was no 
longer needed. Lastly, Indonesia informed Members that, in order to simplify business processes 
and bureaucratic chains pertaining to  the condu ct of mineral and coal mining activities, it had 
revoked  some regulations which had been of concern to M embers , namely : (i) Minister of Energy 
and Mineral Resources Decree Number  34/2009 concerning Priority of Mineral and Coal Supply for 
Domestic Needs;  (ii) Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources Decree Number 5/2017 concerning G/TRIMS/M/44  
 
- 8 - 
 
  Increasing the Added Value of Mineral s through Domestic Processing and Refining Activities ; and 
(iii) Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources Decree Number 9/2017 concerning Proce dures and 
Mechanism s for Determining the Price of Divested Shares in Mineral and Coal Mining Business.  
27.  The United States  responded by urging WTO Members to contemplate the statements made 
with respect to the oil and gas measure, namely that Indonesia asser ted that was no requirement 
to use local content, but proceeded to explain that local products in fact have to be used unless they 
are unavailable.  For the United States, that would not be a basi s for derogating from the 
TRIMS  Agreement.  
28.  The Committee took note of the statements made.  
4  INDONESIA – INDUSTRY LAW AND TRADE LAW 
29.  The Chair recalled that this item was first discussed at the Committee 's meeting in June 2014 
and was on the agenda at the request of the European Union and Japan. Questions to Indonesia in 
relation to this item had been circulated in documents G/TRIMS/W/138 and 140, and responses were 
provided  in documents G/TRIMS/W/157 and 158.  
30.  The European Union  recalled  the concerns that it had  raised  in this Committee and also in the 
Council  on Trade in Goods  with respect to these laws . Taking  into consideration  that the Trade  and 
Industry  Laws were adopted  in 2014 and the first deregulation package was adopted in 2015, the 
European Union requested Indonesia to  provide clarity in particular r egarding the list of the  measures  
implementing  the deregulation . In particular,  the European Union requested Indonesia to  indicate  
how these  deregulation  packages  affect  the current  legislation  on local content requirement.  
31.   Japan  recalled its statements  at previous meetings relating to concern s about the consistency 
of the Trade Law and Industry Law with the WTO Agreement.  Japan stated that t hese Laws should 
be implemented in compliance with the WTO rules and that it was  closely monitoring their 
implement ation, including the establishment of implementing regulations. Regarding 
implementation regulations, Japan indicated that it appreciated  Indonesia 's explanation at the last 
meeting about development s in certain  areas.  However, the regulations that Indones ia mentioned 
at the last meeting seem ed to Japan  to be amendments to regulations related to  the import license 
regime s of specific sectors and , according to Japan 's understanding,  they did not  cover all of the 
implementation regulations under the  Trade Law s and Industry Law. Japan requested  Indonesia to 
provide an overall picture of the implementation regulations both already enacted and to be enacted 
regarding these Laws as well as the regulations referred to at the last meeting.  
32.  The United States  shared t he concerns expressed by the European Union and J apan about the 
Industry and Trade Laws, and tied in with its earlier concerns regarding the overall investment 
climate in Indonesia. The United States requested updates from Indonesia on the implementation o f 
these two laws, in particular any implementing regulations pertaining to the concerns it had 
previously raised in this Committee.  
33.  Korea  also shared the concerns expressed by the other delegations regarding the vague and 
broad nature , as well as the current development,  of the  Industry Laws. Korea encouraged Indonesia 
to formulate its implementing regulations in line with WTO rules, and requested updates on any 
developments.   
34.  Australia  recall ed earlier discussions and Indonesia 's advice from previous meetings, and 
remained particularly interested in what this  means for Indonesia 's use of trade remedy measures.  
Australia requested  Indonesia to provide an update on how it intends to go forward in issuing its  
implementing regulations and reassure Members that it is taking into account its WTO obligations in 
drafting such regulations.  
35.  Chinese Taipei  indicated that it share d the concerns expressed by the European Union , Japan, 
the United States, and Korea  regarding Indonesia 's Trade Law and Industry Law. It  continue d to 
have concern s regarding  this matter, particularly in respect of the implementing measures. 
Chinese  Taipei indicated that it would be desirous of  updates from Indonesia regarding t he 
implementation of these laws, and that it would  be closely mo nitoring development s. G/TRIMS/M/44  
 
- 9 - 
 
  36.  Indonesia  stated that t he two laws at issue were  being used as guidance to support technical 
regulation s related to job creation, improving  competitiveness, and increasing production capacity. 
According to Indonesia, they were  adopted to support the growth of Indonesia 's economy while 
respecting its commitment s towards the WTO. Indonesia explained that, s ince the two laws were  
only being used as guidance , they still require d implementing regulation(s) . Indonesia indicated its 
willingness  to discuss this matter with any interested Members and that it would  inform the 
Committee if there were any update s. 
37.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
5  INDONESIA – MINIMUM LOCAL PRODUCT REQUIREMENT FOR MODERN RETAIL SECTOR  
38.  The Chair noted that this item was first discussed at the Committee 's meeting in June 2014 and 
was on agenda at the request of the European Union and Japan. Questions to Indonesia in relation 
to this item had been circulated in documents G/TRIMS/W/139 and 141, and responses were 
provided in G/TRIMS/W/159 and 161.  
39.  The European Union  expressed its regret  that the legislation on minimum local content 
requirements was still in  force and reiterate d its concern  about  the 80% local content  requirement 
imposed by Regulation  70/2013.  The European Union recalled that a t the last meeting of this 
Committee and in the last Council  on Trade in Goods , Indonesia was not in a position to reply to 
Members ' questions in the absence of any updates from capital and limited its responses to inform ing 
Members that discussions remained  on-going.  With that in mind, the  European Union  requested 
Indonesia to respond to the question s raised  at the  last meeting  of this Committee  and requested  
Indonesia  to inform  Members about the number of exemptions granted so far under the relevant 
legislation. The European Union also sought clarification as to any plans regarding any updates on 
any possible new bill of law in this sector and whether and how the rules may be mod ified following 
Indonesia 's internal discussions.  
40.  Japan  indicated that it shared  the concerns raised by the European Union . Japan reiterated the 
concerns it had raised at previous meetings about the consistency of  the Trade Ministry 
Regulations  53/2012, 68 /2012, 7/2013 and 70/2013 with Article III:4 of GATT and Art icle 2 of the 
TRIMs Agreement. Japan urge d Indonesia to expeditiously revise those regulations to conform with 
the WTO Agreement. Japan also sought  certain  clarifications regarding the scope of the measure  at 
issue. At previous meetings and in its written response to a question from the European Union  and 
the United States  in document G/TRIMS/W/159 and 161 , Indonesia explained that local content 
requirements  for franchising were regulated by the re gulation 53/2012 and exemptions  from that 
regulation were provided for in  decision 16/PDN/KEP/3/2014. However, at the last meeting, 
Indonesia mentioned that  this decision  had been revoked and that the modern retail sector was 
regulated by Regulations 70/2013 and 56/2014. In that regard, Japan sought clarification as to  
whether the Regulation 53/2012 was still valid and, if so, whether this Regulation regulate d 
franchising for the modern retail sector.  Further , Japan sought clarification as  to whether there were 
any articles or provisions regarding exemption s from the local content requirement s under the 
Regulations 70/2013 and 56/2014, as the decision 16/PDN/KEP/3/2014 had regulated. Finally, Japan 
sought to ascertain  the basis for Indonesi a's argument  that Regulations 70/2013 and 56/2014 
merely encourage modern retailers to sell  a certain percentage of domestic products . This was  
because , according to  Japan 's understanding , Article 22(1) of Regulation 70/2013 explicitly 
mandates such a requ irement . However, i f the regulation merely encourages such conduct , Japan 
request ed Indonesia to provide it with the provisions or articles which would confirm such an 
understanding . 
41.  The United States  continued to share the concerns expressed by the Europe an Union and Japan 
about these measures, and sought an update from Indonesia on their implementation. The United 
States requested Indonesia to keep the Committee apprised of any developments in this regard, 
including any further amendments.  
42.  Australia  indicated that it remain ed interested in Indonesia 's local content requirements in the 
retail sector.  According to Australia 's understanding,  while some exemptions are provided for  in 
these measures in certain circumstances, the local content requirements would  still distort trade 
across a range of goods in which Australia has an interest.  Australia requested Indonesia to ensure  
that these measures would be  implemented in a manner consistent with its obliga tions under G/TRIMS/M/44  
 
- 10 - 
 
  the TRIMs Agreement, and requested an update  from Indonesia on any developments in 
implementation . 
43.  New Zealand  shared the ongoing concerns mentioned by others on Indonesia 's local content 
requirements across a range of sectors, including modern retail. For New Zealand, these kinds of 
measures can further restrict trade across a range of products in a way that undermines core WTO 
principles, including the TRIMS Agreement, and have a broadly distortive impact on trade. 
New Zealand considered that these kinds of rules can open the door to an increase pr otectionist 
measures across sectors in the Indonesian economy, and saw worry signs in that regard. 
New Zealand desired to identify a means of removing this item from the agenda.  
44.  Chinese Taipei  indicated that it shared the views expressed by the foregoing d elegations  
regarding Indonesia 's local content requirements in the retail sector.  It noted that Indonesia 's 
introduction of local content requirements was applied to a wide range of sectors, and  remain ed 
deeply concerned.  It urged Indonesia to provide updates on the implementation of these regulations 
as well as any amendments.  
45.  Indonesia  referred to its previous responses in documents G/TRIMS/W/159 and 
G/TRIMS/W/161, and noted that the regulation was still being discussed by variou s stakeholders 
and was yet to be finalised. Indonesia took note of different inpu ts from Members and indicated its 
willingness to hold further discussion s with interested Members, especially through bilateral 
channels.  Indonesia noted that several departme nt stores with unique characteristic s would be 
exempted from the future regulation, including IKEA, Lulu Store, Uniqlo, Decath lon, Central, 
LC Waikiki, AEON, and Super Fresh.  
46.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
6  INDONESIA – CERTAIN MEASURES ADDRESSING LOCAL CONTENT IN INVESTMENT IN 
THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SECTOR  
47.  The Chair recalled that this issue had been under consideration by the Committee since 
May 2009, and was on the agenda at the request of Japan. Questions to Indonesia in relation to this 
item had been circulated in  documents G/TRIMS/W/61, 71, 78, 86, 104, and 154, as well as in 
document G/TRIMS/Q/IDN/1, and responses were provided in documents G/TRIMS/ W/63, 75, 80, 
96, 131, and 160.  
48.  Japan  continued to have  concerns about the possibility that the local content requirement for 
Indonesia 's telecommunications sector was being implemented incon sistently with the relevant 
WTO Agreements. Japan ha d submitted questions on this issue in document G/TRIMS/Q/ID N/1 and 
requested  Indonesia to respond to those questions. According to Japan, Indonesia had explained at 
previous meetings that the policy of fulfilling local content requirements had been revoked and 
amended by Ministerial Decree 25/2015. In Japan 's view, it had  not received accurate information 
on th at Decree despite having sought such information  in Jakarta. In that regard, Japan request ed 
Indonesia to provide an English translation of the Ministerial Decree 25/2015 and other necessary 
information to understand  the detail s of the amendment.  
49.  The United States  continued to be concerned by Indonesia 's use of local content requirements 
in the telecommunications sector . The United States was  specifically  concerned  that they result in 
favourable  treatment for domestic  versus imported products, and that investors could be penalised 
for not complying. Moreover,  the United States considered that,  instead of curtailing the use of local 
content requirements, Indonesia appeared to be expanding their use in other sectors. The  
United  States  remained concerned about this expansion due to its disruption o f global supply chains.  
50.  Indonesia  inform ed Members that Regulation 38/2007 regarding its Universal Service 
Obligation, as  raised by Members , had been revoked by Regulation No. 25/2015. According to 
Indonesia, t he new Regulation did not impose local content requirements . Indonesia undertook to 
submit an English translation as requested by Japan.  In relation to concern s regarding  Regulation 
No. 7/2009, Indonesia explained that it  only applies to government auctions. In Indonesia 's view,  
the technology regulated by this Regulation , namely Y -Max technology,  was no longer relevant to 
current technological development in Indonesia.  Indonesia also  inform ed Members that regulations 
for investment in telecommunication sector were being simplified to support a more efficient and G/TRIMS/M/44  
 
- 11 - 
 
  transparent investment environment. According to Indonesia, that  process was still on -going, and it 
undertook to  inform interested Members about update s relating to that  ongoing process.  
51.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
7  INDONESIA  – LOCAL CONTENT REQUIREMENTS FOR DAIRY IMPORTATION AND 
DISTRIBUTION  
52.  The Chair noted that this item was first considered by the Committee in November 2017, and 
was on the agenda at the request of the European Union and the United States . 
53.  The United States  stated it was  concerned by recent developments regulating the dairy industry 
in Indonesia. The United States noted that Members had also raised concerns about this measure in 
the committees on agriculture and on import licensing, as well as in various bilateral meetings. 
According to the United States ' understanding,  last July Indonesia issued Ministry of Agriculture 
Regulation 26/201 7 concerning Milk Supply and Circulation ( "MOA 26/2017 "), and this regulation 
calls for issuance of several additional measures, including a dairy import regulation. The 
United  States expressed concern  that this measure requires persons invested in Indones ia for the 
purpose of importing and distributing dairy products to form partnerships with local producers, to 
invest in local production facilities, and  to purchase local fresh milk. According to the United  States, 
this measure would  restrict dairy exports  from the United States to Indonesia and create 
disadvantageous conditions for dairy importers and food processing businesses. According to the 
United States ' understanding,  the Ministry of Agriculture ha d already begun implementing this 
measure, and earli er this year required dairy processors and importers to submit partnership 
proposals, which the Ministry of Agriculture would  consider in issuing 2019 import permits. The 
United States considered  this to be a disappointing development. Based on conversations with 
Indonesian officials, the United States understood  that the purpose of this measure is to pr omote 
domestic milk production.  While this goal is admirable, the United States stated that it must be 
carried out in compliance with WTO rules, including those of the TRIMs Agreement. The United  States 
also noted  that, Indonesia 's positive development goals notwithstanding, this measure may have a 
substantial negative impact on the wellbeing of its people by e ffectively shutting down investors who 
import and distribute  non-Indonesian dairy products.  In this connection, the United States  noted 
that 80 -85% of Indonesia 's domestic demand was met by imported dairy products; that nearly all 
retail cheese in Indonesi a was imported; and that infant formula manufacturers in Indonesia import 
dairy powder at specifications that were simply not produced in Indonesia. The United States recalled 
its long-standing concerns with Indonesia 's local content requirements in genera l in many sectors. 
It urged Indonesia to delay implementation of MOA 26/2017 immediately, and to consult with its 
trading partners prior to the issuance of any subsequent dairy import measures it is considering.  
54.  The European Union  shared the concerns menti oned earlier by the United States and 
New Zealand, and expressed a desire to find ways of removing items off the agenda successfully. 
The European Union noted that t his was the second  time that milk import  conditions/distribution  
were raised . The European Union recalled that  it ha d raised t he issue both in the past 
TRIMS  committee meetings and in the Committee on Agriculture . The European Union noted that in 
the Committee on Agriculture  Indonesia had replied  that "no imports  are prohibited ". For the 
European  Union, this was an unsatisfactory  response because the conditions attached to imports 
were, in its view, not compatible with Indonesia 's obligations in the WTO. The European Union 
requested  clarification as to how these requirements in Regulation  26/2017 comply with Artic le III:4 
and Article XI:1 of the GATT. In addition, the European  Union noted that similar umbrella regulations  
were in place – for example with Regulation  13/2017  – that could lead, if  accompan ied by  certain  
implementing rules, to conditioning the import of other commodities – for example,  livestock, 
husbandry or other  dairy products  – to partnership with local producers. The European Union sought 
to discourage  Indonesia not to adopt such policies before widely consulting and n otifying the draft 
legislations on time, particularly in view of the aforementioned example  that had been discussed for 
about one year now on milk without a satisfactory revision of the situation.  
55.  Australia  expressed an  interest in this issue.  In its under standing,  this measure would require 
persons investing in Indonesia for the purpose of importing and distributing dairy products to form 
partnerships with local producers, to invest in local production facilities, and to purchase local fresh 
milk, which ma y increase costs for Australian exporters and Indonesian importers.  Australia 
acknowledge d Indonesia 's wish to increase domestic dairy production but believe d that more 
market -friendly measures that encourage foreign investment would be  a more efficient wa y to G/TRIMS/M/44  
 
- 12 - 
 
  achieve Indonesia 's goals  with benefits to Indonesian producers and consumers.  Australia 
emphasise d that any Indonesian measures on local content requirement, including in dairy, must be 
carried out in compliance with WTO rules, including the TRIMS ag reement.  
56.  Japan  express ed an interest in this issue from a systemic point of view.  In Japan 's view, 
Indonesia uses local content requirement in a wide range of economic areas.  Japan continue d to 
closely follow developments in Indonesia. In Japan 's view, an effort should be made to  remove items 
off from the meeting agenda.  
57.  Indonesia  responded that  Ministry of Agriculture Regulation 26/2017 was an inclusive 
partnership program which could  be conduct ed through several mechanisms. According to 
Indonesia, t he pro gram was aimed to empower as well as improve the welfare of the small scale 
local farmer s. The partnership program only applied to domestic business actor s for fresh milk. It 
would  not disrupt trade since the great majority of milk importation pertained to  dried-milk. This 
partnership program should not be considered as a local content requirement. Rather, in Indonesia 's 
view, t he noble purpose of the program was to prevent eradication of small scale local farmer s from 
the supply chain and ensure that these  farmers would be  able to benefit from the steady growth of 
milk importation.  According to Indonesia, i nvestors would be able  choose the most convenient 
mechanism by considering the business characteristics of each investor in their partnership wi th the 
small scale local farmer s, and could  also utilize the partnership program to obtain  tax allowances.  
58.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
8  NIGERIA – GUIDELINES ON NIGERIAN CONTENT IN INFORMATION COMMUNICATIONS 
TECHNOLOGY (ICT)  
59.  The Chair noted that this item was first discussed at the Committee 's meeting in May 2017 and 
was on the agenda at the request of the United States. Questions to Nigeria in relation to this item 
were circulated in document G/TRIMS/Q/NGA/1 dated 17 April 2017. To date no writte n replies had 
been submitted.   
60.  The United States  recalled the concerns it had expressed at prior meetings  about the increasing 
use of local content measures in Nigeri a, in areas such as the energy, namely oil and gas,  and 
information and communications tec hnology (ICT) industry sectors. According to the United States, 
in 2013  the National Information Technology Development Agency ( "NITDA "), under the auspices of 
the Federal Ministry of Communication Technology (MCT), issued the "Guidelines for Nigerian 
Content Development in Information and Communications Technology " ("the Guidelines "). These 
Guidelines, which came into effect on 3 December 2013, appear ed to the United States  to impose 
broad requirements on investors to use local content on hardware, software, and services in the 
information communications technologies ( "ICT") sector. For example, the Guidelines require d 
original equipment manufacturers ( "OEMs ") to maintain at  least 50 % local content "in any segment 
of the product value chain ". The United States considered that, i n addition, the Guidelines require d 
ICT companies to use only locally manufactured SIM cards for devices providing telephone and data 
access.  Further,  ICT companies were required to use local companies to build out cell sites, towers, 
and base stations and ensure that at least 50 % of the value of such facilities is locally sourced. The 
United States requested Nigeria to confirm that the Guidelines were currently in effect , noting some 
confusion in that regard . The United Stated also queried whether there i s currently any ongoing 
process for reviewing or modifying the Guidelines , and whether, i n Nigeria 's view, its description 
accurately portray ed the pro visions of the Guidelines that relate to requirements to use local content . 
The United States recalled that it had put questions in writing along those lines, but were yet to 
receive responses. The United States noted that t here was some confusion as to ex actly which 
products were covered by this measure. The United States queried whether there were other legal 
sources that elaborate on the definition of ICT other than Article 3.0(v), to  help investors determine 
which products or services were covered . With respect to implementation, the United  States 
requested  Nigeria to provide further clarification on the meaning of "any segment of the product 
value chain " in reference to the requirement for OEMs to maintain at least 50 % local content.  The 
United  States asked whether  there were any restrictions on the importation of completed ICT 
products that were otherwise lawful for sale in Nigeria, and i f so, requested  Nigeria to describe which 
products . The United States  also note d that other sections of the measure direct NIDTA to provide 
incentives.  For example, Article 12.2(5) requires NIDTA to "[p]rovide incentives and motivations for 
ICT service providers to develop their own unique local content offerings ". The United States asked 
whether, p ursuant to Article 12 .2, NIDTA had taken steps to "provide incentives and motivations for G/TRIMS/M/44  
 
- 13 - 
 
  ICT service providers to develop their own  unique local content offerings ". The United States noted 
that, a t the last TRIMS meeting, it did not receive answers to its questions abo ut the reference to 
incentives.  The United States asked whether  Nigeria provide d the incentives mentioned in the 
Guidelines , and if so, requested Nigeria to describe those incentives. Finally, the United States  
recall ed that Nigeria had not responded to its writt en questions. It  request ed an update on when 
Nigeria may be able t o respond, and whether there were  impediments to responding . For example, 
the United States queried whether NITDA was refusing to provide information  to the Nigerian 
delegation . The United S tates looked forward to receiving answers to these questions to facilitate 
understanding  of how and when Nigeria intended  to implement the Guidelines in a manner consistent 
with its obligations under the TRIMS  Agreement.  
61.  Nigeria  responded that, while it  await s a response to the questions of the United States from 
Abuja, it continue d to believe that the Guidelines were  consistent with Nigeria 's obligations.  Nigeria 
explained that t he National Information Technology Development Agency issued the Guidelines  to 
help facilitate the attainment of progressive development of the Nigerian economy. It was therefore 
expected that the ICT sector , which is at the early stage of development , would help support the 
standard of living of Nigerians. Further, the Guideline s would help in fa cilitating investment in the 
IT sector that would generate employment. Nigeria explained that, u nder the Nigeria Investment 
Promotion Commission (NIPC) Act of 1995, foreigners are allowed ownership of enterprises 
incorporated in Nigeria,  and that this is fully reflected in the Nigeria 's Schedule of Commitments 
under the GATS. Given Nigeria 's large and growing market with a proportionately higher younger 
generation, there were huge and compelling investment opportunities in the ICT sector w hich was 
one the fastest growing sectors of the Nigerian economy, and therefore Nigeria  called on investors 
to take advantage of the law to investment in the ICT in Nigeria.  Nigeria considered that there was 
no confusion on these matters, and no government  agencies in Nigeria refusing to do their jobs.  
Nigeria  looked forward to further collaboration with Members on the matter.  
62.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
9  RUSSIAN FEDERATION – MEASURES IMPLEMENTING RUSSIA'S  IMPORT SUSBTITUTION 
POLICY  
63.  The Chair  recalled that this item, which was first considered by the Committee in June 2016, 
was on the agenda at the request of the European Union and the United States. Questions to the 
Russian Federation were circulated in documents G/TRIMS/Q/RUS/4, 5, 6, a nd 8. Responses 
provided by the Russian Federation were circulated in documents G/TRIMS/Q/RUS/7 and 9.  
64.  The European Union  reiterate d its concern as to the growing utilisation  of requirements for 
State -owned enterprises and other entities to source domestic  goods and services.  According to the 
European Union, a fter a first modification  of Law 223-FZ in 2015,  by the Decree  925 in 
September  2016, a further initiative to extend the control by the government of SOEs ' purchases of 
planes, ships an d other machiner y was adopted by the  Duma  on 31 December  2017. The 
European  Union requested the Russian Federation to explain whether this new initiative follows the 
same path, aiming at substitutin g imports with local production. The European Union also requested  
the Russian Federation to explain the criteria that may guide the government  when assessing these 
SOEs' purchases with the view to  either allowing them or banning them. As regards the replies 
provided by the Russian Federation on 19 March 2018  to the Unit ed States ' questions,  the 
European  Union  made  the following remarks: the scope of the measure is much broader than claimed 
by the Russia n Federation  because it covers SOEs as defined by Law 223 (i.e. State companies as  
such,  which  is much  broader  than government  procurements - that are covered by another piece of 
legislation in Russia -) and it covers  any entity  (including  purely  private  entities)  using  (even partially) 
State funding for implementation of investment projects that are included in a registry. A s regards 
discrimination  between imported  and domestic goods, the European Union sought to recall that 
buying certain goods abroad was not possible without a prior  authorisation by the Import 
Substitution Commission. The governmental orde r N° 2744 of 29/12/2015 lists eleven categories of 
engineering products e.g. metal products  (e.g. steam boilers), electric equipment (e.g. generators) 
and transport vehicles and equipment (e.g. aircraft and helicopters). For the European Union, t he 
same was true  for goods listed in the governmental order 2781 of 31/12/2015 that  defines  139 types  
of engineering  goods  such as electric  and optical equipment; electri c equipment, plant  equipment,  
and transport  equipment . The European Union sought to reiterate its  seriou s concern regarding 
Decree  No 925, adopted on 16 September 2016 and in force since 1 January 2017, as it introduce d 
a fifteen percent price preference for goods of Russian origin a nd services provided by G/TRIMS/M/44  
 
- 14 - 
 
  Russian  suppliers. The European Union requested the vi ews of the Russian Federation on the 
compatibility of this decree with the WTO rules. The negative economic impact of restricting 
importing (for goods) or foreign companies ' (for services) access to Russian State -owned 
enterprises ' procurements was obvious , according to the European  Union, since  such restrict ions 
induce  less bids, less competition, less  choice, less quality and higher prices. The European Union 
considered that t his would not be in the interest of the Russian Federation, and urged the 
Russia n Federation to submit its detailed replies to all sets of outstanding questions.  
65.  The United States  expressed  concerns about the Russian Federation 's compliance with the spirit 
and the letter of the TRIMS Agreement. The United States thanked  the Russian Federation for the 
responses it had submitted in March 2018 to the United States ' questions submitted in May  2016. 
In general, however, the United States indicated that those answers give it little comfort that  the 
Russia n Federation  truly acc epts the principles of the TRIMS Agreement.  For example, in response 
to question 6, the United States considered that the Russia n Federation ignored  the crux of the 
question – the "Governmental Commission on Import Substitution ", and provided  no informatio n on 
that body. In response to question 12, the United States considered that the Russia n Federation 
confirm ed the existence of the "Center of Import Substitution in the Sphere of Information and 
Communication Technology " and then acknowledge d that the "activities of the Center are aimed 
at … the implementation of the state policy of import substitution in the area of information and 
communication technologies " without any attempt to explain how that policy comports with the 
obligations of the TRIMS Agreeme nt. The United States indicated it  would  review Russia 's full 
submission in detail and submit additional questions as necessary . The United  States also indicated 
its view that the Russia n Federation  appears to be adopting a myriad of mechanisms to support 
domestic production at the expense of imports. In the United States ' last set of questions, submitted 
in April 2017, it focused on Decree No. 925 which establishes the terms under which SOEs and 
certain other legal persons must give priority to goods of Ru ssian origin, or to works and services 
performed or rendered by Russian entities. The United States asked the  Russian Federation whether 
it had  any further information about when it would  be able to provide responses to the United States ' 
questions.  More broadly, the United States requested  the Russian Federation to explain its 
justification for its direction of  private companies to give priority to Russian -sourced goods, services 
and works, over imports . The United States queried  how that  directive was consistent with the 
WTO principle of national treatment.  
66.  The Russian Federation  thank ed the United States and  the European Union for their interest, 
and also  thank ed the United States for its  written questions, including the new ones in document 
G/TRIMS/Q/R US/8. Russia indicated that i t was working on replies. As to replies to questions in 
document G/TRIMS/Q/RUS/6, the Russian Federation indicated that it  hoped to submit them soon. 
The Russian Federation noted that t he item titled "measures implementing Russ ia's import 
substitution policy " first appeared on the agenda of this Committee back in 2016. The 
Russian  Federation considered it unfortunate that  concerns regarding this policy had  not seem ed to 
fade despite  the clarifications provided within this Committee and during its  Trade Policy Review. 
The Russian Federation  reiterate d that the policy was not aimed at squeezing foreign products out 
of the Russian market. Its genuine goal was rather  to strengthen competitiveness, ensure the 
stability of trade and to increase the overall reputation of the Russian -made goods. In addition to 
this, the Russian Federation indicated it would  try to provide brief clarifications on some specific 
issues that appear ed to be the matters of concern of the interested Member s. The first one was the 
Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 925. According to the 
Russian  Federation, t he Resolution envisages that the priority to Russian goods, works and services 
was to be set taking into account the provisions o f the GATT. This wording could  be found in 
paragraph 8 of the Resolution. Thus, for the Russian Federation, it is enshrined in the legal text of 
the Resolution itself that it could not  be applied in a way inconsiste nt with the requirements of 
the GATT. The Russian Federation also  noted that the GATT does not completely prohibit the 
establishment of a priority for domestic made goods. Rather, in its view, t here are situations whe n 
this priority is permissible, such as for the  procurement of products purchase d for governmental 
purposes. The second issue the Russian Federation addressed  was the functioning of a coordinating 
body envisaged by the Federal Law No 223 -FZ. The Russian Federation explained that t he idea 
behind the establishment of the body was to har monize the Russian authorities ' efforts to guarantee 
the quality, effectiveness and security of the procurement. It was not aimed at pursuing a 
requirement to buy Russian -made goods. Instead, the purpose of the coordinating body was to 
ensure  the full sati sfaction of the needs of the purchasers. It was focused on the issues of quality, 
availability and timing of delivery of goods.  G/TRIMS/M/44  
 
- 15 - 
 
  67.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
10  ARGENTINA – ACT 27,263 ON THE DEVELOPMENT AND STRENGTHENING REGIME OF 
THE ARGENTINE AUTOPARTISM  
68.  The Chair recalled that this item was first considered by the Committee in October 2016, and 
was on the agenda at the request of Mexico. Questions to Argentina were circulated in documents 
G/TRIMS/Q/ARG/1, 3, and 5. Responses were prov ided in documents G/TRIMS/Q/ARG/2 and 4.  
69.  Mexico  noted that Law No 27 ,263 entered into force on 2 August 2016, through which a regime 
is created to grant tax incentives to specific producers of autoparts which comply with specific 
national content. The regi me was implemented through Resolution 599 -E/2016  from the Industry 
and Services Secretariat of Argentina's Ministry of Production , published on 7  December  2016 in the 
official gazette, whereupon it entered into force. Mexico recalled it had raised this mat ter at the 
TRIMs Committee since October 2016, as well as at the Committee on Market Access in a number 
of sessions , without Argentina having brought its autoparts regime in line with WTO rules. According 
to Mexico, t hrough the regime established by Law 27 ,263, digital tax credit bonds are granted, which 
may be transferred to third parties for the payment of domestic taxes for an amount which is 
equivalent to the ex -factory percentage of the amount of domestic autoparts. The digital tax credit 
bond varies f rom 4  to 15% depending on the local content and applies in line with t he table 
established in Article  13 of that law, and it also extends to purchasing machinery, which is new and 
which has been manufactured in Argentina. In order to benefit from the regim e, the Act also 
establishes local content percentages which vary according to the autopart in question and run 
from 25 to 50%. For the other details of this regime, Mexico referred to its previous statements and 
to the responses which had been submitted by  Argentina to the questions raised by Mexico. Mexico 
consider ed that this law, to gether with the other measures envisaged in its application, could violate 
Article 2 and the Annex of the TRIMS Agreement, because granting the tax benefit is conditioned 
upon legal persons who use inputs and production which comes from local manufacturers, and which 
is not granted to legal persons who use imported inputs. Therefore,  according to Mexico,  the regime 
would reduce  the competitive opportunit ies for exporters when c ompared with domestic Argentinian 
manufacturers of similar autoparts. Mexico hope d that Argentina would respond  to its most recent 
questions which, amongst other issues, address the number of tax benefits which have been granted 
to date, and hope d that Arg entina would bring its autoparts regime into conformity with WTO rules.  
70.  The United States  expressed a systemic interest , and shared the concerns of Mexico on this 
measure. The United States indicated it was monitoring this issue closely . 
71.  The European Union  shared  the concerns raised by Mexico  regarding Law No 27,263  and its 
implementing regulations . According to the European Union, this law represents  an investment 
measure with  trade restrictive effects in the form of local content requirements  that condition 
subsidies in the car sector. Therefore, the law appears to violate Article 2 of the TRIMS Agreement,  
in conjunction with the Illustrative List in its Annex, because it is inconsistent with the non -
discrimination obligation under the GATT (A rticle III).  Following the publication of implementing 
regulations, the m easure appears now to be operational. The European Union considers that 
Argentina  would  benefit  in reviewing  this law and its implementing regulations with a view to remove 
all local content r equirements that discriminate against imported car parts, while also suppressing 
the prohibited subsidies element of the scheme.  
72.  Korea  sought to record its concern about the local content requirements recorded in this Act, 
and indicated that it wo uld monitor this issue.  
73.  Argentina  stated that it believe d all Argentinian standards and regulations regarding autoparts 
were compatible with the WTO rules. Regarding the question put by Mexico that sought an update 
on the latest steps Argentina ha d taken on implementing Law 27/263 as well as other related 
resolutions or  legislation, Argentina responded that there have been no recent steps other than 
those contained in the responses circulated by Argentina through this Committee, with the exception 
of those detailed in the response to Question 4 of the questionnaire supplied by Mexico.  Regarding 
the question put by Mexico as to how  many persons were currently enrolled in the program governed 
by Law 27/263 , Argentina responded that a total of five comp anies are members of this regime, and 
any others who comply with the requirements established in Article 3 of the Law , as well as under 
the terms established under the Resolution 599/E/2016 , may also apply.  Regarding the question put G/TRIMS/M/44  
 
- 16 - 
 
  by Mexico as to how mu ch the enrolled individuals referred to in the previous question had received 
in benefits  to date, Argentina responded that t o date, no benefits have been granted as established 
under Article 4 of Law 27/263.  As to Mexico 's question whether, if  the tax ben efits provided for under 
the regime ha d not yet been granted, Argentina could explain the reasons this ha d not been 
implemented , Argentina responded that: (i)  the regime requires that the platforms be new and 
exclusive in the terms of Article 2 of Law 27/2 63 and of Article s 4 and 6 of Resolution 599/E/2016 , 
which  means that time for adaptation and preparation was required for compa nies to develop their 
platforms; and (ii)  the government ha d been developing an information IT system which will digitise 
all information linked to the operation under this regime in order to facilitate it for all companies.  
74.  Mexico  thanked Argentina for its responses and remarked that it is evident that the topic has 
raised the concern of Members. Mexico also recognise d that Argent ina ha d the right to implement 
public policies that seek to strengthen its automotive industry and to ensure it can be integrated 
into global value chains. However,  this should be done in a way that is compatible with 
WTO Agreements and , in particular, in  a way which is non -discriminatory. Mexico believe d that 
resolving this issue should be undertaken multilaterally . 
75.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
11  TURKEY – LOCALISATION POLICY IN THE PHARMACEUTICAL SECTOR  
76.  The Chair recalled that this item w as first considered by the Committee in November 2017, and 
was on the agenda at the request of the Europe an Union and the United States.  
77.  The European Union  expressed concern  about Turkey 's policy of localisation requirement s in the 
pharmaceutical sector. A ccording to the European Union, this policy  oblige s producers of 
pharmaceutical products to submit localisation plans to shift production to Turkey or to produce  
locally via a Turkish manufacturer. Failing to do so or if the submitted plans were deemed  insufficient, 
the respective pharmaceutical products are being delisted from the reimbursement list of the Turkish 
Social Security Institute, which accounts for approximately 90% of total sales of pha rmaceutical 
products in Turkey. The European Union state d that t his policy  directly  affects  its exports  and jobs, 
in two ways.  First, products  for which  the localisation  commitments  are not considered  as sufficient  
are de facto excluded from the market as they are no longer reimbursed to the patients. Second, 
the manufacturing  of other  products  is being  moved  from EU Member  States  to Turkey, which often 
implies the need to t ransfer the related technology. According to the European Union, the policy is 
being implemented  in several phases, each time targeting  more sophisticated products. The first 
wave of products was delisted in February 2018 when those products were effectively stopped being 
reimbursed by the Turkish social security institute. In parallel, for many other products, companies 
already chose to adapt to this new rules by  shifting  production to Turkey. The second wave of 
products was published on 17  May 2018 and those p roducts will be delisted on 31 July 2018 – unless 
until that date the companies concerned still submit applications with localisat ion commitments, to 
avoid delisting of their products. Acco rding to the Turkish Government 's policy, there are plans to 
publish a total of five waves (lists) of products, ultimately covering 75 % of the Turkish market. In 
the European Union 's view, s uch a l ocalisation policy constitutes a systemic concern because  this 
measure  was in breach  of Turkey 's WTO obligations,  notably  as regards  GATT Artic le III:4 and 
TRIMs  Article 2.1. The European Union  disagree d with Turkey 's claim that the measure would fal l 
within the public procurement  exemp tion of GATT Article III:8. The  European Union  acknowledges  
that direct purchases  of pharmaceutical  products  by hospitals  could  indeed  be conside red as public 
procurement, but  it did not consider the  overall reimbursemen t scheme as public procurement. The 
European Union called  on Turkey to stop the implementation of this policy without delay.  
78.  According to the United States , on 8 February  2017, pursuant to Turkey 's 10th Development 
Plan and 64th Government Action Plan, the S ocial Security Institution (SGK) published on its 
webpage a list of medicines to be delisted from SGK 's official reimbursement l ist effective 
8 February  2017. In the United States ' understanding,  the medicines  that were  to be delisted 
involved  imported pro ducts for which there are at least three local ly manufactured alternatives. The 
United States stated that r emoval from the reimbursement list would effectively deprive  that product 
of meaningful access to the Turkish market, since Turkish patients generall y do not have access to 
drugs not funded by the SGK. According to the United States,  the Turkish government ha d not 
identified any public health need that would require local production of the identified medicines. 
Rather, as indicated in the "Objective an d Scope " of the Transformation Plan and the associated 
"Goals " and "Performance Indicators ", the measure appear ed to be driven by a number of industrial G/TRIMS/M/44  
 
- 17 - 
 
  policy goals including enhancing local production capacity, protecting local producers, and reducing 
Turkey 's trade deficit. The United States sought to emphasise  its view that  Turkey 's action does not 
hinge on pharmaceutical product safety, effectiveness,  cost or other similar factors.  Rather, for the 
United States, the measure was based on the location of manufacture.  The measure applies to 
foreign generic medicines just as much as to other foreign medicines. Locally manufactured 
medicines are preferred under the system regardless of the cost, and, as the United  States 
understood it, medicines can contin ue to be imported if the producer agrees to undertake some 
manufacturing in Turkey. Compelling local manufacturing through Turkey 's reimbursement list 
raised questions for the United States about a number of Turkey 's existing international obligations, 
including the TRIMS agreement, as well as GATT Article III and the TBT  Agreement. The 
United  States stated  that in early February the Turkish authorities implemented the first phase of 
the 'delisting ' of pharmaceutical products from the government 's reimburse ment list, with a second 
phase reportedl y planned for sometime in May. The  United  States request ed Turkey to provide it  
with an update on the status of this process, and to elaborate on its justification. Beyond this, it was 
the United States ' understandin g that Turkey  intends to follow up the initial lists of products with 
further lists after an internal review process concludes. It urged Turkey to consult closely with both 
trading partner governments and potentially affected companies and to take their co ncerns fully into 
account before making any further decisions in connection with this policy.  
79.  Canada  indicated that it shared  the concerns raised by the European Union  and the 
United  States . Canada recalled that, at the last meeting, it had raised a few questions seekin g 
clarification on the measures , and had not received responses. Canada reiterated those questions, 
namely: w hich Turkish body has issued the request for companies to submit plans to localise 
production of phar maceutical products; w hat is t he level of  localization that is required; and i n what 
way is localization being measured.  
80.  Switzerland  reiterated the concerns raised by the United States , the European Union,  and 
Canada. According to Switzerland, p harmaceutical devices account for around CHF750 million – or 
about one third of Swiss exports – to Turkey. The policy of removing certain imported medicines 
from the reimbursement list of Turkey 's Social Security Institute, which covers a substantial share 
of Turkish patients ' costs for medicines , had proved to be discriminatory for Swiss pharmaceutical 
companies. Switzerland questioned the compatibility of Turkey 's localisation policy with WTO rules, 
in particular Article III of GATT and Article 2.1 of the TRIMS Agreement. Switzerland  called on T urkey 
to refrain from restricting imports of pharmaceuticals  and medical devices, and to reconsider the 
removal of the relevant products from the list of  the Social Security Institute.  
81.  Turkey  indicate d it had taken careful note of the concerns raised at th e meeting. In relation to 
Turkey 's practices in the pharmaceutical sector, Turkey noted that there ha d been occasions where 
it had  tried to clarify  matters  previously  to some of the proponents  outside of the TRIMS  Committee . 
Turkey  explained that this issue falls within the area of implementing  social security in Turkey. In 
this respect, for medicines being financed by the State, the Repayment Commission under the Social 
Security Institution was the relevant authority in Turkey, and that it was  responsible for taking 
decisions on removing or omitting a certain medicine from official reimbursement lists, or the 
modification of the existing payment conditions. This commission render ed these decisions taking 
into account the effects on the budget of Turkey, the budget  implications of the implementation of 
the social security and healthcare, market share of medicines, clinical and technical  data, and 
financial and economic calculations and assessments , as reimbursement policies are linked  to public 
finances, and products are purchased for governmental purposes.  According to Turkey, t hese 
practices should be considered to be within the framework of the public procurement exception. 
Turkey  stated that the  implementation  of this measure  falls under Article III.8(a) GATT. 
Furthermore, this practice did not constitute an impediment to the importation of medicines , 
referring also to procedures like licensing  and good manufacturing practices. Turkey noted it would 
study  the concerns  raised by Memb ers further  should they point to further aspects . Additionally , 
Turkey noted that it took  issue with how this agenda item  had been presented , considering in 
particular that the current title was prejudicial and designed to shape the narrative in a certain way. 
If this item arises again, Turkey indicated that it should be referred to as "Certain Practices and 
Measures  by Turkey in the Pharmaceutical Sector ", and that it wished to avoid procedural discussions 
in that regard . However , Turkey indicated that it would be interested in removing the item entirely, 
including  by having addressed the concerns raised.  
82.  The United States  wished to assure Turkey that it also hoped Members ' concerns could be 
addressed and the item withdrawn from the agenda.  G/TRIMS/M/44  
 
- 18 - 
 
  83.  The European Union  considered that this policy was in a scenario different from government 
procurement.  
84.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
85.  The Chair requested Members that had posed oral questions, or that had provided oral 
responses to oral or written que stions on any of the above agenda items, to provide their questions 
and responses in writing to t he Secretariat for circulation.  
12  OTHER BUSINESS  
86.  The European Union  wished to report to the Membership that consultations had been held with 
the Russian Federati on on Russia 's Auto I nvestment Programmes, in the context of the 
implementation of paragraph 1090 of Russia 's Working Party Report. The European Union  recalled 
that in joining the WTO in 2012, Russia was permitted to maintain certain WTO -incompatible 
measures until 30 June 2018. Those measures allowed the Russia n Federation  to import car parts 
free of duty under the condition of local -content requiremen ts. The exemption foreshadowed 
consultations with interested Members prior to its expiry. The European Union  had met with the 
Russia n Federation  to discuss the matter, and wished to note that Russia indicated it would terminate 
the WTO -inconsistent measure  by 30 June 2018 . The European Union also requested to be informed 
in advance on any legal measures developed by Russia under its recently -adopted policy strategy 
document s. 
87.  The Russian Federation  stated that, p ursuant to paragraph 1090 of the Working Part y Report 
on the Accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO , it informed the WTO Membership in 
June 2016 about its readiness to engage in consultations with interested delegations regarding its 
Auto Investment Programs (document G/TRIMS/W/164). The Russ ian Federation  received such a  
request from one Member – the European Union. Its bilateral consultations had been  held the day 
prior to this Committee meeting . In order to bring its Auto Investment Programs in compliance with 
its WTO obligations , the Russi an Federation conveyed its  intention  to raise preferential tariff rates 
on auto components up to its bound levels, whereupon  its Auto Investment Programs would  be 
terminated.  
88.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
13  ELECTION OF CHAIRPER SON AND VICE -CHAIRPERSON  
89.  The Chair  recalled that the Council on Trade in Goods  had agreed on a slate of names for 
Chairpersons to the different subsidiary bodies, including the Chair to the TRIMs Committee. Taking 
into account that agreement in the Council on Trad e in Goods , the Chair proposed that the 
Committee agree formally to elect Ms  Carrie  WU as Chairperson of this Committee for 2018.  
90.  The Committee elected  Ms Carrie  WU (Chines e Taipei ) as Chairperson of this Committee for  the 
coming year .  
91.  The Chair next prop osed Mr Thomas HAIDON as Vice -Chairperson. The Committee elected  
Mr Thomas HAIDON (New Zealand) as Vice-Chairperson of this Committee for  the coming year.  
92.  Ms Wu made a brief statement to the Committee in which she thanked the outgoing Chair for 
his excelle nt work, congratulated Mr Haidon for his election as Vice Chair, and welcomed input and 
feedback.  
14  DATE OF THE NEXT MEE TING  
93.  The Chair recalled that Article 7.1 of the Agreement provided that the Committee would meet 
not less than once a year, and otherwise at the request of any Member. For some years now, the 
Committee had regularly met twice a year, in the spring and fall, and some Mem bers have indicated 
that they would like to continue in this manner. Thus, the Chair proposed to schedule the next 
meeting during the fall, namely on Thursday , 18 October 2018.  G/TRIMS/M/44  
 
- 19 - 
 
  94.  In order to provide Members with ample opportunity to prepare for this meeting,  the Secretariat  
would  issue the annotated draft agenda three wee ks in advance of the meeting, namely  on Tuesday , 
25 September 2018. Members ' requests to place items on the annotated draft agenda should be 
communicated in writing to the Secretariat at the latest by close of business on 
Monday,  24 September 2018. The annotated draft agenda would  be open to Members ' 
comments  until close of business on Tuesday, 2 October 2018. In addition, Members wishing to 
circulate documents should do so by close of busines s on Tuesday , 2 October 2018, so that they 
can be reflected on the airgram. The airgram convening the meeting would  be issued on 
Monday,  8 October  2018.  
95.  The Committee took note  of the information provided.  
96.  The meeting was adjourned . 
__________