RESTRICTED  
  
G/TRIMS/M/37  
 
21 November 2014  
(14-6844)  Page: 1/15  
Committee on Trade-Related Investment Measures   
 
 MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 
6 OCTOBER 2014 
CHAIRPERSON: MR VICTOR ECHEVARRIA UGARTE (SPAIN) 
1.  The Committee on Trade-Related Investment Measures (the "Committee") met on 
6 October 2014. The Committee adopted the following agenda contained in WTO/AIR/4353. 
1   NOTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 6.2 OF THE TRIMS AGREEMENT .............................. 2  
2   PROPOSALS ON SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL (S&D) TREATMENT 
PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE TRIMS AGREEMENT ......................................................... 2  
3   BRAZIL – TAX PREFERENCES LINKED TO LOCAL CONTENT CONDITIONS IN 
SEVERAL SECTORS – ITEM REQUESTED BY JAPAN (G/TRIMS/W/118); 
(G/TRIMS/W/124) .......................................................................................................... 2  
4   INDIA – CERTAIN PREFERENCES TO DOMESTICALLY MANUFACTURED 
ELECTRONIC GOODS AND TELECOMMUNICATION PRODUCTS – ITEM REQUESTED 
BY THE EUROPEAN UNION (G/TRIMS/W/94); (G/TRIMS/W/97); 
(G/TRIMS/W/105); (G/TRIMS/W/111); (G/TRIMS/W/133); AND (G/TRIMS/W/143) .......................................................................................................... 4
 
5   INDONESIA – CERTAIN MEASURES  ADDRESSING LOCAL CONTENT IN 
INVESTMENT IN THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SECTOR – ITEM REQUESTED BY JAPAN (G/TRIMS/W/61); (G/TRIMS/W/63); (G/TRIMS/W/71); (G/TRIMS/W/75); (G/TRIMS/W/78); (G/TRIMS/W/80); (G/TRIMS/W/86); 
(G/TRIMS/W/96); (G/TRIMS/W/104) AND (G/TRIMS/W/131) ..................................... 4
 
6   INDONESIA – CERTAIN LOCAL CO NTENT PROVISIONS IN THE ENERGY 
SECTOR (MINING, OIL AND GAS) – ITEM REQUESTED BY THE EUROPEAN UNION, 
JAPAN AND THE UNITED STATES (G/TRIMS/W/70); (G/TRIMS/W/74); 
(G/TRIMS/W/79); (G/TRIMS/W/88); (G/TRIMS/W/100); (G/TRIMS/W/108); 
(G/TRIMS/W/123); (G/TRIMS/W/128); (G/TRIMS/W/137) AND 
(G/TRIMS/W/137/CORR.1) ............................................................................................ 6  
7   INDONESIA – NEWLY ADOPTED INDUSTRY LAW AND TRADE LAW– ITEM 
REQUESTED BY CANADA, THE EUROPEAN UNION, JAPAN AND THE UNITED STATES (G/TRIMS/W/138);  (G/TRIMS/W/140) ............................................................. 7
 
8   INDONESIA – MINIMUM LOCAL PRODUCT REQUIREMENT FOR MODERN 
RETAIL SECTOR – ITEM REQUESTED BY THE EUROPEAN UNION, JAPAN AND THE 
UNITED STATES (G/TRIMS/W /139); (G/TRIMS /W/141) ................................................ 9  
9   NIGERIA – CERTAIN MEASURES TAKEN IN THE "ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE 
DEVELOPMENT OF NIGERIAN CONTENT IN THE NIGERIA OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY" OF APRIL 2010 – ITEM REQUESTED BY THE EUROPEAN UNION AND 
THE UNITED STATES (G/TRIMS/W/89); (G/TRIMS/W/142) ......................................... 10
 
10   RUSSIA – LOCAL CONTENT REQUIREMENTS FOR AGRICULTURAL 
EQUIPMENT – ITEM REQUESTED BY THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE UNITED STATES (G/TRIMS/W/116);  (G/TRIMS/W/130) ........................................................... 11
 
11   RUSSIA – CERTAIN MEASURES RELATING TO INDUSTRIAL ASSEMBLY – 
ITEM REQUESTED BY THE EUROPEAN UNION, JAPAN AND THE UNITED STATES (G/TRIMS/W /134) ........................................................................................................ 12
 G/TRIMS/M/37 
 
- 2 - 
 
  12   UNITED STATES - CERTAIN LOCAL CONTENT REQUIREMENTS IN THE 
RENEWABLE ENERGY SECTOR– ITEM REQUESTED BY INDIA (G/TRIMS/W/117); (G/TRIMS/W/129/ REV.1) ............................................................................................. 14
 
13   OTHER BU SINESS .................................................................................................... 14  
14   ANNUAL RE PORT (2014) ......................................................................................... 14  
15   ELECTION OF VI CE-CHAIRPE RSON .......................................................................... 15  
16   DATE OF THE NEXT MEET ING .................................................................................. 15  
 
1  NOTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 6.2 OF THE TRIMS AGREEMENT 
2.  The Chairperson indicated that Article 6.2 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Investment 
Measures (the "Agreement") and the 1996 Committee Decision contained in document G/TRIMS/5 
required each Member to notify the Secretariat of the names of publications in which TRIMs might 
be found, where such publications existed, in cluding those applied by regional and local 
governments and authorities within their territories , and the addresses from which copies could be 
obtained, without prejudice to the legal consistency of any TRIM which might be found in the 
publications notified. As agreed by the Committee,  the Secretariat circulated a six-month reminder 
in document G/TRIMS/W/145. 
3.  Since the last meeting of the Committee, Lao People's Democratic Republic, The Gambia, Togo, 
Congo and Côte d'Ivoire submitted notifications under Article 6.2. The latest compilation of 
notifications under this Article was circulated in document G/TRIMS/N/2/Rev.24 and its Addendum 1. The Chairperson urged Members that  had not provided notifications to do so 
promptly and requested Members that had provided them some time ago to update them.  
4.  The Committee took note of the statements made.  
2  PROPOSALS ON SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL (S&D) TREATMENT PROVISIONS 
RELATED TO THE TRIMS AGREEMENT 
5.  The Chairperson recalled that pursuant to the Decision adopted by the General Council on 
1 August 2004 (WT/L/579) and paragraph 37 of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration 
(WT/MIN(05)/DEC), the Committee continued its consideration of the Category II Special and 
Differential Treatment ("S&D") proposals referred to it by the Chairman of the General Council. The proposals were originally submitted by the African Group in document TN/CTD/W/3/Rev.2 and 
related to Articles 4 and 5.3 of the Agreement.  In April 2007, Kenya on behalf of the African 
Group, submitted a revised version of the proposals (see Annex attached to G/TRIMS/M/31).  
6.  In June and October 2007, the Chairperson consulted interested delegations on the revised 
proposals. At the Committee's November 2007 me eting, Kenya indicated that the African Group 
was open to listen to any new ideas concerning these proposals, particularly with respect to the 
drafting, but that the Group had gone as far as it could on this issue. No further revisions to the draft proposals were received from the proponents  since then. At the meetings in October 2008, 
2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 the Chairpersons expressed their readiness to continue informal 
consultations at Members' requests. Howe ver, no requests were forthcoming.  
7.  There were no statements. The Chair reiterated his willingness to continue consultations; 
requesting Members were invited to contact himself or the Secretariat.  
8.  The Committee took note of the statement and agreed to revert to this at a future meeting.  
3  BRAZIL – TAX PREFERENCES LINKED TO LOCAL CONTENT CONDITIONS IN SEVERAL 
SECTORS – ITEM REQUESTED BY JAPAN (G/TRIMS/W/118); (G/TRIMS/W/124) 
9.  The Chairperson recalled that questions regarding this item had been circulated in 
G/TRIMS/W/118, to which Brazil responded in G/TRIMS/W/124. G/TRIMS/M/37 
 
- 3 - 
 
  10.  Japan recalled its concerns about the INOVAR-AUTO assistance program for the automotive 
sector in Brazil as raised previously before this Committee and the Council of Trade in Goods (the 
"CTG"). Japan remained unconvinced of the co nsistency of the program with the relevant 
provisions of WTO Agreements, including Article III of GATT and Article 2 of  the TRIMs Agreement. 
Although Brazil had stated that companies of foreign origin had benefited under this program, 
Japan considered that this did not justify maintaining tax measures which discriminated against products which had not fulfilled local content conditions. Japan reiterated its concern about recent 
proliferation in Brazil of the use of indirect taxes to various sectors for the purpose of supporting 
domestic manufacturing and exports and urged Brazil not to adopt or implement indirect tax measures inconsistent with the WTO Agreements. 
11.  The United States shared Japan's concerns. While it appreciated Brazil's past assertion about 
the right of WTO Members to regulate production , it believed that Members should do so in a 
manner consistent with their WTO obligations, including obligations under the TRIMS agreement. The United States asked Brazil whether those tax provisions provided a benefit contingent on use 
of domestic goods. More broadly, the United States was very concerned about the ever-growing 
list of tax exemptions based on local content, an d would appreciate an explanation of the policies 
and objectives of Brazil. 
12.  The European Union recalled both its prev iously expressed concerns and its request for 
consultations with Brazil under the Dispute Settlement Understanding on a number of problematic 
tax measures on 19 December 2013. The Europe an Union continued to be seriously concerned 
about a number of on-going legislative and administrative procedures aimed at enhancing and/or 
extending the duration of some of the tax programmes at issue, including but not limited to, the 
case of prolongation of tax incentives given to do mestically produced IT goods, provided for by the 
so-called "informatics law". These tax incentives had been recently extended for a further period of 
10 years (until 2029). The European Union hoped its actions under the Dispute Settlement 
Mechanism would contribute to a solution of this matter, guaranteeing the observance of 
respective WTO legislation. 
13.  Canada shared the systemic concerns of other Members regarding Brazil's measures, which 
appeared to be incompatible with TRIMs commitment as they discriminated against foreign 
companies. As a member of the G-20, Canada supported the commitment made by Leaders to 
resist trade protectionism and encouraged Brazil to follow through on that international 
commitment. 
14.  Australia expressed its continuous concern with the mechanism used by Brazil to support its 
domestic industries. The use of tax preferences li nked to local content requirements entrenched 
distortions in Brazil's domestic market, discriminated against imported goods and impacted on 
suppliers seeking to link into global value chains. Australia again asked Brazil to carefully consider refinement of its measures to ensure that its markets remained open to fair competition with 
imported goods, consistent with its international obligations. Australia would continue to monitor 
developments on this issue carefully. 
15.  Brazil assured all interested delegations that it gave its sincere attention to this issue and to 
the statements made, in the Committee and in other fora. Brazil was open and ready to provide all 
necessary clarification regarding technical aspects of the measures. The measures represented an 
effort by Brazil to induce and implement a modern  industrial policy, within the limits granted by 
the multilateral trading rules. These measures were designed to improve Brazil's economic 
development, promote technological innovation, protect the environment, increase the 
qualification of the workforce, and create opportunities for its industries to integrate better into global value chains. Brazil was committed to improving the business environment for domestic and 
foreign investors alike, with no discrimination; in order to reach that goal, one main focus was to 
gradually rationalize and simplify its complex tax system, something that constituted an arduous challenge. Many of the measures mentioned should be considered against that background. They constituted an effort to align the Brazilian tax system with the practice of most countries in a 
transparent and non-discriminatory manner. Th e Inovar-Auto Program provided a balanced 
approach to benefit both domestic interests as well as trade interests of foreign stakeholders in the Brazilian market and had concretely benefitted companies from different countries, including from 
Japan and other interveners. Whether this was a "justification" or not, the significant fact remained 
that there had not been any concrete commercial or trade complaint from the foreign companies that benefitted from the Program. G/TRIMS/M/37 
 
- 4 - 
 
  16.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
4  INDIA – CERTAIN PREFERENCES TO DOMESTICALLY MANUFACTURED ELECTRONIC 
GOODS AND TELECOMMUNICATION PRODUCTS – ITEM REQUESTED BY THE EUROPEAN 
UNION (G/TRIMS/W/94); (G/TRIMS/W/97) ; (G/TRIMS/W/105); (G/TRIMS/W/111); 
(G/TRIMS/W/133); AND (G/TRIMS/W/143) 
17.  The Chairperson recalled that this item was first considered at the Committee's meeting in 
May 2012. Following questions posed by the Unit ed States, in G/TRIMS/W/94 and 105 to which 
India replied in G/TRIMS/W/97 and 111 respectively, the European Union posed further questions 
in G/TRIMS/W/133 and 143. 
18.  The European Union recalled its previous statements and written questions to which India had 
not yet responded. Its latest set of questions addr essed the preference policy of India relating to 
certain domestically manufactured telecommunication products, following the notification dated 
23 December 2013 of a new preference policy for electronics goods. The European Union asked for clarifications on planned value-addition targets,  methodology and the timeline of implementation 
of measures for domestically manufactured telecommunication products as well as more 
information on the planned self-certification system by vendors. 
19.  Chinese Taipei reiterated the importance of the information and communications technology 
industry for the trade and economic development of Chinese Taipei, and asked India whether its 
measures had a negative impact on trade, as well as whether these measures were being applied in a fully transparent and WTO-consistent manner. Chinese Taipei stated that India had not provided any update of the re-evaluation of the po licy announced by a Press Release issued by the 
office of the Prime Minister of India, and asked India to provide the results of this re-evaluation, if 
any, and welcomed any other information concerning this policy, such as trade statistics, results, 
the impact of the policy so far. Chinese Taipei re served the right to come back on this item, if 
necessary, once the results of the re-evaluation had been analysed. 
20.  Japan shared the concerns raised by the European Union in documents G/TRIMS/W/133 and 
G/TRIMS/W/143 and looked forward to India's replies. 
21.  India stated that its policy for providing pr eference to domestically manufactured electronic 
goods, introduced in February 2012, had been reviewed and a revised policy had been issued in 
December 2013. The clause about applicability of the policy regarding electronic products having security implications had been dropped. The present policy was applicable only for DMEPs in 
government procurement for the government's own use and not with a view to commercial resale 
or with a view to use in the production of goods for commercial sale. The details of the revised policy were available in the Notification No. 33(3)/2013-IPHW dated 23 December 2013, issued by 
the Department of Electronics and Information Technology. 
22.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
5  INDONESIA – CERTAIN MEASURES ADDRE SSING LOCAL CONTENT IN INVESTMENT IN 
THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SECTOR – ITEM REQUESTED BY JAPAN (G/TRIMS/W/61); 
(G/TRIMS/W/63); (G/TRIMS/W/71); (G/TRIMS/W/75); (G/TRIMS/W/78); (G/TRIMS/W/80); (G/TRIMS/W/86); (G/TRIMS/W/96); (G/TRIMS/W/104) AND (G/TRIMS/W/131) 
23.  The Chairperson recalled that this issue was considered at all Committee meetings held since 
20 May 2009. Questions had been posed in documents G/TRIMS/W/61, 71, 78, 86, and 104. 
Responses were circulated in documents G/TRIMS/W/63, 75, 80, 96, and 131.  
24.  Japan appreciated Indonesia's replies in document G/TRIMS/W/131. However, Japan still had 
significant concerns that the local content requirement in the telecommunications sector of 
Indonesia could be implemented inconsistently with the relevant WTO rules. Indonesia's view on 
Ministerial Decree No. 7/2009, as expressed in document G/TRIMS/W/80, was the following: 
"Indonesia would also like to confirm that the Decree does not differentiate in treatment between local and foreign service-providers so it is not inconsistent with Article 2 of TRIMS Agreement." Japan disagreed because the TRIMS Agreement prohibited a WTO Member to accord discriminatory G/TRIMS/M/37 
 
- 5 - 
 
  treatment against foreign products and not agai nst foreign service-providers. Further, Japan 
doubted the consistency of the Ministerial Decree No. 7/2009 with GATT Article III:4 and Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement because the Decree impose d an obligation to procure Broadband Wireless 
Access (BWA) equipment in the domestic market.  
25.  According to the provisions of paragraph 1 (a) of the Annex of the TRIMS Agreement, TRIMs 
that are inconsistent with the obligation of national treatment provided for in paragraph 4 of Article III of GATT include those which are mandatory or enforceable under domestic law or under 
administrative rulings, or compliance with which is necessary to obtain an advantage, and which 
require the purchase or use by an enterprise of products of domestic origin or from any domestic source. As for Indonesia's broad interpretation of the scope of government procurement, as 
provided for in GATT Article III 8(a), Indonesia seemed to claim that the measure at issue should 
be exempt from the obligation to accord national treatment. Japan was deeply concerned about 
the way that Indonesia interpreted the WTO Agreement as this would be part of an intensified tendency towards protectionism.  
26.  The United States appreciated the responses Indonesia had provided but remained concerned 
by local content requirements in telecommunications decrees adopted over the last several years 
because such requirements resulted in favourable treatment for domestic products over imported 
products and resulted in investors being penalized if they did not comply. The United States asked 
Indonesia why it had adopted such measures, especi ally at a time when Indonesia was seeking to 
develop its telecommunication sector. While this sector presented opportunities for both Indonesian and foreign companies, much of the resources needed to develop the infrastructure 
were not found domestically and would have to come from outside Indonesia. Despite raising its 
concerns with Indonesia, both bilaterally and in the Committee, the United States had yet to make progress towards addressing its concerns. Moreover, instead of curtailing its use of local content 
requirements, Indonesia appeared to be expanding their use to other sectors, as demonstrated by 
the ever growing list of concerns in the Committee,  including the United States, especially as those 
measures harmed Indonesia's investment and business climate.  
27.  The European Union shared Japan's position and reiterated its preoccupation with the 
proliferation of investment and local content problem in Indonesian legislation. The local content 
provisions in the telecoms sector were a long-standing problem that the European Union had raised on several occasions, including at ministerial level. It reiterated its request to Indonesia to 
address the relevant regulatory obstacles which would set better conditions to attract telecom 
investments in Indonesia and eventually benefit the country itself. The European Union asked Indonesia if it was planning to further increase the mandatory local content requirements (from 
40% to 50%) and if so, why; as well as whether Indonesia planned to issue any other related 
measures and if so, when.  
28.  Canada shared the concerns expressed regarding certain provisions affecting the 
telecommunications sector in Indonesia and strongly encouraged Indonesia to consider the impact 
that such provisions could have on investment and innovation. Canada emphasized its interests in ensuring non-discriminatory treatment in the Indonesian telecommunications sector. 
29.  Indonesia stated that the Presidential Decree No. 54/2010 defined government procurement 
as an activity to obtain goods/services by Ministries / Institutions / Regional Government or any 
procurement of goods/services financed by the State budget or government loan or grant. The aim of the Universal Service Telecommunication Obligation project was to provide telephone services in 
under-served/un-served areas. It was a governmental project to open isolation. Any 
people/institution living or general public in the area would benefit from such project. This issue had been exhaustively discussed; if delegates had fu rther concerns or questions, they were invited 
to submit them in writing.  
30.  The Committee took note of the statements made. G/TRIMS/M/37 
 
- 6 - 
 
  6  INDONESIA – CERTAIN LOCAL CONTENT PROVISIONS IN THE ENERGY SECTOR 
(MINING, OIL AND GAS) – ITEM REQUESTED BY THE EUROPEAN UNION, JAPAN AND THE UNITED STATES (G/TRIMS/W/70); (G/TRIMS/W/74); (G/TRIMS/W/79); (G/TRIMS/W/88); (G/TRIMS/W/100); (G/TRIMS/W/108); (G/TRIMS/W/123); 
(G/TRIMS/W/128); (G/TRIMS/W/137) AND (G/TRIMS/W/137/CORR.1) 
31.  The Chairperson recalled that this item had been considered at all Committee meetings held 
since 16 October 2009. Questions had been circulated in documents G/TRIMS/W/70, 88, 108, 128 
to which Indonesia replied in documents G/TRIMS/W/74, 79, 100, 123, 137 and 137/Corr.1.   
32.  The United States recalled its concerns with investment restrictions in the energy sector 
(mining, oil and gas) and raised questions abou t the requirement to "prioritize" the use of 
domestic goods and services in those sectors, and how that requirement was enforced. It further 
noted its concern about the overall investment climate in these sectors through those and other 
actions that had created uncertainty in the market. Despite trying to find a solution in the Committee and bilaterally, the situation in the energy sector had deteriorated. 
33.  In January, Indonesia had begun implementing  mandatory domestic processing requirements 
for almost 50 mineral ores, including nickel and bauxite. While Indonesia's desire to move up the value chain was understandable, the requirement to add value in Indonesia in many instances 
required investment in domestic facilities. For a subset of metallic minerals, Indonesia had delayed 
enforcement of the domestic processing requirem ents until 2017 and would allow export of those 
minerals in a processed, un-refined state during a three-year transitional period, provided that the 
companies obtained an export license and paid an export tax. It appeared that issuance of an 
export license was conditioned on a range of factors, including whether a company was committed 
to building a smelter in Indonesia. The United States sought clarification from Indonesia regarding those additional requirements.  
34.  Moreover, Indonesia had issued a revised Negative Investment List, which appeared to have 
introduced further investment restrictions in a num ber of areas, including mining, oil and gas, and 
requested an update in the Committee about those new requirements. 
35.  The United States had systemic concerns ab out Indonesia's TRIMs and sought resolution of 
those concerns. Indonesia had only recently replie d to the latest US follow-up questions. A quick 
review of those responses seemed to confirm that Indonesia had used the word "prioritize" rather than "require". Some of Indonesia's earlier responses had seemed to hint that consideration of 
circumstances, such as price and quality, migh t be relevant for determining whether the local 
content provision would apply. However, the most recent responses made clear that there was very little flexibility in those measures. The United States would study those responses and revert 
at a later date. 
36.  Japan expressed its particular concern abou t the implementation of the measures under the 
Mining Law which effectively directed the Indonesi a to prohibit the exportation of raw materials, 
such as nickel ore. Japan understood the policy obje ctive of Indonesia to advance its industries by 
making domestic production highly value-added; ho wever, such efforts should be consistent with 
WTO agreements. The export-restricting measures on raw materials constituted a violation of GATT Article XI which stipulates general elimination of quantitative restrictions on imports and 
exports. Since the establishment of the Mining Law, Japan, together with its industry, had 
persistently approached the Indonesia about reviewing the measures. Almost every effort, including one at the highest level, had been made to achieve a solution through bilateral dialogue. 
While seeking a WTO-consistent solution through bilateral dialogue with the new Indonesian 
government taking office in this month, Japan would have to seriously consider taking further steps available under the DSU if the current situation remained unchanged. 
37.  The European Union stated that Indonesia's further clarifications as to the prioritisation of 
local content in its legislation covering mining products in minerals and coal actually reinforced EU 
concerns. Given that several Members had shared st rong doubts regarding the compatibility of the 
measures with WTO agreements, including TRIMs, the European Union requested Indonesia to 
review the provisions at stake and to reply as to  whether it contemplated doing such review. From 
a broader perspective, measures taken over the past few years in the Indonesian energy and mineral resources sectors, which included not only local requirements, but also, for instance, G/TRIMS/M/37 
 
- 7 - 
 
  export restrictions and limits imposed to foreign participation, acted as a deterrent to foreign 
investment. The European Union invited Indonesia to consider the long-term impact of that policy, bearing in mind G20 commitments to resist and roll-back protectionist measures. 
38.  Canada continued to be concerned about the potentially negative impact on both current and 
future foreign mining investments in Indonesia and shared the concerns expressed by others that 
certain provisions of this regime appeared to discriminate against foreign suppliers, while others appeared to restrict exports. 
39.  Australia remained concerned about ownershi p divestment requirements, restrictions on the 
export of raw materials, pressure to renegotiate contracts of work and restrictions on obtaining 
approvals for expatriate employees. Those regu lations created uncertainty for foreign and 
domestic mining ventures in Indonesia. In a ddition, the regulations were adversely affecting 
investor confidence more broadly. Australia requested further clarification from Indonesia on the 
implementation of those regulations. 
40.  Indonesia noted that it had provided writte n answers to the US follow-up questions. On the 
issue of preferences, in principle, the local co ntent provision was not mandatory in nature. Its 
implementation was provisional to the availability  of goods and services in the domestic market 
either domestically produced or being imported, taking into account the price, technical 
specification, quality, quantity and time delivery.  
41.  On the issue of the availability of products and services in domestic market, the Ministry of 
Energy and Mineral Resources would make an assessment by, inter alia , visiting the producers to 
ensure their production capacity, quality and sustainable supply. That assessment would be the 
basis to approve the master list which was submitted by the companies. The data and information 
of domestic producers' capacity obtained in the assessment were regularly updated, i.e. four times 
in a year (every three months).  
42.  With regard to the prioritized use of goods and services by a foreign investor, in line with 
Government Regulation No. 23/2010, companies were encouraged to use domestic goods and services, provided that they were available in th e Indonesian market and met the quality and post-
sales service standards, as well as having had thei r sustainability of supply and timely distribution 
warranted. The publication of APDN Book and Master List was not intended to restrict imports, but 
was aimed at supporting any investors either foreign or domestic who produced supporting goods and services in mining, gas and oil sectors. Th e opportunity was very significant and Indonesia 
invited potential investors from all Members, specifically from those who raised concerns, to join 
and benefit from the business potential in Indonesia in the sectors of mining, gas and oil. Investors were considered to have prioritized the use of  those goods and services when they had given 
preference to domestic goods, equipment, services, raw materials and/or components as well as 
imported products sold in Indonesia. Members interested in posing any further questions were requested to submit them in writing.  
43.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
7  INDONESIA – NEWLY ADOPTED INDUSTRY LAW AND TRADE LAW– ITEM REQUESTED 
BY CANADA, THE EUROPEAN UNION, JAPAN AND THE UNITED STATES (G/TRIMS/W/138); (G/TRIMS/W/140) 
44.  The Chairperson recalled that this item had been discussed for the first time in the previous 
meeting of the Committee on 20 June 2014. Ques tions to Indonesia from Canada and the 
European Union had been circulated in documents G/TRIMS/W/138 and G/TRIMS/W/140 
respectively.  
45.  Canada raised a number of questions concerning these measures at the June 2014 meeting, 
which were later provided in writing, and asked Indonesia when it could provide responses.  
46.  The United States stated that while those laws were vague in many respects, with 
implementing regulations yet to be written, the theme of a broad shift to a government-
dominated, highly-protected economy was clear. In  the context of other Indonesian measures that 
the Committee had examined, the implications for the TRIMS and other agreements were quite G/TRIMS/M/37 
 
- 8 - 
 
  troubling. The Industry Law and Trade Law cont ained numerous provisions that carried forward 
that theme. During the previous meeting of th e Committee, the United States had highlighted 
some of the key provisions. Those laws could be read to signal a significant retreat from Indonesia's commitment to its obligations under the TRIMS and other WTO Agreements. However, 
the United States recognized that the Indonesian Government had been given two years to draft 
implementing legislation, and understood that the drafting process had begun. It requested Indonesia to keep the Committee apprised of de velopments, including the anticipated date of 
issuing implementing regulations and of putting those laws into effect. The United States also 
requested that Indonesia provided copies of draf t implementing regulations so that stakeholders, 
including the governments of interested WTO Members could provide input.  
47.  The European Union reiterated its concerns about the Trade and Industry laws, which leaned 
towards protectionism and were potentially very trade restrictive. It was the EU's view that they 
contributed to create a high degree of uncertainty and hesitation among investors. On 15 September 2014, the EU submitted written questions to Indonesia asking to clarify those 
aspects that had been already raised during the pr evious meeting of this Committee. Of particular 
concern was: (i) the possibility for the Government to impose export bans on biological and non-biological raw materials (Industry law) and impose restrictions on export and import of certain 
goods for national interest (Trade law); ii) the mandatory use of domestic products and increased 
use of national standards; and iii) the use of sa feguard measures, either tariff or non-tariff- 
measures to protect the industry from international competition. The EU was aware that many implementing regulations had to be  issued over the next two years and asked Indonesia to specify 
the timeline for their publication and whether they would be open to public consultation. The EU 
also asked Indonesia to clarify, for instance, when the so-called " Draft government regulation on 
industrial business license and industrial zone activity " would be issued and whether it would be 
open to public consultation; when the so-called "Draft regulation on development of industrial 
resources " would be issued and whether it would be open to public consultation; whether 
Indonesia foresaw restriction or limitation of exports of natural resources; when the so-called 
"Draft regulation on industry facility and infrastructure " would be issued and whether it would be 
open to public consultation; whether Indonesia could specify its impact on national standards for industrial products; and whether other implementing  measures were foreseen and if so, when they 
would be issued. 
48.  Japan fully shared the preoccupations expresse d by the European Union and the United States 
regarding the Law on Trade and the Law on Industry as they would further deteriorate Indonesia's 
business climate by introducing a legal framework for further trade-restrictive measures. Earlier in 
2014, Indonesia's legislature had passed those two laws which provided the legal framework for 
further trade-restrictive measures. More precisely, Articles 26 and 54 of the Law on Trade seemed to allow the Indonesian authorities to control export and import to protect certain industries. 
Article 25 of the Law on Trade could be interpre ted to mean that the Government would control 
prices in certain situations. Article 22 of the Law on Trade referred to setting out a requirement to use Domestic Products. In the Law on Industry, Articles 85 to 87 stipulated that the Government should increase domestic product use and that ob ligation should be carried out according to the 
domestic component level of each product/service shown by the value level of the domestic 
component. Japan would continue to be particularly attentive to the implementing regulations for those two laws. While welcoming the new government of Indonesia which took office in 
October 2014, Japan urged Indonesia to ensure that the implementing regulations were consistent 
with WTO obligations including those under the TRIMS Agreement. Japan also appreciated the efforts by Canada and the EU in submitting wri tten questions and looked forward to Indonesia's 
responses to them in the nearest future. 
49.  Australia appreciated Indonesia's response during this Committee's meeting in June 2014 
indicating that those measures had been designed  t o  f o s t e r  g r o w t h  i n  s m a l l  t o  m e d i u m  s i z e d  
enterprises. The WTO rules provided the parameters  to guide governments on how best to provide 
assistance to industry sectors and how to avoid trade impacts on other Members' interests. How 
Indonesia implemented its Trade Law and Industry Law would be crucial to whether those laws would directly impact trade and investment. Australia was particularly interested in what this 
meant for Indonesia's use of trade remedy meas ures. For example, the Trade Law appeared to 
allow Indonesia to unilaterally take retaliatory tr ade measures against other trading partners who 
took legitimate trade remedy measures. Australia would appreciate Indonesia providing an update 
on how it intended to go forward in issuing its implementing regulations for the new laws. G/TRIMS/M/37 
 
- 9 - 
 
  50.  Indonesia stated that the objectives of the two laws were to support the development of 
industry and to improve the contribution of trade to the national economy by creating job 
opportunities, enhancing competitiveness as well as increasing production capacity. These laws had been designed taking fully into account Indonesia's WTO commitments. In accordance with 
the system of positive law in Indonesia, the two laws governed general provisions in nature. Thus, 
they required further implementing regulations, either through Governmental or Ministerial Decrees, which were expected to be completed two years after the two laws' enactment. The 
issuance of implementing regulations for the Indu stry Law would consider various elements such 
as security, health and environment both for consumers and producers as well as market stability. However, the strategic decision concerning the issuance of those implementing regulations would depend on the newly elected government which was to take office by 20 October 2014. For 
delegates who had submitted written questions, In donesia would provide written answers shortly. 
51.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
8  INDONESIA – MINIMUM LOCAL PRODUC T REQUIREMENT FOR MODERN RETAIL 
SECTOR – ITEM REQUESTED BY THE EUROPEAN UNION, JAPAN AND THE UNITED STATES 
(G/TRIMS/W/139); (G/TRIMS/W/141) 
52.  The Chairperson recalled that this item had been discussed for the first time in the previous 
meeting of the Committee on 20 June 2014. Questi ons to Indonesia from the United States and 
the European Union had been circulated in documents G/TRIMS/W/139 and G/TRIMS/W/141 respectively. 
53.  The United States stated its concern about Regulation 70/2013, adopted by Indonesia's 
Ministry of Trade (MOT), and entitled Guideline on Planning and Development of Traditional 
Market, Shopping Centre and Modern Shop. That re gulation built on requirements in previous MOT 
regulations in 2012 and 2013 (Regulations 53 and 68  of 2012 and Regulation 7 of 2013) related to 
franchises, including modern retail franchises (such as minimarkets and hypermarkets) and food 
establishments. Regulation 70 required, among other things: "Modern Shop may only market private-labelled and/or house-labelled products at  most 15% (fifteen percent) of stock keeping 
unit sold in Modern Shop outlets." (Article 21.2)  "Shopping Centre and Modern Shop shall sell 
domestic products at least 80% (eighty percent) of quantity and type of products being traded" (Article 22.1). While those requirements applied to both domestic and foreign companies, they seemed to specifically anticipate that in order for a foreign investor to establish in that sector in 
Indonesia, that investor should acquire and sell local goods. The regulation had been scheduled to 
come into force in June 2014. However, investors would have 2 years to come into compliance with the requirement to use local goods. The United States asked Indonesia to confirm that the 
regulation was not yet in force and to keep the Committee informed of the process for 
implementing Regulation 70. Similar regulations applied to franchise establishments. Ministry of Trade Regulation 53/2012 required that "Franchisors and franchisees must use domestically 
produced goods and/or services for at least 80 percent of their raw materials, business equipment 
and sales." This local sourcing requirement was also reflected in Regulations 68/2012 and 7/2013. Again, the United States asked Indonesia to keep the Committee apprised of developments concerning implementation of that regulation.  
54.  The European Union reiterated its concern about the 80% local content requirement imposed 
by Regulation 70/2013 which was burdensome, di storted competition, and limited consumers' 
choice. On 15 September 2014, the European Union submitted written questions to Indonesia 
asking clarifications on those aspects already raised at the previous Committee meeting. In 
particular, it understood that the 80% local content requirement already existed for franchising, and by means of Regulation 70/2013 was extended to the whole retail sector. The European Union 
asked Indonesia to clarify which Regulation set out the 80% local requirement for franchising, 
whether there were any implementing regulations and any exceptions to the rules foreseen as well as to provide the relevant legal texts. The European Union also asked which Regulation set out the 80% local requirement for the whole retail sector, if there were any implementing regulations, any 
exceptions to the rules foreseen and to provide the relevant legal texts. Furthermore, the 15% 
limitation on the number of private labels goods sold would also be of difficult application for single brand retailers. The European Union requested th at Indonesia clarify the objectives of this 
provision and how it would be implemented. The European Union finally asked Indonesia whether 
it intended to revise the above measures and if yes, when and how. G/TRIMS/M/37 
 
- 10 - 
 
  55.  Japan shared others' concerns about the trend in Indonesia towards imposition of local 
content requirements which could be implemented inconsistently with WTO rules. The Trade 
Ministry Regulation No 70/2013, in particular, imposed the obligation on shopping centres and modern retail shops to ensure that 80% of products  in their outlets were domestic. In the previous 
meeting, Indonesia had stated that the retail sector was crucial for economic empowerment, 
especially for millions of Small and Medium scale  Enterprises (SMEs). Indonesia also had stated 
that the policy was commonly practiced by Members. For Japan, it was hard to believe that such 
policy would support the retail sector by introducing local content requirements. Japan welcomed 
the questions posted by the United States and the European Union and stood ready to continue to discuss this issue in the Committee. 
56.  Indonesia highlighted that the retail sector was crucial for national economic empowerment, 
especially for millions of Small and Medium scale Enterprises (SMEs) in Indonesia. The 
Government had applied a zoning policy for any investor interested in opening a new modern retail business. It had been intended that such establishment would support, not undermine, small scale 
trading or traditional markets. The policy had been commonly practiced by Members. The 
preference given to SMEs to supply goods to modern retail was subject to the SMEs' ability to comply with the business requirements set by th e modern retail. For delegates who had submitted 
written questions Indonesia would provide written response.  
57.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
9  NIGERIA – CERTAIN MEASURES TAKE N IN THE "ACT TO PROVIDE FOR THE 
DEVELOPMENT OF NIGERIAN CONTENT IN THE NIGERIA OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY" OF 
APRIL 2010 – ITEM REQUESTED BY THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE UNITED STATES 
(G/TRIMS/W/89); (G/TRIMS/W/142) 
58.  The Chairperson noted that this item was previously considered at all Committee meetings 
held since 3 October 2011. Documents G/TRIMS/W/89 and 142 contained questions posed by the 
United States and the European Union respectively. 
59.  The European Union stated this issue had been discussed on a number of occasions both in 
regular TRIMS Committee meetings and at CTG meetings in July 2013 and April 2014. The 
European Union had decided to submit again a full set of questions already submitted in 2012 and hoped to receive detailed replies from Nigeria to all items raised in document G/TRIMS/W/142 of 17 September 2014. The European Union considered that the questions could facilitate further 
discussions of the topics at stake. The Europe an Union was concerned about the review of 
Schedule A. The review was meant to comprise the list of detailed local content requirements per good or service, and had been originally foreseen by the applicable legislation for spring 2012. 
More than a year later, no such review had yet taken place. The European Union asked Nigeria to 
specify the date of that review and clarify the manner in which this was to be carried out. The European Union understood that an Amendment Bill was pending before the National Assembly 
which could provide an opportunity to review certai n provisions of the Act, including Schedule A, 
and address questions beyond the issue of WTO co mpatibility. Still, the review could look more 
closely at whether the legislative scheme at stake, and especially its local content requirements, provided the appropriate tool to achieve the stated  goal of enhancing domestic capacity in the oil 
and gas industry. The European Union queried Nigeria what the state of adoption of this Bill was. 
Until the mentioned Bill was adopted, it was under stood that derogations from the requirements of 
the law could no longer be awarded under the specific mechanism provided for under Section 11 of 
the Act, as this possibility had expired in April 2013. The European Union requested Nigeria to 
explain how operators were currently allowed to face capacity shortfalls. 
60.  The United States recalled that it had posed written questions to Nigeria in September 2011 in 
document G/TRIMS/W/89 and had described its un derstanding of the measures in a meeting in 
October 2011. It had raised the issue at each subsequent meeting of this Committee, and on 
several occasions in the CTG. However, Nigeria had provided neither a formal response, nor any 
substantive engagement. Meanwhile implementati on of those measures had been ongoing in 
Nigeria. The European Union had posed a very interesting set of questions focused on the 
assessment Nigeria had undertaken in designing those measures, and on whether Nigeria had gathered any information about their effects. The WTO Committee system provides a forum to 
gain an understanding of the trade policies of ot her Members, and to raise concerns outside of the 
context of dispute settlement. The questions pose d by the United States and the European Union G/TRIMS/M/37 
 
- 11 - 
 
  would help Members understand the Nigeria's policies. The United States urged Nigeria to make 
use of the Committee to clear up any misunderstandings. 
61.  Australia asked for clarifications on how the preferential treatment accorded to local goods 
and services in the Act was consistent with Nigeria's national treatment obligations under the 
GATT. Section 11(1) of the Nigerian Act established minimum percentages of Nigerian content in 
goods, services and investment for any project in the Nigerian oil and gas industry. Further, 
Section 7 of the Act required operators to submit a Nigerian Content Plan demonstrating 
compliance with the Nigerian content requiremen ts. Australia looked forward to hearing an 
explanation of these issues from Nigeria. 
62.  Japan shared the systemic concerns of previous speakers and encouraged Nigeria to 
expeditiously provide clarification in a written form  to meet the established practice in the WTO. 
63.  Nigeria stated that since the last meeting of the Committee in June 2014, Nigeria was working 
on preparing its replies and had had useful discussi ons with the relevant implementing agency, i.e. 
the Nigeria Monitoring Board about the issues and questions raised by all previous speakers. The 
substantive responses to the questions will be submitted in writing. Nigeria encouraged the 
United States and the European Union to continue bilateral discussions with Nigeria on this issue. 
64.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
10  RUSSIA – LOCAL CONTENT REQUIREMENTS FOR AGRICULTURAL EQUIPMENT – ITEM 
REQUESTED BY THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE UNITED STATES (G/TRIMS/W/116); (G/TRIMS/W/130) 
65.  The Chairperson recalled that this item was discussed at all Committee meeting held since 
30 April 2013. The United States had circulated questions in document G/TRIMS/W/116 to which 
Russia submitted responses in document G/TRIMS/W/130. 
66.  The United States remained concerned about reports that RosAgroLeasing (RAL), a state-
owned leasing company created to supply agricu ltural equipment to farmers in Russia, was 
imposing a local content requirement for that agricultural equipment. The United States appreciated Russia's responses to its questions abou t that program, including the indication that, 
consistent with the working party report, Russia had abandoned subsidization of manufacturing in 
that sector. The United States continued to review Resolution No. 1432 of 27 December 2012, and might have questions at a future meeting. At the last meeting, the United States had posed questions about the leasing process between RAL and farmers to clear up some final points In its 
responses, Russia had explained that: "the lessor sh all acquire property, specified by the lessee, in 
its ownership from a particular seller and provide to the lessee this property in temporary possession and use for a fee;" and "the leasing agreement is specified by the lessee. Exact 
features of such property are specified by the leasing agreement." The United States asked Russia 
to confirm whether there was no difference in the fee or other terms of leasing agreements 
dependent whether or not the leasing agreement pertained to Russian manufactured agricultural 
equipment. It also asked that Russia provide a br eakdown of the brands of agricultural equipment 
leased by RAL during the period 2013-2014. Such statistical information would help paint a more complete picture of RAL and the market for leased agricultural equipment. Finally, it would have been helpful if Russia provided samples of leasing agreements signed by RAL involving non-
Russian manufactured agricultural equipment.  
67.  The European Union reiterated its interest in receiving clarifications from Russia so as to 
better understand how the system functions. Although the European Union had received some 
clarifications on the operation of RAL last year, it still had questions concerning the state subsidy 
scheme under Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No 908 of 11 October 2013 
(and Decree No 1715) according to which 15% of the sales price of agricultural machinery could 
be granted to Russian farmers if the products in question satisfied a certain level of domestic 
production in Russia. The European Union asked Russia to confirm that and to elaborate on how local content was calculated. It also asked when such subsidies had started being distributed and, if this was not the case, when Russia intended to do so.  G/TRIMS/M/37 
 
- 12 - 
 
  68.  The European Union still had concerns with regards to the Resolution of the Government of 
the Russian Federation No 1432 of 27 December  2012, according to which producers of 
agricultural machinery could be granted specific subsidies (up to 15% of the selling price) provided that a set of technical operations were respecte d and that its main components were produced 
domestically. The European Union asked what these technical operations consisted of and whether 
the local production condition was qualifying for being granted the subsidy (and how to calculate the level of required local content). In addition, it understood that some components were 
excluded from the necessary domestic production. The European Union asked what those 
components were and asked Russia to confirm whether the subsidies were linked to the company having been established in Ru ssia for more than 3 years.  
69.  The European Union was also concerned about the concessional financing of RAL for the 
purchase of combine harvesters and asked Russia to indicate what the required conditions were for 
such financing. It was also concerned about th e co-financing reviewed by the agricultural 
machinery producer Rostselmash from the Federal budget to cover R&D costs and asked Russia to 
indicate what the conditions for such a financ ing were as well as wh ether any other combine 
harvester producer in Russia also benefited of such a financing. 
70.  Japan expressed its continuing systemic intere st in the local content requirement by the state-
owned leasing company RAL for agricultural equipment. 
71.  Russia stated that it would address all points raised by previous speakers in due course. 
Regarding issues raised by the United States at the previous Committee meeting, some of the 
questions raised in respect of the RAL seemed to  be outside the Committee's mandate, especially 
regarding the possible privatization of RAL. Nevertheless, Russia recalled that the program of 
privatization in the Russian Federation was made public in accordance with the relevant transparency obligations within the WTO. More information in this respect could be found, for 
example, on the website of the Federal Ag ency of State Property Administration: www.rosim.ru . 
Non-confidential information necessary to cover the rest of the US questions concerning RAL 
activities was made public on the official website of the entity: www.rosagroleasing.ru .  
72.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
11  RUSSIA – CERTAIN MEASURES RELATING TO INDUSTRIAL ASSEMBLY – ITEM 
REQUESTED BY THE EUROPEAN UNION, JAPAN AND THE UNITED STATES (G/TRIMS/W/134) 
73.  The Chair informed Members that the United States had submitted written questions in 
respect to this matter in document G/TRIMS/W/134. 
74.  Japan had a continuous interest in monitoring Russia's implementation of WTO commitments 
in the automotive sector, particularly on the local-content requirement to obtain preferential 
treatment imposed on companies engaged in automobile production and assembly. On 15 January 2014, the Russian Federation adopted a number of resolutions that provided financial 
support for certain types of expenses to Russian automobile producers that participated in the 
industrial assembly program. Japan understood that the automobile manufacturers in Russia which could receive the support were identical to the companies which had accepted the local-content requirement to obtain preferential tariffs in th eir agreements with the Ministry of Economic 
Development under the "Auto Investment Progra m". This industrial assembly program could 
enable participating companies to receive subsidies in exchange for local-content requirements. Japan invited Russia to explain its view on the consistency of the measures with the relevant WTO 
agreements. Japan would submit points of concern in a written form soon. 
75.  The United States recalled that, in prior meetings, WTO Members had expressed concerns 
about a vehicle recycling fee imposed by the Russi an Federation, and had raised questions about 
how the discriminatory application of the fee could be reconciled with Russia's WTO commitments. 
The United States understood that through Resolution No. 1291, dated December 25, 2013 Russia had begun imposing the fee on Russian automobile producers that participated in the industrial 
a s s e m b l y  p r o g r a m .  T h i s  a p p e a r e d  t o  b e  a n  e f f o r t  t o  r e m o v e  t h e  d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  a s p e c t  o f  t h e  
vehicle recycling fee. However, as noted in document WTO/TRIMS/W/134, three weeks later 
Russia adopted a number of resolutions that provided financial support for certain types of G/TRIMS/M/37 
 
- 13 - 
 
  expenses to Russian automobile producers that participated in the industrial assembly program. 
These programs were:  
a. Resolution 29 of 15 January 2014 (support for expenses related to R&D activities and tests); 
b. Resolution 30 of 15 January 2014 (support for expenses related to energy efficiency); 
c. Resolution 31 of 15 January 2014 (support for warranty expenses related to complying with 
Euro-4 and Euro-5 emissions standards); and 
d. Resolution 32 of 15 January 2014 (support fo r expenses related to maintaining certain 
employment levels). 
76.  Those new benefits were provided to the same domestic companies that had recently been 
required to pay the recycling fee. Hence, the US  questions to Russia were intended to help WTO 
Members determine whether those benefits were  intended to compensate certain domestic 
manufacturers for the new recycling fee. Further, it was understood that participation in the 
industrial assembly program was contingent on use of domestic content in the manufacture of automobiles. Therefore, because participation in the assembly program was a condition for receipt 
of the new benefits, the United States was concerned that those support programs might likewise 
be contingent on use of domestic content. 
77.  The European Union reiterated its concerns on the resolutions adopted on 15 January 2014. In 
relation to Resolutions 29, 30 and 31 of 2014, the European Union was concerned that those 
support programs might likewise be contingent on use of domestic content and requested from Russia to describe, for each of the programs at  stake, who could receive the support, and the 
conditions for its receipt.  
78.  Russia noted that, with regard to Japan's comment, in accordance with Russia's Accession 
Protocol the industrial assembly program was subject to exception during a certain transitional 
period. Russia was willing to provide answers to written questions on that issue.  
79.  Russia next answered the US questions of  13 June 2014. In regards to the preliminary 
question on whether the subsidy programs launched on 15 January 2014 were intended to compensate for the recycling fee the answer was no: "The Resolutions of the Government of the 
Russian Federation of 15 January 2014 No. 29, 30, 31, 32 are not connected with the recycling fee 
levied in accordance with the Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation of 26 December 2014 No. 1291". Russia's answer to the first United States question was: "The Russian producers of motor vehicles which use imported automotive parts may receive support 
under the said Resolutions". Russia's answer to the second United States question was: "The 
conditions for receipt of support under the said Resolutions do not provide for any limitations or thresholds, by volume or value, above which the manufacturer would be disqualified from receipt 
of support". Russia's answer to the third United States question was: "Support under the said 
Resolutions is granted to entities registered on the territory of the Russian Federation and 
producing motor vehicles under the following conditions: in the industrial assembly mode; in the 
mode provided for in subparagraph 6 of paragr aph 2 of article 10 of the Agreement on Free 
(Special) Economic Zones on the Customs Terri tory of the Customs Union and the Customs 
Procedures of the Free Customs Zones of 18 June 2010." Russia's answers would be communicated to the Secretariat within the week. Russia hoped they were sufficient to cover all 
the questions raised orally during the previous  meeting except the general concern regarding 
alleged contingency of the subsidies on the use of  domestic goods. In that respect Russia pointed 
out the following. 
80.  Russia clarified the meaning of the criterion of production "in the industrial assembly mode" 
as to whether it meant contingency on the use of domestic goods by referring to the answer on the third US question given earlier, where Russia ha d stated that to be eligible to the subsidy the 
entity should produce motor vehicles "in the industrial assembly mode". The language of the 
Resolutions did not specify any mandatory fulfillment of any of the provisions, including on "local content", of the industrial assembly agreemen ts between the producers and the Ministry of 
Economic Development of the Russian Federation or of the Order No. 73/81/58n on the industrial 
assembly, which established the whole program. Instead, it merely indicated that the production G/TRIMS/M/37 
 
- 14 - 
 
  itself should be "in the industrial assembly mode", i.e. that the producer had had a valid 
agreement on industrial assembly. Given that a valid industrial assembly agreement was sufficient for receiving support, Russia addressed the question of whether the criterion of having a valid agreement on industrial assembly itself was contingent on the fulfillment of the "local content" 
requirements and stated that it did not believe so . Thus, the subsidy programs in question did not 
contain any requirements for purchase or use of domestic goods by the recipients which were mandatory or enforceable under domestic law or were necessary to obtain a subsidy. Russia was 
willing to answer any additional questions Members wished to raise in that respect. 
81.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
12  UNITED STATES - CERTAIN LOCAL CONTENT REQUIREMENTS IN THE RENEWABLE 
ENERGY SECTOR– ITEM REQUESTED BY INDIA (G/TRIMS/W/117); 
(G/TRIMS/W/129/REV.1) 
82.  The Chair recalled that this item was first raised on 30 April 2013. Questions were circulated 
in document G/TRIMS/W/117. The United States submitted responses to some of the questions in 
G/TRIMS/W/129 and 129/Rev.1. A few days before the meeting, and after the airgram had been 
circulated, India had posed follow-up questions in document G/TRIMS/W/144. 
83.  India stated that most of its question s had not been appropriately answered and the 
responses were partial and incomplete. In light of this India had prepared additional questions that 
had been circulated in document G/TRIMS/W/144 dated 3 October 2014. Some of these questions had been also presented verbally in the last TRIMS Committee meeting. India requested the United States provide full and complete responses. 
84.  The United States stated that as those questions had been received only on Friday before the 
meeting, it had not been possible either to review them in capital, or to confer with the state and 
municipal officials responsible for the programs. Wi th regard to concerns expressed by India about 
its inability to follow the internet links provid ed by the United States, the United States had 
confirmed that the links provided regarding the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and the California Public Utility Commission were acti ve, functioning, not password-protected, and 
contained up-to-date information about the programs. The United States acknowledged that the 
internet link to information about solar programs operated by the electricity company of Austin, Texas ("Austin Energy") appeared to have been changed. This was likely due to the fact, as noted in the US response, that the program had never been implemented. Nevertheless, the 
United States would seek to update the information provided. 
85.  Russia shared India's concerns in respect of some of the renewable energy sector programs of 
the United States and remained concerned by local content requirements that seemed to have 
been introduced by certain regional governments. While the US responses had provided detailed 
description of the programs and had included web links to additional information, not all of the questions of India had been addressed. In particul ar, Russia expected the United States to explain 
how the incentives in the renewable energy sector  with legally binding local content requirements 
complied with US obligations under the WTO. Russia also requested that the United States clarify the total amount of each programme. Such data remained unclear as the United States, contrary to the transparency rules, had failed to provide to the WTO the relevant notifications. 
86.  The Committee took note of the statements made.  
13   OTHER BUSINESS 
87.  No Member raised any issues under this agenda item.  
14  ANNUAL REPORT (2014) 
88.  The Committee adopted its Annual Report for 2014, circulated in document G/L/1091. G/TRIMS/M/37 
 
- 15 - 
 
  15  ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIRPERSON 
89.  The Committee elected Mr Hüseyin Güngör (Tur key) as Vice-Chairperson of this Committee 
for 2014 and until the end of the first meeting of the Committee in 2015.  
16  DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING 
90.  The Chairperson informed the Committee that its next meeting was scheduled for Monday, 
5 October 2015. The Secretariat would issue an a nnotated draft agenda three weeks in advance of 
the next scheduled meeting, i.e. on 14 September 2015. It would contain the proposed agenda 
including Members' requests for items to be plac ed on that agenda. Members' requests to place 
items on the annotated draft agenda should be communicated in writing to the Secretariat by close of business Tuesday, 8 September 2015. The annota ted draft agenda would be open for Members' 
comments until close of business Wednesday, 23 September 2015. In addition, Members wishing 
to circulate documents should do so by close of business on Wednesday, 23 September 2015 so 
that they could be reflected on the airgram. The airgram would be issued on Friday, 25 September 2015.  
91.  The Chairperson recalled that, as foreseen in the Rules of Procedure, if Members wished to 
have a meeting in the spring of 2015, they could inform the Secretariat. 
92.  The Committee took note of the statements made.  
__________