RESTRICTED  
  
G/SCM/M/90  
 
19 February 2015  
(15-0999)  Page: 1/13  
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures    
 
 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING 
HELD ON 28 OCTOBER 2014 
Chair: Mr. Eduardo MINORU CHIKUSA (Brazil) 
1.  The Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the "Committee") held a special 
meeting on 28 October 2014, convened in WTO/AIR/4375 dated 17 October 2014. 
2.  The Committee adopted the following agenda: 
1   REVIEW OF 2013 NEW AND FULL SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS 
(G/SCM/N/253/…) NOT PREV IOUSLY REVIEWED ........................................................... 2  
1.1   Bahrain, Kingdom of (G/SCM/N/253/BHR) ..................................................................... 2  
1.2   Brazil (G/S CM/N/253/B RA) ......................................................................................... 2  
1.3   Chile (G/S CM/N/253/CH L) .......................................................................................... 3  
1.4   Congo (G/SCM/N/95/COG-G/SCM/N/123/COG-G/SCM/N/155/COG-
G/SCM/N/186/COG-G/SCM/N/2 20/COG-G/SCM/N/ 253/COG)  .................................................. 3  
1.5   European Union – (G/SCM/N/253/EU/Addenda 2, 6 and 14, respectively pertaining 
to Belgium, Denmar k and Italy) .......................................................................................... 4  
1.6   Honduras (G/SCM/N/253/HND/Suppl.1) ........................................................................ 4  
1.7   India (G/S CM/N/253/IN D) .......................................................................................... 4  
1.8   Japan (G/SCM/N /253/JPN/Sup pl.1) .............................................................................. 5  
1.9   Russian Federation (G/SCM/N/253/RUS/Rev.1) .............................................................. 5  
1.10   Saudi Arabia, Kingdo m of (G/SCM/N /253/SAU) ............................................................ 6  
1.11   Senegal (G/S CM/N/253/SE N) .................................................................................... 6  
1.12   Turkey (G/S CM/N/253/TUR) ...................................................................................... 6  
2   REVIEW OF 2001 NEW AND FULL SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS 
(G/SCM/N/71/…) NOT PREV IOUSLY REVIEWED ............................................................. 7  
2.1   Congo (G/SCM/N/25/COG-G/SCM/N/38/COG-G/SCM/N/48/COG–G/SCM/N/60/COG-
G/SCM/N/71/COG) ............................................................................................................ 7  
3   2014 TRANSPARENCY NOTIFICATIONS (G/SCM/N/275/…) SUBMITTED IN 
THE CONTEXT OF ARTICLE 27.4 OF THE SCM AGREEMENT ............................................... 7  
3.1   Jordan (G/S CM/N/275/JOR) ........................................................................................ 7  
3.2   Saint Lucia (G /SCM/N/275 /LCA) .................................................................................. 7  
4   CONTINUATION OF REVIEW OF 2013 NEW AND FULL NOTIFICATIONS 
(G/SCM/N/253/…) .......................................................................................................... 7  
4.1   Canada (G/S CM/N/253/CAN) ...................................................................................... 7  
4.2   European Union (G/SCM/N/253/EU and Addenda 9, 10, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25 and 27, 
respectively pertaining to France, Germany,  Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, 
Spain and United Kingdom) ................................................................................................ 8  G/SCM/M/90 
 
- 2 - 
 
  4.3   Japan (G/SCM/N/253/JPN) .......................................................................................... 9  
4.4   Korea (G/SCM/N/253/KOR) ......................................................................................... 9  
4.5   Mexico (G/S CM/N/253/MEX) ....................................................................................... 9  
4.6   Norway (G /SCM/N/253/ NOR) ..................................................................................... 10 
4.7   Peru (G/S CM/N/253/ PER) .......................................................................................... 10 
4.8   The Russian Federation (G/SCM/N/253/RUS) ................................................................ 10 
4.9   Chinese Taipei (G/SCM/N/253/TPKM) .......................................................................... 10 
5   CONTINUATION OF REVIEW OF 2011 (G/SCM/N/220/...) NEW AND FULL 
NOTIFICATIONS ............................................................................................................. 10  
5.1   Argentina (G /SCM/N/220/ ARG) .................................................................................. 10 
5.2   Armenia (G /SCM/N/220/ ARM) .................................................................................... 11 
5.3   Honduras (G/S CM/N/220/HND/ Rev.1) ......................................................................... 11 
5.4   Thailand (G/SCM/N/ 220/THA-G/SCM/N/ 253/THA) ......................................................... 11 
6   CONTINUATION OF REVIEW OF 2009 (G/SCM/N/186/...) NEW AND FULL 
NOTIFICATIONS ............................................................................................................. 12  
6.1   Gabon (G/S CM/N/186 /GAB) ....................................................................................... 12 
6.2   Turkey (G/SCM/N/186/TUR) ....................................................................................... 12 
7   CONTINUATION OF REVIEW OF 2007 (G/SCM/N/155/...) NEW AND FULL 
NOTIFICATIONS ............................................................................................................. 12  
7.1   Viet Nam (G/SCM/N/155/VNM) ................................................................................... 12 
 
 
1  REVIEW OF 2013 NEW AND FULL SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS (G/SCM/N/253/…) NOT PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED 
3.  The Chair recalled that, in accordance with the Committee's procedures in G/SCM/117, only 
notifications that had been circulated to Members in all three WTO working languages not later 
than 30 June 2014 could be reviewed at this meeting. These notifications were listed in 
WTO/AIR/4330. Written questions pertaining to th ose notifications had been due by 28 July 2014, 
and written answers by 29 September 2014.  
1.1  Bahrain, Kingdom of (G/SCM/N/253/BHR) 4.  No Member raised any question or comment about this notification. 
5.  The Committee took note of the notification.  
1.2  Brazil (G/SCM/N/253/BRA) 
6.  Written questions and answers concerning this notification can be found in: 
 G/SCM/Q2/BRA/39 – questions from New Zealand 
 G/SCM/Q2/BRA/40 – questions from Australia 
 G/SCM/Q2/BRA/41 – questions from Canada 
 G/SCM/Q2/BRA/42 – questions from the United States 
 G/SCM/Q2/BRA/43 – replies to Australia 
 G/SCM/Q2/BRA/44 – replies to Canada 
 G/SCM/Q2/BRA/45 – replies to New Zealand  
 G/SCM/Q2/BRA/46 – replies to the United States1 
                                               
1 A corrigendum of Brazil's reply to the US questions, dated 30 October 2014, was circulated in 
document G/SCM/Q2/BRA/46/Corr.1. G/SCM/M/90 
 
- 3 - 
 
  7.  New Zealand recalled its interest in fisheries subsidies, particularly in the context of the 
2012 RIO+20 commitments to further improve the tran sparency and reporting of existing fisheries 
subsidies programmes through the WTO, which was an important contribution to the Doha Mandate "to clarify and improve WTO disciplines on fisheries subsidies".  
8.  Regarding Brazil's Programme for Vessel Fleet Enlargement and Modernization, New Zealand 
understood it had been non-operational since 2008 and was being redesigned by the government. New Zealand encouraged Brazil to reform the programme with the RIO+20 leaders' 
encouragement in mind to eliminate subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing and 
to refrain from introducing new such subsidies. It also urged Brazil to reflect on possibly replacing the programme and on alternative policy options. 
9.  The United States noted that it might submit follow-up written questions.
2 
10.  The Chair noted that in keeping with the Committee's standard practice, because of the late 
receipt of the questions from Canada and the Unit ed States, and the recentness of Brazil's replies 
to all questions, this notification would be placed again on the agenda of the Committee's 
spring 2015 special meeting for continuing review, to allow the Committee a full opportunity for 
follow-up. 
11.  The Committee took note of the notification , questions and answers, and statements made. 
1.3  Chile (G/SCM/N/253/CHL) 
12.  Written questions concerning this notification can be found in: 
 G/SCM/Q2/CHL/25 – question from Australia 
 
13.  The Chair noted that the question from Aust ralia had been submitted by the deadline. Chile 
had not yet submitted a written reply.  
14.  Chile stated that it would submit its written reply very soon3 and explained that the funding 
was not discretionary; a procedure was followed and comprehensive regulations applied. 
Applicants had to submit their projects in order to qualify for funding. On the basis of the decision made by an adjudicatory committee, the Regional Prefect (the highest administrative authority in 
the region) should issue the Decision conferring the benefit in accordance with the financial 
resources available and the order of priority that had been established when the projects had been 
assessed. Where funds were available, the Prefect was authorized to provide a grant to projects 
that had not obtained one during the initial application period, subject to the order of priority 
established during the assessment process and the funds available or, with the approval of the 
Budget Division of the Ministry of Finance, by establishing a second application period for the 
remainder of the existing budget.  
15.  The Chair noted that as written replies had not been yet submitted by Chile, and in keeping 
with the Committee's standard practice, this notifi cation would be placed on the agenda of the 
Committee's spring 2015 special meeting for continuing review. 
16.  The Committee took note of the notification, question and statements made. 
1.4  Congo (G/SCM/N/95/COG-G/SCM/N/123/COG-G/SCM/N/155/COG-
G/SCM/N/186/COG-G/SCM/N/220/COG-G/SCM/N/253/COG) 
17.  This multiple-symbolled nil notification was for 2013, 2011, 2009, 2007, 2005 and 2003. No 
Member raised any question or comment in respect of this notification.  
18.  The Committee took note of the notification. 
                                               
2 The United States submitted follow-up questions on 18 November 2014, circulated in document 
G/SCM/Q2/BRA/47. 
3 Chile's written reply was submitted on 9 December 2014 and was circulated in G/SCM/Q2/CHL/26. G/SCM/M/90 
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.5  European Union – (G/SCM/N/253/EU/Addend a 2, 6 and 14, respectively pertaining 
to Belgium, Denmark and Italy) 
19.  Written questions and answers concerning this notification can be found in: 
 G/SCM/Q2/EU/35 – questions from the United States (Denmark and Italy) 
 G/SCM/Q2/EU/36 – questions from Australia (Belgium and Denmark) 
 G/SCM/Q2/EU/38 – replies to the United States (Denmark and Italy) 
 G/SCM/Q2/EU/40 – replies to Australia (Denmark) 
 
20.  The European Union noted that with regard to Australia's question about Belgium, it was still 
processing with Belgium the information necessary and believed that it would provide a full reply in the near future. 
21.  The Chair recalled that due to the submission of the EU's written replies a few days prior to 
the meeting, and in keeping with the Committee's standard practice, this notification would be 
placed on the agenda of the Committee's spring  2015 special meeting for continuing review. 
22.  The Committee took note of the notification , questions and answers, and statements made. 
1.6  Honduras (G/SCM/N/253/HND/Suppl.1) 
23.  No Member raised any question or comment about this notification.  
24.  The Committee took note of the notification. 
1.7  India (G/SCM/N/253/IND) 
25.  Written questions and answers concerning this notification can be found in: 
 G/SCM/Q2/IND/31 – questions from New Zealand 
 G/SCM/Q2/IND/32 – questions from Japan 
 G/SCM/Q2/IND/33 – questions from Australia 
 G/SCM/Q2/IND/34 – questions from Canada 
 G/SCM/Q2/IND/35 – questions from the United States 
 G/SCM/Q2/IND/36 – replies to New Zealand 
 G/SCM/Q2/IND/37 – replies to Japan 
 G/SCM/Q2/IND/38 – replies to Australia 
 G/SCM/Q2/IND/39 – replies to Canada 
 G/SCM/Q2/IND/40 – replies to the United States 
 
26.  India noted that with its recently submitted new and full notification on fisheries subsidies for 
the years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, India had notifi ed up to the current year. Indian fisheries 
mainly consisted of small-scale enterprises, as in most developing and tropical countries. Due to 
the low economic status of fishermen and their difficulties to generate financial resources, the 
government provided subsidies to improve the income, quality of life and socioeconomic conditions of poor and traditional coastal fishermen. India believed that the total amount of subsidies was 
miniscule in terms of the total operations.  
27.  Regarding questions on India's previous no tification for 2010-2011 and 2011-2012, raised by 
New Zealand, Japan, Australia, Canada and the United States, India stated that it had submitted 
responses to all those questions. 
28.  Japan noted that it might submit follow-up questions, if necessary. 
29.  The United States also noted that it mi ght submit follow-up questions based on India's 
replies.4  
                                               
4 After the meeting, the United States submitted follow-up questions, dated 18 November 2014, 
circulated in G/SCM/Q2/IND/41.  G/SCM/M/90 
 
- 5 - 
 
  30.  Australia asked India whether it intended to notify programmes other than fisheries subsidies.  
31.  New Zealand asked India to clarify whether its fisheries subsidies programmes, such as the 
Vessel Construction and Conversion Programme, were available for fishing on the high seas, 
beyond the Indian EEZ.  
32.  Canada was disappointed to note that India's replies did not appear to actually respond to the 
questions asked and was considering submitting follow-up questions.  
33.  On the clarification sought by New Zealan d, India confirmed that its fisheries subsidy 
programmes, listed in its notification and in New Zealand's questions, were available for fishing on 
the high seas.  
34.  Regarding Australia's question on notifying other subsidy programmes, India stated that it 
was work in progress and would notify them shortly.  
35.  As for Canada's question about when India would notify subsidy programmes for preferential 
tax policies for certain enterprises since the 2008-09 fiscal year, India noted that these programmes had been notified recently.   
36.  The Chair noted that due to the questions from Canada and the United States having been 
received one day after the deadline and the recent submission of the written replies by India, this 
notification would be placed on the agenda of the Committee's spring 2015 special meeting for 
continuing review. 
37.  The Committee took note of the notification , questions and answers, and statements made. 
1.8  Japan (G/SCM/N/253/JPN/Suppl.1) 
38.  Written questions and answers regarding this notification can be found in: 
 G/SCM/Q2/JPN/66 – questions from New Zealand 
 G/SCM/Q2/JPN/67 – questions from Australia 
 G/SCM/Q2/JPN/68 – replies to New Zealand 
 G/SCM/Q2/JPN/69 – replies to Australia 
 39.  Australia asked Japan to clarify its response to Australia’s written question on how Japan’s 
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, in the context of its fisheries modernisation fund 
interest subsidy, determined beneficiaries; in particular, whether there were performance or eligibility requirements for receiving the interest rate support. 
40.  Japan would seek to provide Australia with th e required clarifications, if presented in writing.
5 
41.  The Committee took note of the notificati on, questions and answers, and statements.  
1.9  Russian Federation (G/SCM/N/253/RUS/Rev.1) 
42.  Written questions regarding this notification can be found in: 
 G/SCM/Q2/RUS/8 – questions from New Zealand 
 G/SCM/Q2/RUS/9 & G/SCM/Q2/RUS/9/Corr.1 – questions from Japan 
 G/SCM/Q2/RUS/10 – questions and follow-up questions from the United States 
 
43.  The Russian Federation stated that the qu estions submitted were numerous and complicated 
and that it was working with relevant Ministries and other authorities to prepare and submit 
comprehensive replies in due course. 
                                               
5 After the meeting, Australia su bmitted follow-up questions, date d 11 February 2015, in document 
G/SCM/Q2/JPN/70. G/SCM/M/90 
 
- 6 - 
 
  44.  The Chair noted that because the US questions were received one day after the deadline and 
no written replies to any set of questions had yet been received, this notification would be on the 
agenda of the Committee's spring 2015 sp ecial meeting for continuing review. 
45.  The Committee took note of the notification and statements made.   
1.10  Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of (G/SCM/N/253/SAU) 46.  No Member raised any question or comment about this notification.  47.  The Committee took note of the notification. 
1.11  Senegal (G/SCM/N/253/SEN) 48.  No Member raised any question or comment about this notification.  49.  The Committee took note of the notification. 
1.12  Turkey (G/SCM/N/253/TUR) 
50.  Written questions regarding this notification can be found in: 
 G/SCM/Q2/TUR/28 – questions from Australia 
 G/SCM/Q2/TUR/29 – questions from Canada 
 G/SCM/Q2/TUR/30 – questions from the United States 
 51.  Turkey noted that it would provide written replies to the questions from Australia and the 
United States in the near future but could provide immediately a brief response.6 
52.  On Australia's first question, whether producers/exporters of wheat, wheat flour, semolina, 
dairy products (yogurt, cheese, butter), meat of bovine animals, sheep meat had received export 
subsidies during the reporting period, Turkey repl ied that only products specified in Turkey's 
notification (G/SCM/N/253/TUR) were eligible to receive export subsidies for the years 2012 
and 2013. On Australia's third question whet her the Energy Support programme had been 
terminated on 31 December 2012, Turkey confirmed that this was the case.   
53.  On the first two questions submitted by the United States, on the meaning of "deduction of 
debts" and the identity of the "public corporat ions" to whom those debts were owed, Turkey 
responded that, as indicated in its notification, agricultural subsidies were not provided in cash. In 
order to benefit from those subsidies, the exporters had to open bank accounts at the Central 
Bank of Turkey. Upon the exportation of the agricu ltural products stated in the notification, the 
amount of expenses (debts owed to the Ministry of  Finance -Tax Collection Offices, Social Security 
Institution, etc.), such as taxes, social secu rity premiums, energy and telecommunications costs 
were covered by the Central Bank on behalf of the exporters via their accounts. Turkey also replied 
to the third US question whether, in calculating the amount of subsidies, the "fixed amount per unit" pertained to amount of production or exportation, or both, by noting that it pertained to the 
amount of exportation.  
54.  The Chair noted that as the questions from Canada and the United States were received one 
day after the deadline and Turkey had not yet submitted written replies, this notification would be 
placed on the agenda of the Committee's next special meeting in spring 2015 for continuing 
review. 
55.  The Committee took note of the notification, questions and statements made. 
                                               
6 Turkey submitted written replies to the Australian and US questions a few days after the meeting. 
They were circulated in G/SCM/Q2/TUR /31 and G/SCM/Q2/TUR/32 respectively. G/SCM/M/90 
 
- 7 - 
 
  2  REVIEW OF 2001 NEW AND FULL SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS (G/SCM/N/71/…) NOT 
PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED  
2.1  Congo (G/SCM/N/25/COG-G/SCM/N/38/COG-G/SCM/N/48/COG–
G/SCM/N/60/COG-G/SCM/N/71/COG) 
56.  This multi-symbolled nil notification was a new and full notification for 2001 and 1998, and an 
updating notification for 2000, 1999 and 1997. No  Member raised any questions or comments in 
respect of this notification.  
57.  The Committee took note of the notification. 
3  2014 TRANSPARENCY NOTIFICATIONS (G/SCM/N/275/…) SUBMITTED IN THE 
CONTEXT OF ARTICLE 27.4 OF THE SCM AGREEMENT  
3.1  Jordan (G/SCM/N/275/JOR) 
58.  No Member raised any question or comment about this notification.  
59.  The Committee took note of the notification.  
3.2  Saint Lucia (G/SCM/N/275/LCA) 
60.  No Member raised any question or comment about this notification.  
61.  The Committee took note of the notification.  
62.  The Chair recalled that a number of other Members with Article 27.4 extensions – namely 
Antigua & Barbuda, Barbados, Dominica, Domini can Republic, Grenada, Guatemala, St. Kitts, 
Mauritius, El Salvador, and St. Vincent & the Grenadines –also had submitted transparency notifications. Those notifications and any other notifications from other Members under Article 27.4 would be on the agenda of the spring 2015 special meeting. 
4  CONTINUATION OF REVIEW OF 2013 NEW AND FULL NOTIFICATIONS 
(G/SCM/N/253/…) 
63.  The Chair recalled that agenda items 4, 5, 6 and 7 were for continuing the review of new and 
full notifications that had started at prior meet ings, but had not been completed, due to late 
submission of questions or non-submission or late submission of written replies. The Chair 
reminded Members, especially those that had not answered questions that had been put to them, 
that the exchange of written questions and answ ers was the essence of the review process for 
those notifications, as per the Committee's agreed procedures. Failure to promptly reply to such questions undermined transparency, and thus frustrated the purpose of the review. He urged all Members that had received but not yet replied to written questions concerning their subsidy 
notifications to submit their answers without further delay.   
64.  The Chair thanked delegations whose notifications were on the agenda under the remaining 
agenda items, and that had submitted their writte n answers prior to the meeting. This enhanced 
transparency and allowed the Committee to complete its review of those notifications.   
4.1  Canada (G/SCM/N/253/CAN) 65.  Written questions and answers regarding this notification can be found in: 
 G/SCM/Q2/CAN/59 – replies to Australia 
 G/SCM/Q2/CAN/60 – replies to New Zealand 
 G/SCM/Q2/CAN/61 – questions from the United States 
 G/SCM/M/90 
 
- 8 - 
 
  66.  Canada stated that it would provide a wr itten response to the US questions very soon.7 
67.  New Zealand requested further clarification on Ca nada's reply that it did not need to notify the 
Employment Insurance Fishing Benefits programme because it fell under the umbrella of Canada's 
broader Employment Insurance social programme. New Zealand still failed to understand how that 
specific programme, under that umbrella, could not be considered a specific subsidy that needed 
to be notified under the SCM Agreement.  
68.  Canada stated that its 2013 subsidy notification represented its best effort to notify all specific 
subsidy programmes both at the federal and sub-federal levels as required under Article 25 of the 
SCM Agreement.    
69.  The Chair noted that as no written replie s had been submitted to the US questions, the 
Committee would return to this notification at its spring 2015 special meeting for continuing 
review.   
70.  The Committee took note of the notification, questions and statements made. 
4.2  European Union (G/SCM/N/253/EU and Addenda 9, 10, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25 and 27, 
respectively pertaining to France, Germany,  Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, 
Spain and United Kingdom) 
 G/SCM/Q2/EU/28 – questions from New Zealand (EU, Poland, Portugal, Spain) 
 G/SCM/Q2/EU/30 – questions from Canada (France, Germany, United Kingdom) 
 G/SCM/Q2/EU/32 – questions from Australia (EU, France, Germany, Poland, Romania) 
 G/SCM/Q2/EU/33 & G/SCM/Q2/EU/33/Suppl.1 – replies to New Zealand (partial EU, Poland) 
 G/SCM/Q2/EU/34 – replies to Australia (partial EU, Poland) 
 G/SCM/Q2/EU/35 – questions from the United States (EU, France, Germany, Netherlands) 
 G/SCM/Q2/EU/37 – replies to Canada (France, Germany and United Kingdom) 
 G/SCM/Q2/EU/38 – replies to the United States (EU, Germany, Netherlands)  
 G/SCM/Q2/EU/39 & G/SCM/Q2/EU/39/Corr.1 – replies to Australia (EU, Germany, Romania) 
 G/SCM/Q2/EU/40 – replies to Australia (Denmark) 
 
71.  The European Union stated that it would submit its response to questions from the 
United States and Australia in resp ect of France in the near future.8  
72.  Next, the European Union addressed the question posed by New Zealand, which concerned 
Portugal and Spain's notifications in relation to the European Fisheries Fund notification. The 
European Union considered that those questions were not about Portugal's and Spain's 
notifications, but rather about the interaction between the EU and Member States' notifications, which was a complicated matter. This review actually had prompted the EU to file supplementary 
notifications in respect of three other member States, Finland, Lithuania and Slovenia. The EU was 
still in the process of examining that matter and, should there be a need for other supplementary notifications, the European Union would submit them in due course.  
73.  The Russian Federation stated that some subsidy programmes that might need to be notified 
under Article 25 of the SCM Agreement, had not been included in the relevant EU and member 
States' notifications, such as: Belgian subsidies under federal decree on the mechanism of stimulating the production of energy from re newable sources of 16 July 2002; Danish support 
programmes  for wind and solar energy generation; Italian subsidies under the national plan of 
actions within the framework of renewable energy of 30 June 2010 and incentives to solar energy 
production that had been in force since 2005; and German subsidy programmes to stimulate 
renewable energy generation, especially within regi onal jurisdictions. The Russian Federation noted 
that this was not an exhaustive list and it might submit questions regarding other subsidies granted by the EU and member States, including th ose provided on the regional level that had not 
been appropriately notified.  
                                               
7 Canada provided a written response to the US questions one day after the meeting, in 
G/SCM/Q2/CAN/62, to which the United States submitted follow-up questions in G/SCM/Q2/CAN/63. 
8 The EU submitted replies to the US questions in respect of France on 20 January 2015. These were 
circulated in G/SCM/Q2/EU/41.   G/SCM/M/90 
 
- 9 - 
 
  74.  The European Union noted it would do its best to provide replies to any future written 
question from the Russian Federation. 
75.  The Chair noted that the European Union had provided partial written replies to New Zealand 
and Australia shortly before the Committee’s meeting in April 2014, while it had provided replies to 
the questions from Canada and the United States, as well as to the remaining questions from 
New Zealand and to some of the outstanding questions from Australia, a few days prior to the present meeting. Because of the recentness of the written answers and in keeping with the 
Committee's standard practice, the Committee would return to this notification at its spring 2015 
special meeting for continuing review.   
76.  The Committee took note of the notification , questions and answers, and statements made. 
4.3  Japan (G/SCM/N/253/JPN) 
77.  Written questions and answers regarding this notification can be found in: 
 G/SCM/Q2/JPN/61 – replies to Canada  
 G/SCM/Q2/JPN/62 – replies to Australia 
 G/SCM/Q2/JPN/63 – questions from the United States 
 G/SCM/Q2/JPN/64 – replies to the United States 
 
78.  The Committee took note of the notification, questions and answers. 
4.4  Korea (G/SCM/N/253/KOR) 
79.  Written questions and answers regarding this notification can be found in: 
 G/SCM/Q2/KOR/50 – questions from Australia 
 G/SCM/Q2/KOR/51 – questions from New Zealand 
 G/SCM/Q2/KOR/52 – replies to Australia  
 G/SCM/Q2/KOR/53 – replies to New Zealand 
 
80.  Korea noted that, as explained in its replies in G/SCM/Q2/KOR/52 and 53, the support 
program for the development of deep sea fishery consists of grants provided for a cooperative 
fund which is used for interest rate subsidies for loans to deep-sea fishing companies or overseas 
resource development companies. The way funding was disbursed was decided by the national federation of fisheries cooperatives and Ko rea Overseas Fisheries Association while the 
government did not pre-determine how funding wa s disbursed. Regarding the support for fishery 
products processing development, the purpose of  the programme was to secure food safety by 
equipping small domestic fishery companies with sani tary systems such as HACCP. As to the effect 
of the programmes, it was difficult to give exact answers because the programmes themselves did 
not intend to affect trade and Korea did not officially identify or calculate trade effects in such 
detail. Korea expressed its readiness to answer any follow-up question. 
81.  New Zealand appreciated that it could be difficult to provide exact answers but believed it was 
important that Members at least attempted to answer the questions. New Zealand invited Korea to 
reflect further on the questions that New Zealand had asked and provide full responses in advance 
of the Committee's next meeting.  
82.  Korea responded that it would explore if there could be any additional reply.  
83.  The Chair noted that due to the recent submi ssion of written answers, and in keeping with the 
Committee's standard practice, the Committee would return to this notification at its spring 2015 
special meeting for continuing review.   
84.  The Committee took note of the notification , questions and answers, and statements made. 
4.5  Mexico (G/SCM/N/253/MEX) 
85.  Written answers regarding this notification can be found in: G/SCM/M/90 
 
- 10 - 
 
   G/SCM/Q2/MEX/30 – replies to Australia 
 G/SCM/Q2/MEX/31 – replies to the United States 
 86.  The Committee took note of the notification, questions and answers. 
4.6  Norway (G/SCM/N/253/NOR) 
87.  Written answers concerning this notification can be found in: 
 G/SCM/Q2/NOR/27 – replies to Australia 
 G/SCM/Q2/NOR/28 – replies to New Zealand 
 88.  The Committee took note of the notification, questions and answers. 
4.7  Peru (G/SCM/N/253/PER) 
89.  Written answers concerning this notification can be found in: 
 G/SCM/Q2/PER/11 – replies to New Zealand 
 
90.  The Committee took note of the notification, questions and answers. 
4.8  The Russian Federation (G/SCM/N/253/RUS) 
91.  Written questions and answers regarding this notification can be found in: 
 G/SCM/Q2/RUS/5 – replies to the United States 
 G/SCM/Q2/RUS/6 – replies to Australia 
 G/SCM/Q2/RUS/7 – additional replies to the United States 
 G/SCM/Q2/RUS/10 – questions and follow-up questions from the United States 
 
92.  The Russian Federation stated that it would submit its reply to the follow-up questions from 
the United States in the near future.  
93.  The Chair noted that as no written replies had yet been submitted to some of the questions, 
the Committee would return to this notification at its spring 2015 special meeting for continuing 
review.   
94.  The Committee took note of the notificati on, questions and answers and statements made. 
4.9  Chinese Taipei (G/SCM/N/253/TPKM) 
95.  Written answers concerning this notification can be found in: 
 G/SCM/Q2/TPKM/22 – replies to Australia 
 G/SCM/Q2/TPKM/23 – replies to New Zealand 
 96.  The Committee took note of the notification, questions and answers. 
5  CONTINUATION OF REVIEW OF 2011 (G/SCM/N/220/...) NEW AND FULL 
NOTIFICATIONS 
5.1  Argentina (G/SCM/N/220/ARG) 
97.  Written answers concerning this notification can be found in: 
 G/SCM/Q2/ARG/36 – replies to the European Union 
 G/SCM/Q2/ARG/37 – replies to the United States 
 
98.  The Committee took note of the notification, questions and answers. G/SCM/M/90 
 
- 11 - 
 
  5.2  Armenia (G/SCM/N/220/ARM) 
99.  Written questions and answers concerning this notification can be found in: 
 G/SCM/Q2/ARM/1 – questions from the United States 
 G/SCM/Q2/ARM/2 – replies to the United States 
 
100.  Armenia noted that the US questions related to two incentives for foreign investors. The first 
was the exemption from the payment of tariffs for goods imported to supplement the charter 
capital of enterprises. Armenia clarified that ther e were no criteria other than those mentioned in 
Armenia's 2010 TPR Report of the Secretariat, i.e. that the exemption was applied for specific goods listed in Government Decree No. 720, and only if such goods were not sold in the domestic market within three years of importation (Article 15 of the Law of Armenia on Foreign 
Investment).  
101.  The second was a profit tax break and a tariff exemption on the importation of certain capital 
inputs. The United States had asked whether that programme was limited to foreign investment in 
any particular sector of the economy. Armenia expl ained that the profit tax breaks were extended 
to foreign investments undertaken up to 2007 in all sectors of the economy, except banks and credit organizations. However, that exemption al ready had been terminated as scheduled. Tariff 
exemptions were equally extended across all economic sectors apart from the same limitation 
mentioned above. 
102.  The Chair noted that due to the written answers' submission one day before the meeting, the 
Committee would return to this notification at its spring 2015 special meeting for continuing 
review. 
103.  The Committee took note of the notification s, questions and answers and statements made. 
5.3  Honduras (G/SCM/N/220/HND/Rev.1) 
104.  Written questions concerning this notification can be found in: 
 G/SCM/Q2/HND/9 – questions from the European Union 
 
105.  Honduras informed the Committee that the written answers were almost ready and would be 
submitted shortly after the meeting.9  
106.  The Chair noted that as no written replies had been submitted yet, and in keeping with the 
Committee's standard practice, the Committee would return to this notification at its spring 2015 
special meeting for continuing review.   
107.  The Committee took note of the notificati on, questions and answers and statements made. 
5.4  Thailand (G/SCM/N/220/THA-G/SCM/N/253/THA) 
108.  Written questions and answers concerning this notification can be found in: 
 G/SCM/Q2/THA/24 – questions from the United States 
 G/SCM/Q2/THA/25 – replies to the United States 
 
109.  The Committee took note of the notification, questions and answers. 
                                               
9 Honduras submitted its replies to the European Union a few days after th e meeting and they were 
circulated in G/SCM/Q2/HND/10. G/SCM/M/90 
 
- 12 - 
 
  6  CONTINUATION OF REVIEW OF 2009 (G/SCM/N/186/...) NEW AND FULL 
NOTIFICATIONS 
6.1  Gabon (G/SCM/N/186/GAB) 110.  Written questions concerning this notification can be found in: 
 G/SCM/Q2/GAB/1 – questions from the United States 
 G/SCM/Q2/GAB/2 – questions from Turkey 
 
111.  The Chair noted that as no written replies had been submitted yet, and in keeping with the 
Committee's standard practice, the Committee would return to this notification at its spring 2015 
special meeting for continuing review.   
112.  The Committee took note of the notification and questions. 
6.2  Turkey (G/SCM/N/186/TUR) 113.  Written questions concerning this notification can be found in: 
 G/SCM/Q2/TUR/23 – questions from Australia 
 
114.  The Chair noted that as no written replies had been submitted yet, and in keeping with the 
Committee's standard practice, the Committee would return to this notification at its spring 2015 
special meeting for continuing review.   
115.   The Committee took note of the notification and questions. 
7  CONTINUATION OF REVIEW OF 2007 (G/SCM/N/155/...) NEW AND FULL 
NOTIFICATIONS 
7.1  Viet Nam (G/SCM/N/155/VNM) 
116.  Written questions concerning this notification can be found in:  G/SCM/Q2/VNM/2 & G/SCM/Q2/VMN/2/Corr.1 – replies to the United States 
 G/SCM/Q2/VNM/3 – follow-up questions from the United States 
 117.  Viet Nam noted that the follow-up questions from the United States were only received one 
week before the meeting and it would provide a reply as soon as possible.  
118.  The United States noted that many of the questions related to Viet Nam's accession to the 
WTO and were, in its view, quite important. Further, Viet Nam had submitted its one and only 
notification in 2013 covering the period 2005-2007 and was six years behind in providing subsidy 
notifications. The United States urged Viet Nam to update its notifications as soon as possible.  
119.  Viet Nam stated that its notification for the period 2011-2013 would be submitted soon. 
120.  The United States asked, as Viet Nam's previous notification covered 2005-2007 and the 
next one would cover 2011-2013, when Viet Na m would notify the intermediate period. The 
United States recognized that it was better to provide recent information, but it was interested in Viet Nam's plans for the period in the middle.   
121.   Viet Nam would report the concern expressed by the United States to the capital and revert. 
122.  The Chair noted that as no written replies had been submitted yet, and in keeping with the 
Committee's standard practice, the Committee would return to this notification at its spring 2015 
special meeting for continuing review.   
123.  The Committee took note of the notificati on, questions and answers and statements made. G/SCM/M/90 
 
- 13 - 
 
  124.  The Chair reminded those delegations that had not yet replied to questions that they had 
received in connection with previous meetings to provide written responses without further delay, 
so that the Committee could conclude the review of those notifications. He also reminded Members that had not yet done so to submit their 2013 new and full notifications as soon as possible. Those 
notifications would need to be circulated in all three working languages not later than 
29 December 2014 to be placed on the agenda of the Committee's April 2015 special meeting. The Chair and the Secretariat stood ready to offer any assistance in complying with this important 
obligation. 
125.  The Chair informed Members that shortly af ter the meeting, the Secretariat would circulate 
the usual triple-symbolled document containing all of the deadlines for documents to be 
submitted.10  
126.  The Committee's special meeting was closed. 
 
 
__________  
                                               
10 Circulated in G/ADP/W/491-G/SCM/W/563-G/SG/W/232 and G/ADP/W/491/Corr.1-
G/SCM/W/563/Corr.1-G/SG/W/232/Corr.1.