RESTRICTED  
  
G/TRIMS/M/39  
 
2 February 2016  
(16-0684)  Page: 1/15  
Committee on Trade-Related Investment Measures    
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 5 OCTOBER 2015 
CHAIR: MR ZAHER AL-QATARNEH (JORDAN) 
1.  The Chair referred to the proposed agenda circulated in document WTO/AIR/TRIMS/2 dated 
25 September 2015. The Committee adopted the following agenda: 
1   INDIA – LOCAL CONTENT REQUIREMENT IN SOLAR POWER GENERATION 
PROJECTS ...................................................................................................................... .. 1 
2   INDONESIA – LOCAL CONTENT REQUIREMENTS FOR 4G LTE MOBILE DEVICES ........... 2  
3   INDONESIA - CERTAIN LOCAL CO NTENT PROVISIONS IN THE ENERGY 
SECTOR (MINING, OIL AND GAS) ..................................................................................... 4  
4   INDONESIA – NEWLY ADOPTED INDUSTRY LAW AND TRADE LAW ............................. 5  
5   INDONESIA – MINIMUM LOCAL PRODUCT REQUIREMENT FOR MODERN 
RETAIL SECTOR ................................................................................................................ 6  
6   INDONESIA – CERTAIN MEASURES  ADDRESSING LOCAL CONTENT IN 
INVESTMENT IN THE TELECO MMUNICATIONS SECTOR .................................................... 7  
7   REPUBLIC OF KOREA – ASSISTANCE MEASURES FOR AGRICULTURAL 
MACHINERY .....................................................................................................................  8 
8   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 .............................................................................................. 8
 
9   RUSSIAN FEDERATION – LOCAL CONTENT REQUIREMENTS FOR PURCHASES 
BY STATE-OWNED ENTERPRISES ................................................................................... 10  
10   RUSSIAN FEDERATION – LOCAL CONTENT REQUIREMENTS FOR 
AGRICULTURAL EQUIPMENT .......................................................................................... 11  
11   RUSSIAN FEDERATION – SUPPORT MEASURES FOR THE AUTOMOTIVE SECTOR ........................................................................................................................ .. 12
 
12   UNITED STATES – CERTAIN LOCAL CONTENT REQUIREMENTS IN SOME OF 
THE RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAMMES ....................................................................... 14  
13   NOTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 6.2 OF THE TRIMS AGREEMENT .......................... 14  
14   OTHER BU SINESS .................................................................................................... 15  
15   ANNUAL REPORT ..................................................................................................... 15  
16   DATE OF THE NEXT MEET ING .................................................................................. 15  
 
1  INDIA – LOCAL CONTENT REQUIREMENT IN SOLAR POWER GENERATION PROJECTS 
2.  The Chair noted that that this item was on the agenda at the request of the European Union. 
Questions to India had been circulated in document G/TRIMS/W/147.   
3.  The European Union thanked India for its oral replies at the Committee's April meeting. 
However, the European Union was unable to find the information sought on the website, and G/TRIMS/M/39 
 
- 2 - 
 
  therefore asked India to provide detailed replies to its questions. The European Union was still 
concerned about India's local content requirements in the solar power generator sector, and hoped that for future projects India would depart from localization policies for the benefit of foreign players, free trade and its national solar mission.  
4.  Japan shared the European Union's concerns, and looked forward to receiving India's written 
responses as soon as possible. 
5.  India was preparing written responses to th e questions. Details on the two schemes were 
available on the Department's website ( http://www.mnre.gov.in/ ) ,  a s  w e l l  a s  o n  t h e  p r e s s  
information bureau website of the Government of India ( http://pib.nic.in ). The specific web links 
were http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=113057 ; 
http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=115905 . 
6.  The European Union requested that the link be provided in writing, and India confirmed that it 
would do so.   
7.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
2  INDONESIA – LOCAL CONTENT REQUIREMENTS FOR 4G LTE MOBILE DEVICES 8.  The Chair noted that this item was on th e agenda at the request of the United States. 
Questions to Indonesia had been circulated in document G/TRIMS/W/148, and replies had been 
circulated in document G/TRIMS/W/162.  
9.  The United States remained concerned about Indonesia's efforts to impose local content 
requirements on 4G LTE mobile devices and base stations, especially now that Indonesia's Ministry 
of Communications and Information Technology had adopted the measure. Indonesia had 
announced an economic policy package aimed at improving its business and investment climate, 
and was undertaking a process to deregulate and re move inefficiencies in the economy, which the 
United States welcomed, but until concrete steps were taken to remove these measures, it 
remained very concerned.  
10.  The United States understood the Ministry ha d adopted Regulation 27 of 2015 on 3 July. The 
measure required 20% local content for 4G LTE subscriber stations - that is, any device that 
connects to a mobile network, such as a phone, tablet or laptop. It also required 30% local content 
for 4G LTE base stations – that is, the boxes that container radio transceivers, duplexes and amplifiers. These levels would increase to 30% and 40% respectively on 1 January 2017 for the 2100 megahertz, 1800 megahertz, and 900 megahertz radio frequencies and the increase would 
go into effect on 1 January 2019 for the 2300 megahertz radio frequency. Could Indonesia please 
confirm that this understanding was correct?  
11.  The United States understood that companies would have to obtain a "certificate or 
statement" from the Minister in charge of governmental affairs in the industrial sector to 
demonstrate that they had fulfilled the local content requirement. What was the procedure by which such a certificate or statement was obtained? What were the differences between a 
certificate and a statement? Was the certificate or statement a prerequisite for other documents, 
such as other technical requirements or import licensing requirements? What were the consequences if a company was unable to fulfil th e requirement and therefore could not obtain the 
certificate or statement? The United States also  understood that the Ministry of Industry had 
adopted Regulation 68 of 2015 revising the calc ulation methodology but that the methodology 
would be subject to further lower level implementation regulations, and asked that Indonesia keep it informed of developments.  
12.  These measures illustrated the dangers of lo cal content requirements. Electronic equipment of 
the type covered by these measures was supported  by international supply chains. No product was 
entirely manufactured or assembled in any one jurisdiction and it made no economic sense for 
companies to operate parallel manufacturing facilities in several countries for similar parts and 
components. Further, this measure applied to a broad range of companies, including companies that may design devices but not manufacture them directly, as well as companies that primarily developed software that runs on the devices. While the effect of implementation was not yet G/TRIMS/M/39 
 
- 3 - 
 
  known, the most likely result was to cut Indonesian consumers off from the most up-to-date 
equipment. One possible outcome was that versions of laptops and tablets that connect to mobile 
phone networks simply wouldn't be sold in Indone sia. Further, in some countries that had tried 
similar approaches, a thriving black market had developed resulting in consumers paying high 
prices for products without warranties, the government being deprived of tax revenue and the end 
of local manufacturing. The only thing Indonesia would have accomplished would be to send a clear signal that it is not a safe place to invest. 
13.  If the measures succeeded and production did in fact move to Indonesia, this outcome was of 
even greater concern. Given the nature of the products, manufacturers were unlikely to set up solely to supply the Indonesian market. Rather, if Indonesia's measures were successful companies might decide that they had no choice but to move facilities to Indonesia to supply both 
the Indonesian and export markets. As investor s looked to make new investments, they might 
shun smaller developing countries because if they did not set up manufacturing in Indonesia, they might not be able to sell their products in the la rge Indonesian market. Such an outcome might be 
a boon to Indonesia, but would come at the expense of countries where these products were 
currently manufactured. Thus, Indonesia would be stealing investment from its smaller neighbours. 
14.  In sum, these measures did not reflect the reality of how products were manufactured. They 
resulted in more favourable treatment for domestic products over imported products and investors could be penalized if they did not comply. The United States understood that Indonesia had begun a process aimed at removing measures such as these in the very near future. If this were the 
case, it would be greatly welcomed as it would indicate that Indonesia was open to attracting 
foreign investment. Could Indonesia provide further information about the review process and about plans to curtail local content requirements?  
15.  Japan was disappointed that the Indonesian Ministry of Communications and Information 
Technology had signed its regulation on technica l requirements of LTE technology standard based 
communication tools and/or devices, despite the concerns raised. Japan had strong doubts about 
the consistency of the regulation with GATT Arti cle III:4 and Article 2.1 of the TRIMs Agreement. 
Japan asked Indonesia to provide detailed clarification on the measures concerned and to bring them into consistency with the WTO Agreement. 
16.  The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu recognized Indonesia's 
policy to integrate itself into global value chains. However, this had to be done in line with its WTO 
commitments. It shared the concerns raised by the United States and wondered whether the local content requirements were incompatible with WTO provisions.  
17.  Canada was closely following the developmen t of these regulations. It was concerned about 
the impact these regulations could have on trad e and questioned their overall effectiveness.  
18.  The European Union shared these concerns and was interested in knowing more about the 
process of the regulations. 19.  Indonesia thanked delegations for their interest in its plan to move up the manufacturing 
chain by requiring companies investing in Indonesia to develop domestic manufacturing, which 
was intended to further integrate Indonesia into global value chains. It would only apply to the 4G 
LTE sector, and would not discriminate between do mestic and foreign investors. Implementing 
regulations had been issued through Ministry of Communication and Information Regulation No. 27/2015 on 8 July 2015 which was now being translated and notified to relevant WTO bodies. 
The process had been transparent and inclusive, involving all stakeholders including international 
producers in public consultations. The regulations established technical standards for 4G LTE base and subscriber stations, including a minimum local content of only 30% for base stations and 20% 
for subscriber stations commonly known as 4G LTE smartphones. The policy was not an 
investment measure as it only set technical standards and minimum local content requirements. It was consistent with Article III:4 of GATT 1994 as it applied to domestic and imported products. The 20% local content requirement meant that 80 % of the contents of the products could be 
imported, and almost all local brands of 4G LTE contained more than 80% foreign inputs. Thus, 
the policy did not treat foreign products less favourably than imported products.  G/TRIMS/M/39 
 
- 4 - 
 
  20.  Indonesia was a developing country with income per capita of US$4,000 yet it had become a 
huge market for 4G LTEs. In 2014, cell phones were its second largest import after oil and gas. A recent study indicated that in 2017 there would be over 400 million cell phones in Indonesia while the country's population was projected to be on ly 262.5 million. The regulation did not seek to 
protect the domestic industry, whose market share was tiny compared to that of international 
brands, but rather to benefit Indonesia's development and increase its role in global value chains. It was difficult to understand why a giant international brand that enjoyed Indonesia's huge 
market would be reluctant to contribute to Indonesia's development by, for example, establishing 
a service centre in Indonesia to serve its one million customers. If this measure was not in conformity with the TRIMs Agreement, then it wa s a perfect example of the need for special and 
differential treatment under the TRIMs Agreement as proposed recently by the G-90 in the 
Committee on Trade and Development in Special Session. Indonesia requested that Members with 
questions provide them in writing for referral to capital.  
21.  The United States looked forward to learning more about the review process as it understood 
that Indonesia would be fundamentally revising ma ny of the measures discussed in this and prior 
meetings. The United States acknowledged that a 20% local content requirement meant that 80% 
of the product could be imported, but asked Indone sia what the result would be if an investor 
imported products into Indonesia that did not meet local content requirements? With respect to 
Indonesia's reference to giant international companies, the damage caused by these local content requirements would not be to manufacturing in developed countries, but to manufacturing in other developing countries, likely Indonesia's neighbours.  
22.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
3  INDONESIA - CERTAIN LOCAL CONTENT PROVISIONS IN THE ENERGY SECTOR 
(MINING, OIL AND GAS) 
23.  The Chair noted that this item had been before the Committee since October 2009. Questions 
to Indonesia had been circulated in documents G/TRIMS/W/70, 88, 108 and 128, to which 
Indonesia had replied in documents G/TRIMS/W/74, 79, 100, 123, 128, 137 and 137/Corr.1. It 
had been placed on the agenda at the requ est of the European Union, Japan and the 
United States. 
24.  Japan observed that while it had raised this matter in the past nine meetings of the 
Committee, the situation had not improved. Japan considered that the prohibition on the 
exportation of raw materials under the mining law violated GATT Article XI which required the 
elimination of quantitative restrictions on imports and exports. Since the establishment of a new government in Indonesia, Japan had argued, including at the heads-of-state level, that Indonesia 
needed to review these issues. Japan still intended to solve this issue through dialogue but had 
been considering the steps available under the DSU.  
25.  The United States remained concerned with investment restrictions in Indonesia's energy 
sector, and had questions about the requirement to "prioritize" the use of domestic goods and 
services in the mining, oil and gas sectors. Responses from Indonesia appeared to confirm fears that "prioritize" might be a polite way of saying "require". Some of Indonesia's earlier responses 
seemed to hint that consideration of circumstances,  such as price and quality, might be relevant to 
determining whether local content would apply, but more recent responses made clear that there 
was very little flexibility and that the determining factor was whether the product was available on the domestic market. It was hard to conceive of a more negative signal to potential investors than 
telling them that they were prohibited from considering the price and quality of the inputs they 
purchased. The United States understood that a draft Oil and Gas Bill was under discussion in Parliament, and sought an update of those discussions, as well as the timing for passage of the 
draft bill. It also asked whether measures in the energy and mining sectors were under 
reconsideration in Indonesia's review process.  
26.  The European Union had repeatedly conveyed its concerns with regard to local content in 
Indonesian legislation covering mining products , minerals and coal. Several Members had already 
shared doubts on the compatibility of the measures with the WTO Agreement. It regretted that 
Indonesia had not reviewed these measures and asked whether it intended to do so. More broadly, the European Union asked if measures had been taken in the Indonesian mineral and resources G/TRIMS/M/39 
 
- 5 - 
 
  sector which included not only import requirements, but also export restrictions and limits imposed 
to foreign participation. It was also interested in knowing more on the draft legislation under consideration by Parliament.  
27.  Australia was disappointed that it must once again raise these issues. Australia was 
particularly concerned about ownership investment requirements, restrictions on the export of raw 
materials, pressure to renegotiate contracts of work and restrictions on obtaining approval for expatriate employees. These regulations created uncertainty for foreign and Indonesian mining 
ventures operating in Indonesia and were affecting investor confidence more broadly. Australia 
hoped for clarification and action from Indonesia on these regulations.  
28.  Canada remained very concerned about the potential negative impact, both on current and 
future foreign mining investments in Indonesia, particularly in relation to the export ban and local 
processing requirements.  
29.  Indonesia referred to its responses in documents G/TRIMS/W/100, 123, 128, 131, 137 and 
137/Corr.1. It further informed Members that its oil and gas law was under review by Parliament. 
Indonesia was ready to engage constructively with Members to further discuss this matter. If 
Members had questions on Indonesia's responses,  they should be provided in writing.  
30.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
4  INDONESIA – NEWLY ADOPTED INDUSTRY LAW AND TRADE LAW 31.  The Chair stated that this item was on the agenda at the request of the European Union, 
Japan and the United States. Questions to Indonesia had been circulated in documents 
G/TRIMS/W/138 and 140, to which Indonesia has responded in documents G/TRIMS/W/157 and 
G/TRIMS/W/158.  
32.  Japan expressed its concern about the Law on Trade and Industry, which introduced a legal 
framework for further trade-restrictive measures. More precisely, Articles 26 and 54 of the Law on 
Trade seemed to allow Indonesia to control exports and imports 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. In Indonesia's Law on Industry, Articles 32 and 33 banned or restricted 
the import and use of natural resources and Article 87 set local content requirements for specific 
industries. Japan took note of the written answer s submitted by Indonesia in April, but was even 
more preoccupied with the ambiguity of the meas ures, and about their consistency Articles XI:1 
and Article III:4 of GATT 1994 and Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement. It would closely monitor how 
they were implemented. 
33.  The European Union reiterated its concern that these laws leaned towards protectionism and 
were trade-restrictive. Could Indonesia provid e an update on the implementation of these 
regulations? How and when would they be open to public consultation? Did Indonesia's reform 
package affect the planned implementing regulati ons? The European Union also reiterated its 
concern about the possibility to impose export bans, the mandatory use of domestic products and 
increase of national standards and the use of safe guards to protect the industry from competition. 
With regard to the mandatory use of domestic products and Indonesia's reply that this would be reserved only to government procurement, the European Union asked Indonesia to clarify how the provisions of local content and use of domestic good s in the regulation on the modern retail sector 
for the telecommunications and LTE sectors were consistent with the provisions on the mandatory 
use of local content as detail ed in Indonesia's reply.  
34.  The United States shared the concerns expr essed. It had outlined in prior meetings the 
provisions of particular concern, Industry Law provisions 32, 33 and 84 and Trade Law provisions 
35 and 54, and requested Indonesia to keep the Co mmittee apprised of developments with respect 
to these laws and their implementation. 
35.  New Zealand echoed the concerns raised. This law opened the door for an increase in 
protectionist measures across all sectors of the Indonesian economy. New Zealand would closely 
watch Indonesia's implementing measures for WTO compatibility. New Zealand welcomed G/TRIMS/M/39 
 
- 6 - 
 
  Indonesia's decision to review its regulatory regime and hoped it would consider the regulations 
raised in the TRIMs Committee as part of that review.  
36.  Canada noted that since the entry into forc e of these laws, no implementing regulations had 
been released, and requested an update on th e status of these implementing regulations. 
37.  Australia shared the concerns of other delegations. While Australia understood Indonesia's 
interest in designing measures to foster growth  in small to medium-sized enterprises, the WTO 
rules provided the parameters on how to provide assistance to industry sectors while avoiding 
trade impacts on other Members' interests. How Indonesia implemented the trade and industry 
laws would be crucial to how they impacted trade and investment. Australia was particularly interested in what implementation would mean for Indonesia's use of trade remedies. For example, the trade law appeared to allow Indonesia to unilaterally take retaliatory trade measures 
against trading partners who took legitimate trade remedy measures. Australia would appreciate 
an update on how Indonesia intended to go forw ard in issuing its implementing regulations.  
38.  The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu shared the concerns 
raised by other delegations regarding export/import restrictions, local content requirements and 
the use of trade remedies. It understood that impl ementing regulations would be completed within 
two years, i.e. by 11 March 2015 and that the official  translation of those laws was still in process. 
It looked forward to reviewing the translated regulations.  
39.  Indonesia thanked delegations for their continued interest in these laws. Indonesia referred to 
its responses in documents G/TRIMS/W/157 and 158. The Government of Indonesia was 
responsible for ensuring the availability of ba sic and essential goods in sufficient quantity, 
affordable price and excellent quality for the sake of development and public welfare. Measures 
taken in assuming this responsibility would take into account Indonesia's commitment to WTO rules. So far Indonesia did not have information regarding the progress of the review. However, 
143 economic regulations would be repealed - of which 32 directly related to trade.  
40.  The United States asked Indonesia to provide a list of the 143 economic regulations that 
would be repealed.  
41.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
5  INDONESIA – MINIMUM LOCAL PRODUC T REQUIREMENT FOR MODERN RETAIL 
SECTOR 
42.  The Chair noted that this item was on the agenda at the request of the European Union, Japan 
and the United States. Questions to Indonesia from the United States and the European Union had 
been circulated in documents G/TRIMS/W/139 and 41 respectively, and responses provided in G/TRIMS/W/159 and G/TRIMS/W/161.  
43.  The European Union was concerned about the 80% local content requirement imposed by 
Regulation 70/2013. This regulation required sho pping centres and modern stores to meet an 80% 
of local content requirement, and Regulation 53/ 2012 contained an 80% local content requirement 
applicable to all sizeable sectors. Furthermore, an y modern stores, whether franchises or not, were 
required to meet the minimum 80% requirement. Could Indonesia confirm that the relevant regulation on the retail sector would only be applied as of September 2016? Furthermore, 
Indonesia had stated that the definition of certain conditions as well as the procedures to request 
the exemption were further detailed in the decision of Director-General of Domestic Trade 
No. 16/PDQ/QEP/3/2014. Could Indonesia provide a co py of this decision? With regard to the 15% 
limitation on the number of private label goods sold, could Indonesia detail the modalities for 
carrying out partnership cooperation which document G/TRIMS/W/159 described as a precondition 
to getting an exemption? 
44.  Japan repeated its concerns about the trend in Indonesia towards local content requirements 
which could be implemented inconsistently with WTO rules. Trade Ministry Regulation No. 70/2013 
was problematic because it obligated shopping centres and modern retail shops to ensure that 80% of the products in their outlets were do mestic. Even new Regulation No. 56/2014, which 
allowed stand-alone brands handling goods from the global supply chain to be exempted from local G/TRIMS/M/39 
 
- 7 - 
 
  content requirements, did not dispel Japan's conc erns that these regulations violated the WTO 
Agreements, in particular GATT Article III:4 and Article 2 of the TRIMS Agreement. Japan urged 
Indonesia to bring the measures into conformity with these provisions. 
45.  The United States stated that Indonesia's responses did not address the underlying questions 
and concerns about this package of regulations. These regulations anticipated that in order for a 
foreign investor to establish itself in this sector, it must acquire and sell local goods. This direct link between access to the Indonesian market and mandated support for domestic products was a 
fundamental concern. Indonesia had pointed to certain narrow exceptions, but these seemed 
temporary since even companies with an exemptio n from the Minister of Trade "should gradually 
increase the sale of similar goods produced in Indonesia as well as submit the implementation report". While these exemptions provided a stopgap for certain companies, the regulation 
remained unchanged. Aside from protecting domest ic products from foreign competition, it was 
hard to understand what Indonesia was attempting to achieve through these regulations. The United States again asked Indonesia to keep the Committee apprised of developments concerning 
implementation of these regulations, including any further amendments, and to indicate whether 
the measures were under reconsideration.  
46.  Indonesia stated that this policy was to improve participation and competitiveness of small 
and medium enterprises in the modern retail sector. Its provisions applied to both foreign and local 
investors without discrimination. In fact, parts of the retail sector were exempted, such as stand-alone brand and/or specialty stores whose products were derived from a single unit of global supply chains, were premium products that had no production base in Indonesia or originated from 
certain countries that exclusively met the needs of its citizens living in Indonesia. Regarding the 
document in question, Indonesia would try to obtain it as soon it was translated into English.  
47.  New Zealand echoed the concerns of other delegations. Local content requirements further 
restricted trade across a range of products in a way that undermined core WTO principles including 
those in the TRIMs Agreement. New Zealand encouraged Indonesia to consider the concerns raised as part of its recently announced regulatory review. 
48.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
6  INDONESIA – CERTAIN MEASURES ADDRE SSING LOCAL CONTENT IN INVESTMENT IN 
THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SECTOR 
49.  The Chair stated that this issue has been under consideration by the Committee since 
May 2009, and was on the agenda at the request of Japan and the United States. Since this matter 
was first raised, questions had been circulated in documents G/TRIMS/W/61, 71, 78, 86 and 104, and responses made in documents G/TRIMS/W/63, 75, 80, 96, 131. Most recently, Japan had 
submitted new questions in document G/TRIMS/W/154, to which Indonesia had responded in 
document G/TRIMS/W/160.  
50.  Japan remained concerned that Indonesia's local content requirements in the 
telecommunications sector could be inconsistent with WTO rules. Ministerial Decree No. 7/2009 
stipulated that 30% of broadband wireless access devices using 2.3 ghz and 3.3 ghz and 40% of base stations needed to be domestically manufac tured, and that electric and telecommunications 
equipment and devices should contain at least 50% domestically procured components in five 
years. The calculation method for this requirement was set out in Ministerial Decree No. 41/2009, 
and was based on the cost of materials, equipment and operating machines. These Decrees imposed a local content requirement on broadband wireless access equipment at the base stations. 
51.  Indonesia's responses in document G/TR IMS/W/160 didn't answer Japan's questions. 
Indonesia had explained that the Decree was consistent with the TRIMs Agreement because it "does not differentiate treatment between local and foreign service providers". However, the issue 
was differentiated treatment of products, not of se rvice providers. In fact, Articles 16 and 17 of 
Ministerial Decree No. 7/2009 imposed local conten t ratios on communications equipment. This 
was inconsistent with Article III:4 of GATT and Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement because it 
"requires the parties [for] use by an enterprise of  products of domestic origin from any domestic 
source". Indonesia had further explained that "the programme falls under government 
procurement activities which is regulated under Article III:8(a) of GATT" because "the regulation is G/TRIMS/M/39 
 
- 8 - 
 
  intended to develop telecommunications sector in  remote and underserved or unserved areas as 
well as rural areas which require government assistance". However, the measures were not 
government procurement within the scope of Arti cle III:8(a) of GATT because the operators were 
private and did not spend the government budget. Thus, Japan had strong doubts about the 
consistency of the measures with GATT Article III:4 and Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement.  
52.  The United States echoed Japan, particularly with respect to government procurement. 
Indonesia's local content requirements in the telecommunications sector resulted in favourable 
treatment for domestic versus imported products and could penalize investors if they did not 
comply. Moreover, instead of curtailing its use of local content requirements, Indonesia appeared to be expanding their use to other sectors. The United States was extremely concerned about this expansion, not only because of its negative impa ct on the global economy by diverting global 
supply chains, but also because it harmed Indonesia's investment and business climate. The 
United States requested that Indonesia convey to its Capital, with the highest priority, that it was watching the recently announced review process very closely, particularly with respect to the 
issues raised today. 
53.  Indonesia took note of the comment s and would convey them to capital.  
54.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
7  REPUBLIC OF KOREA – ASSISTANCE MEASURES FOR AGRICULTURAL MACHINERY 
55.  The Chair noted that this item was on the agenda for the first time at the request of Japan.  
56.  Japan noted that Korean farmers could obtain a government loan when purchasing 
agricultural machinery. The Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (MAFRA) was planning 
to modify the assistance measures for four types of agricultural machinery by adopting a new 
evaluation system. According to MAFRA, under a new evaluation system the machinery for which 
loans could be extended would be scored based on it s performance, such as job creation in Korea, 
contribution to exports from Korea, numbers of parts suppliers in Korea, as well as R&D in Korea. 
Japan understood that the percentage of assistance by the loan would be based on these criteria. Under the new system imported machinery would get lower scores than domestic machinery, and 
might receive less financial assistance than domestic machinery. Japan was concerned about the 
inconsistency of the revised measures with Article III:4 of GATT and Article 2.1 of the TRIMs Agreement, since imported products would be afforded treatment less favourable than that accorded to like products of national origin. Japan encouraged Korea to carefully examine the 
evaluation system so that it would be implemented consistently with WTO rules.  
57.  The Republic of Korea informed the Committee th at in July its Ministry of Agriculture had held 
a briefing session in Seoul for the draft of evaluation and assistance for agricultural machinery in 
order to get comments from relevant parties. Domestic procedures to establish these guidelines 
were still under way. Korea took note of Japan's comments and would convey them to Seoul for consideration. 
58.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
8  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 
59.  The Chair stated that this item has been on the Committee's agenda since October 2011, and 
was on the agenda today at the request of the European Union and the United States. Reference 
was made to documents G/TRIMS/W/89, 142 and 142/Corrigendum 1, containing questions posed 
by the United States and the European Union. 
60.  The United States stated that it had been many years since it first drew Members' attention to 
measures which appeared to require the use of local content in Nigeria's oil and gas industry. The 
United States had posed written questions to Nigeria in September 2011 in document 
G/TRIMS/W/89 and had described its understanding of the measures in a meeting in October 2011. At the time, Nigeria stated that it ha d not yet received instructions from Capital, nor G/TRIMS/M/39 
 
- 9 - 
 
  answers to questions. Although the United Stat es had raised this issue at each subsequent 
meeting of the Committee, and in the Council for Trade in Goods, Nigeria still had not provided a formal response or any substantive engagement. The United States had been repeatedly informed that further information would be provided soon, but to date had received nothing. Meanwhile 
implementation had been ongoing. Nor had Nige ria responded to questions from the European 
Union. The WTO Committee system provided a fo rum to understand the trade policies of other 
Members and to raise concerns outside of dispute settlement. The questions posed would help 
Members understand Nigeria's policies. The United States urged Nigeria to use the Committee to 
clear up any misunderstandings.  
61.  The European Union had submitted questions in September 2014 and was still awaiting 
replies. The European Union was concerned about the review of Schedule A. This review was 
meant to cover the list of detailed local content requirements for goods or services and was 
originally foreseen by the legislation for spring 2012. The European Union reiterated its request to 
Nigeria to specify the date for this review and to clarify how it was to be carried out. Furthermore, 
it asked whether the amendment bill was still pending before the National Assembly. The 
European Union understood that until it was adop ted derogations from the requirement of the law 
could no longer be awarded under Section 11 of the Act as this possibility was barred in 
April 2013. Could Nigeria explain how operators were currently allowed to face capacity shortfalls? 
The European Union looked forward to receiving written replies to its questions. 
62.  Australia remained concerned that it must once again raise this issue in the hope of getting a 
substantive response. Australia would like to understand how the preferential treatment accorded 
to local goods and services in the Act was consistent with Nigeria's national treatment obligations 
under GATT 1994. Section 11(1) of the Act required minimum percentages of Nigerian local 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 plan demonstrating compliance with 
these requirements. Australia looked forward to finally getting substantive responses to the concerns raised in this Committee. 
63.  Japan associated itself with the statements of previous speakers and encouraged Nigeria to 
expeditiously provide clarifications in writing in accordance with established practice in the WTO. 
64.  Norway shared the concerns expressed by ot her Members. The Nigerian Local Content Act has 
been a challenge for Norwegian companies operating in the Nigerian oil and gas industry, and 
Norway continued to be concerned with the co mplicated approval processes as well as the 
monitoring and compliance regimes imposed. Colle ctively the measures and requirements of the 
Local Content Act made the operating regime for this industry unpredictable.  
65.  Nigeria was committed to its obligations under WTO Law. This law provided a framework for 
the utilization of services in the Nigerian oil and gas industry. It encompassed activities connected 
with the exploration, development, and exploitati on of Nigerian oil and gas. The TRIMs Agreement 
related to goods and this Act therefore was not inconsistent with Nigeria's obligations. Nigeria was 
working with its implementing agency and a substa ntive response to the questions raised would be 
submitted in writing before the next meeting of the Committee. Nigeria had been consulting bilaterally at the level of parliamentarians and government officials, and encouraged Members to 
continue these bilateral discussions. 
66.  The United States had attempted to pursue this issue bilaterally and multilaterally, and 
continued to have the same concerns. It was unclear why Nigeria might be willing to provide 
information bilaterally but not to provide information to this Committee. The United States 
appreciated Nigeria's commitment to provide written responses before the Committee's next meeting. The United States understood from Nige ria's statement that the measures applied only 
with respect to services and did not require or relate to the purchase of any goods of Nigerian 
origin and therefore fell outside the TRIMs Agreemen t. The United States sought confirmation that 
an investor in this sector in Nigeria who did not use any goods of Nigerian origin would not be penalized in any way. If Nigeria could confirm that understanding, it would be very useful and the 
United States would like to see that reflecte d in the formal minutes of this Committee. 
67.  The European Union shared the last intervention of the United States. G/TRIMS/M/39 
 
- 10 - 
 
  68.  The United States asked that the minutes reflect that Nigeria did not respond to its question. 
69.  Nigeria indicated that this issue would be addressed in its written responses and any further 
questions should be submitted in writing. 
70.  The Committee took note of the statements made and would revert to this item at the next 
meeting. 9  RUSSIAN FEDERATION – LOCAL CONTENT REQUIREMENTS FOR PURCHASES BY 
STATE-OWNED ENTERPRISES 
71.  The Chair stated that this item was on the agenda at the request of the United States. 
Questions to the Russian Federation had been circulated in document G/TRIMS/W/149. 
72.  The United States was concerned about a growing emphasis in Russia on local content 
requirements and import substitution policies. On 28 January 2015 Russia had published its plan of 
priority measures to ensure sustainable economic development and social stability in 2015, the 
so-called "anti-crisis plan". An important element of the plan was the call for government action to support import substitution. While many provisions of that plan related to government 
procurement, which was outside of the scope of th is Committee, plans appeared to be in the works 
to expand these requirements beyond government procurement, such as applying requirements to 
purchase Russian-made inputs to state-owned enterprises. While the Russian Federation had 
assured the Committee that the plan applied only to government procurement, measures issued 
suggested that elements of the anti-crisis plan  could be implemented in a WTO-inconsistent 
manner. For example, on 23 February 2015 Order No . 286-R was issued, allocating 2 billion rubles 
to Rusagro Leasing in support of leasing Russi an-made agricultural equipment. As would be 
discussed under the next agenda item, Rusagro Leasing was an SOE, and the support therefore 
was not government procurement. 
73.  Likewise Law No. 249 of 13 July 2015, which amended prior Law No. 223-FZ and Decree 
No. 785 of 4 August 2015, established a governme nt import substitution commission. This 
commission, among other duties, would establish a list of products and services that could be sourced outside Russia. By definition, all other products and services must be sourced from within 
Russia. This restriction would apply not only to government procurement but also to SOEs. Of 
particular concern, decisions of the commission including the list of equipment that could be 
purchased abroad might not be made public. Fu rther amendments to Law No. 223-FZ had been 
proposed to establish a minimum threshold for procurement of high-tech and innovative products 
by SOEs - half of which should be procured from  small and medium businesses. The United States 
hoped that, consistent with Russia's WTO commitments, this threshold would apply to government procurement only and that foreign SMEs will be allowed to participate. 
74.  Further, Government Resolution 451 signed on 8 May 2015 allocated 2.5 billion rubles to a 
new programme to subsidize automotive leases for individual customers. Could Russia confirm that these subsidies to leases of imported vehicles on equal terms with leases of Russian-made 
automobiles? 
75.  Finally, the United States understood that a proposal had been made to direct the Ministry of 
Natural Resources and the Environment and the Minist ry of Industry and Trade to draft regulations 
requiring domestic oil companies to use Russian equipment and technology in order to obtain a 
licence to develop new oil fields. The directive had not yet been issued but its inclusion on the 
agenda of a government meeting demonstrated, ye t again, Russia's growing use of local content 
requirements. The United States would apprecia te information about these measures, and would 
welcome any assurances that Russia might provide that any requirements to purchase Russian 
goods would not be applied to state-owned enterprises. 
76.  The European Union reiterated its concern about the trend in Russia to further restrict access 
to public procurement by local content requiremen ts. At the last meeting, the European Union had 
listed a series of government decrees aimed at excluding foreign goods from public procurement. These goods included medical devices, machiner y and equipment, certain types of textile and 
footwear, imported vehicles, and light industry. Regarding software, a new law adopted on 
29 June 2015 establishing criteria for distinguishing local companies from foreign companies paved G/TRIMS/M/39 
 
- 11 - 
 
  the way for possible discriminatory measures. Russia had replied only in respect of the decree on 
medical devices. The European Union sought clarification from Russia regarding whether those measures only affected government purchases or  whether their scope was wider. Its worries had 
been aggravated by Russia's intention to extend restrictions on public procurement to state-owned 
enterprises. On 23 June 2015 Russia introduced a formal proposal to amend Law 223-FZ of 
18 June 2011 on the purchases of goods, works,  and services by certain categories of legal 
persons, whose scope seemed to go beyond public  utilities. Major Russian companies, for example 
Gazprom or Rosneft, would be covered. The European Union asked Russia to present the main 
provisions of this proposal to amend Law 223-FZ of 2011 on the basis of the recent conclusion of 
its first reading and to clarify the timeline for adop tion and entry into force of this amendment.  
77.  Japan expressed concern that Russia appeared  to be preparing to expand the scope of the 
procurement entities to state-owned enterprises. Japan would carefully observe the process of 
amendment of the Federal Law No. 223 and encour aged Russia to respond in writing to the 
questions posed by the United States. 
78.  The Russian Federation stated that the Unit ed States had not indicated the draft amendment 
and explanatory note to the Federal Law of 18 July 2011, No. 223 to which it referred in its 
question. The existing text of the Federal Law No. 223 was in full compliance with Russia's WTO 
obligations. Russia's reply to the United States' written questions would be submitted in writing by 
the end of this week; other interested Members we re requested to provide questions in writing.  
79.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
10  RUSSIAN FEDERATION – LOCAL CONTENT REQUIREMENTS FOR AGRICULTURAL 
EQUIPMENT 
80.  The Chair noted that this item was on the agenda at the request of the European Union and 
the United States. Questions to Russian Federation had been circulated in document 
G/TRIMS/W/116, to which the Russian Federation had responded in document G/TRIMS/W/130. 
81.  The European Union reiterated it concerns about local content practices in the farming 
equipment sector. It seemed that the Russian subsidy programme for agricultural machinery was 
still more favourable for locally produced elements and production compared to imported 
elements. The European Union still had questions concerning the sale price subsidy scheme under 
Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 908 of October 2013, according to which 15% of the sales price of agriculture machin ery could be granted to Russian farmers, if the 
product satisfied a certain level of domestic production. Was this scheme still in force? Russia had 
stated at the last meeting that subsidies under this regime had never been allocated. Would subsidies be granted in the future? If not, woul d Russia withdraw this measure? Under Resolution 
of the Government of the Russian Federati on No. 1432 of December 2012, producers of 
agricultural machinery could be granted subsidies provided that a set of technical operations were respected and that its main components were produced domestically. Did Russia intend to modify 
the criteria for allocation of these subsidies? Would these criteria be disconnected from local 
content requirements? 
82.  The United States was concerned about reports that Rusagro Leasing (RAL), a state-owned 
leasing company created to supply agricultural equipment to Russian farmers, was imposing local 
content requirements for that equipment. The Unit ed States appreciated Russia's statement that, 
consistent with the Working Party Report, Russia had abandoned subsidization of manufacturing in 
this sector. It continued to review Resolution No. 1432 of 27 December 2012 and might have 
further questions. In addition, it called the attention of Members to Order of the Government of 
the Russian Federation No. 286-R dated 23 Februa ry 2015 which allocated 2 billion rubles to 
Rusagro Leasing for the purpose of implementing a programme of preferential leasing of modern, 
high-performance agricultural equipment of Russian production. Could these funds also be used for 
leasing imported agricultural equipment? At the last meeting the United States had asked about the leasing process between RAL and farmers. Ru ssia has explained that the lessor would acquire 
property specified by the lessee, and provide the lessee of this property temporary possession and 
use for a fee and further that the leasing agreement was specified by the lessee, i.e. the farmer. 
Exact features of such property were specified by  the leasing agreement. This answer seemed to 
imply that the lessee was free to specify foreign agricultural equipment if it chose. Could Russia G/TRIMS/M/39 
 
- 12 - 
 
  confirm that there was no difference in fees or other terms of leasing agreements, depending on 
whether or not the leasing agreement pertained to  Russian-manufactured equipment? If not, could 
Russia elaborate in connection with Order of th e Government 286-R, which appeared to direct 
funds specifically for leasing of Russian-manuf actured equipment? Could Russia also provide a 
breakdown of the brands of agricultural equipm ent leased by RAL during 2013 and 2014? Such 
information would provide a more complete picture of RAL and the market for leased agricultural equipment in Russia. 
83.  Japan expressed its continuing systemic concer ns and looked forward to clarification by Russia 
of the questions posed. 
84.  The Russian Federation stated that the deta iled discussion at the last meeting should have 
clarified any misunderstandings. Written replies had been provided in document G/TRIMS/W/130. 
Russia had asked that interested Members submit their questions in writing, but to date no 
questions had been submitted. The subsidies envisaged by Resolution 908 had never been distributed and Decree 1715 on implementation of that Resolution had never come into force. As 
for Resolution 1432 and the operation of Rusagro Leasing, Russia had already given detailed 
explanations in documents G/SCM/Q2/RUS/7 and G/TRIMS/W/130. Should any Members wish to raise additional questions Russia would answer them in due course. 
85.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
11  RUSSIAN FEDERATION – SUPPORT MEASURES FOR THE AUTOMOTIVE SECTOR 
86.  The Chair stated that this item was on the agenda at the request of the European Union and 
Japan. The European Union and Japan had submitted written questions in documents 
G/TRIMS/W/152 and G/TRIMS/W/153.  
87.  The European Union noted that Russia had not yet replied to its questions, and reiterated its 
interest in receiving replies. Russia had issued Decree No. 1433 of 20 December 2014, later 
amended by Decree No. 244 of March 2015 providing subsidies to compensate for costs related to 
the production of wheeled vehicles, and had also reactivated the clash for clunkers programme. This support came on top of subsidies based on Resolutions 29, 30, 31 and 32 of January 2014. 
Moreover, there had been recent reports that the Ministry of Industry and Trade would launch a 
programme of preferential car loans for the purcha se of domestically produced cars. The European 
Union requested an overview of all existing suppor t measures for the automotive industry, as well 
as an explanation of the eligibility conditions for, and legal basis of, those measures. As regards 
the subsidy programme based on Decrees No. 1433 and 244, when would these temporary 
measures end? Russia at the last meeting had recalled  the transitional provisions in its Protocol of 
Accession, which granted the industrial assembly programme a transition period until 4 July 2018. 
However, this did not explain the differences between industrial assembly and an industrial 
assembly agreement as referred to in various support measures.  
88.  Japan reiterated its concern about the industrial assembly programme, particularly the local 
content requirement imposed on companies engage d in automobile production and assembly. In 
January last year Russia had adopted a number of resolutions that provided subsidies in four areas - energy consumption, production of ecologically friendly vehicles, employment, and research and development - to automobile producers. These producers received subsidies in exchange for 
ensuring that production was "in the industrial assembly mode". Japan suspected that these 
measures were inconsistent with Article 3.1(b) of SCM Agreement, Article III:4 of GATT and Article 2.1 of TRIMs Agreement because the conditions stipulated in them constituted local content 
requirements. Further, Japan questioned the consistency of these measures with Russia's 
commitments in paragraph 2 of its Protocol of Accession, particularly with regard to paragraphs 1450 and 1090 of the Working Party Report, as a benefit provided to the vehicles 
produced "in the industrial assembly mode" would exceed the preferential tariff treatment which 
Russia was allowed to maintain until 1 July 2018.  Although Russia claimed that the industrial 
assembly programme had been granted a transition period until 1 July 2018, the Working Party Report envisaged only preferential tariff treatment,  and resolutions providing subsidies did not fall 
within the scope. Japan urged Russia to respond to  it questions in writing at the earliest possible 
time.  G/TRIMS/M/39 
 
- 13 - 
 
  89.  The United States echoed requests for an elaboration on the eligibility criteria for these 
programmes and whether there were any discriminatory aspects to them. In this connection, it 
cited once again Resolution 451 of 8 May 2015 which allocated 2.5 billion rubles to a new programme to subsidize automotive leases for individual customers and asked Russia whether 
these subsidies would be available for leases of imported vehicles on equal terms with leases of 
Russian-made automobiles. 
90.  The Russian Federation reiterated that, under Russia's Accession Protocol, the industrial 
assembly programme benefited from a transition period. Previous discussions with regard to 
certain Russian support measures for car manufacturers were initiated by Members due to their concerns that State support was provided under the investment regime of industrial assembly. On this basis, certain Members had expressed the opinion that the support programme could be 
contingent on the use of domestic content. This at least explained why these Members believed 
that certain Russian support programmes should be  discussed in this Committee. Today, however, 
the sponsors seemed to imply that every measure taken by Russia in respect of the automobile 
industry was within the scope of this Committee. This explained the changing of the name of the 
agenda item into support measures for the automotive sector. 
91.  Russia was now being questioned about the scope of support measures for the automotive 
industry. For example, the European Union asked about the cash for clunkers programme and 
requested Russia to provide information about support measures for the car industry. Russia could not agree with this approach. For transparency, Russia noted that the cash for clunkers was terminated several years ago, but asked the European Union to explain why it believed that this 
measure was a TRIM and should be discussed in this Committee. Since the previous Committee 
meeting Russia had received specific questions from the EU and Japan with regard to Russian support programmes, and would submit written resp onses by the end of this week. Today it would 
reflect on certain major questions posed by the Members.  
92.  Both the European Union and Japan asked about the meaning of "production in industrial 
assembly mode" as a condition for receiving support under the resolutions, and the rationale for 
such a requirement. Under Joint Order of the Mi nistry of Economic Development, Ministry of 
Industry and Ministry of Finance, No. 73/81/58/M, the Industrial Assembly of Motor Vehicles was defined as a system of badge production with a capacity of no less than 25,000 units per year in 
double-shift operation on the basis of technological processes such as welding, painting and 
assembly of car body, mounting of the passenger compartment equipment, mounting of major car 
components, such as engines, chassis, etc. The te rm industrial assembly following its definition 
implied the performance by a manufacturer of certain basic technological operations without which 
the car production was impossible, but did not require local content and was used in 
Resolutions 29 to 32 and 244 for the purposes of scoping the support to Russian car manufacturers. The resolutions merely indicated that production should be in industrial assembly 
mode. Therefore, the provisions neither by them selves nor by reference to the production in 
industrial assembly mode imposed local content requirements in exchange for receipt of support.  
93.  In addition, Japan had asked whether the provision for production in industrial assembly mode 
meant that the producer had a valid agreement on industrial assembly. This was not so because, 
under the Resolutions No. 29 and 32, applicants were not required to present investment 
agreements on industrial assembly. However, presentation of such an agreement was by itself enough to prove that the applicants' production wa s in industrial assembly mode. Another question 
was whether car manufacturers could receive subsidies under Resolutions 29 to 32 without 
meeting the local content requirements set out in  the auto investment programmes. They could 
receive this support without meeting any local co ntent requirements because Decrees 29 to 32 did 
not impose any local content requirements. Russia's written replies would be available shortly. 
Russia would respond to any further questions and was open to hold consultations. 
94.  The European Union explained that it had raised the cash for clunkers programme in the 
TRIMs Committee because one of the Committee's functions was to clarify the measure. According 
to information at its disposal, this was a subsidy which was conditional on local content 
requirement. If detailed information demonstrat ed this was not the case, the European Union 
would drop this item from discussion in  future meetings of the Committee.  
95.  Japan sought Russia's views in writing. G/TRIMS/M/39 
 
- 14 - 
 
  96.  The Russian Federation recalled that und er Article 7.2 of the TRIMs Agreement, the 
Committee shall afford Members the opportunity to consult on any matters relating to the 
operation and implementation of the TRIMs Agr eement. Not every support measure was a TRIM. 
97.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
12  UNITED STATES – CERTAIN LOCAL CONTENT REQUIREMENTS IN SOME OF THE 
RENEWABLE ENERGY PROGRAMMES 
98.  The Chair stated that this item was on th e agenda today at the request of India. Initial 
questions had been circulated in document G/TRIMS/W/117, to which the United States had 
replied in document G/TRIMS/W/129 and 129/Rev.1. India had posed follow-up questions in document G/TRIMS/W/144.  
99.  India recalled that this item had been on the agenda since April 2013 and India had tabled 
two sets of written questions. India had receiv ed one set of written responses, and a verbal 
response on the second set of written questions at the last meeting. While India appreciated the 
verbal responses, it requested the United States to respond in writing. 
100.  The Russian Federation shared India's concerns in respect of some of the United States' 
renewable energy sector programmes. Russia was di sappointed by the United States' position that 
it had already clarified the issue, as the information provided at the last meeting was not enough 
to disperse its concerns. Further, the United States had, for the second time, failed to respond to 
questions posed by Russia. Silence did not help to resolve an issue, but only enhanced doubts. Russia had posed its questions orally because they were simple and straightforward and had already been posed by India. Unfortunately, Russia had to repeat its questions. First, was the 
Michigan Renewable Energy Credit Programme in fo rce? If so, then how did the provisions stating 
that an additional renewable energy credit shal l be granted where equipment made in the state 
was used comply with the TRIMs Agreement? If th e United States could not explain, how did it 
intend to bring this programme into compliance with WTO rules? Second, was the California Self 
Generation Incentive Programme in force? If so, how did the provisions stipulating additional incentives of 20% to be provided for the insta llation of eligible equipment from a California 
supplier comply with the TRIMs Agreement, given that one of the eligible criteria was a 
requirement to own and operate a manufacturing facility located in California that builds or manufactures eligible, distributed generation technologies? If the United States could not explain, how did it intend to bring this programme into compliance with WTO rules? Russia asked the 
United States to provide prompt and comprehensive replies to its questions.  
101.  The United States considered that India's second set of questions had already been 
answered in its response to India's first set of qu estions. Nevertheless, it had at the last meeting 
provided an extensive oral response drawn from information provided initially to India's questions. 
In light of that and of subsequent conversations with India, it had been under the misimpression 
that that was sufficient. However, if India would like its intervention in writing, the United States 
would comply with that request. The United States had also replied to Russia's questions through 
its responses to India, so that information was available already, but it would follow in its next set of written replies.  
102.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
103.  The Chair requested that Members that had posed oral questions, or that had provided oral 
responses to oral or written questions, provide their questions and responses in writing to the 
Secretariat for circulation. 
13  NOTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 6.2 OF THE TRIMS AGREEMENT 
104.  The Chair recalled that Article 6.2 of the Agreement and the 1996 Committee Decision 
contained in document G/TRIMS/5 required Members to notify the names of publications in which 
TRIMs might be found, where such publications exist, including 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 had circulated a reminder in this G/TRIMS/M/39 
 
- 15 - 
 
  respect on 29 September in document G/TRIMS/W/163. Since the last meeting of the Committee, 
Botswana, Malaysia, Montenegro and Sri Lanka had submitted notifications under Article 6.2. The latest compilation of notifications had been circulated in document G/TRIMS/N/2/Rev.25.  
105.  The Committee took note of the information provided. 
14  OTHER BUSINESS 106.  No Member raised any item under other business. 15  ANNUAL REPORT 
107.  The Chair recalled that Article 7.3 of th e Agreement requires the Committee to report 
annually to the Council for Trade in Goods. The Secretariat had circulated to Members a draft 
annual report for 2015, via the Documents for Meetings link on the Members' website as RD/TRIMS/8. He proposed that the Committee adopt the annual report  ad referendum,  request the 
Secretariat to complete and update it if necessary, and forward it to the Council for Trade in 
Goods. 
108.  The Committee so decided. 
16  DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING 109.  The Chair proposed that the next scheduled meeting of this Committee be held on 
17 October 2016. The Secretariat would issue the annotated draft agenda three weeks before the 
meeting, i.e. 26 September 2016. Requests to pl ace items on the annotated draft agenda should 
be communicated in writing to the Secretariat by  19 September 2016. The annotated draft agenda 
would be open for comments until 5 October 2016. Members wishing to circulate documents were requested to do so by 5 October 2016 so that they could be reflected on the airgram. The airgram 
convening the meeting would be issued on Friday, 7 October 2015. 
110.  The Committee so decided. 
111.  The meeting was adjourned. 
 
__________