RESTRICTED  
  
G/TRIMS/M/40  
 
9 August  2016 
(16-4260) Page: 1/9 
Committee on Trade -Related Investment Measures    
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETI NG HELD ON 13 JUNE 2016  
CHAIR: MS MARINE WILLEMETZ (SWITZERLAND)  
1.  The Chair informed the delegations that, as Vice -Chair, she would be chairing this meeting 
because the current Chairman was no longer in Geneva.  
2.  The Chair referred to the  proposed agenda circulated in the document WTO/AIR/TRIMS/3 dated 
3 June 2016. The Committee adopted  the following agenda:  
1   NOTIFICATIONS PURSUA NT TO ARTICLE 5.1 OF  THE AGREEMENT  ..............................  1 
2   CHINA – PROVISIONS ON INSURA NCE SYSTEM INFORMATI ZATION  ...........................  2 
3   INDONESIA – LOCAL CONTENT REQUIR EMENTS FOR 4G LTE MO BILE DEVICES ...........  3 
4   INDONESIA – CERTAIN LOCAL CONTEN T PROVISIONS IN THE ENERGY 
SECTOR (MINING, OIL AND GAS)  ................................ ................................ .....................  4 
5   INDONESIA – NEWLY ADOPTED INDUST RY LAW A ND TRADE LAW  .............................  5 
6   INDONESIA – MINIMUM LOCAL PRODUC T REQUIREMENT FOR MO DERN 
RETAIL SECTOR  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  6 
7   INDONESIA – CERTAIN MEASURES ADD RESSING LOCAL CONTEN T IN 
INVESTMENT IN THE TE LECOMMUNICATIONS SEC TOR ................................ ....................  7 
8   RUSSIAN FEDERATION – MEASURES IMPLEMENTIN G RUSSIA'S IMPORT 
SUBSTITUTION POLICY  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 7 
9   NOTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 6.2 OF THE T RIMS AGREEMENT  ..............................  8 
10   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 9 
11   ELECTION OF THE CHAIRMAN AND VIC E CHAIRMAN  ................................ .................  9 
12   DATE OF THE NEXT MEE TING  ................................ ................................ ....................  9 
 
1  NOTIFICATIONS PURSUA NT TO ARTICLE 5.1 OF  THE AGREEMENT  
3.  The Chair noted that the Committee had two notifications under Article 5.1 of the TRIM s 
Agreement before it, from Kazakhstan and Kuwait.  
4.  No written questions were submitted in respect of the notification from Kazakhstan  contained 
in document G/TRIMS/N/1/KAZ/1.  
5.  The United States  indicated that it would continue to study the notification, noting the 
transition periods in Kazakhstan's Protocol of Accession.  
6.  Kazakhstan  thanked the United States for recognition of submission of legislative notification by 
Kazakhstan.  
7.  The European Union  stated that it was studying the n otification in capital , and would revert as 
necessary.  G/TRIMS/M/40  
 
- 2 - 
 
  8.  The Committee took note  of the notification and of the statements made.  
9.  The Chair noted that the second notification on agenda was a notification from Kuwait  
(G/TRIMS/N/1/KWT/1), indicating that Kuwait does not apply any WTO -inconsistent TRIMs.  
10.  The Committee took note  of the notification.  
2  CHINA – PROVISIONS ON INSURA NCE SYSTEM INFORMATI ZATION  
11.  The Chair noted that this item was on the agenda at the request of the United States. 
Questions were posed to China in document G/TRIMS/Q/CHN/1.  
12.  The United States  expressed concern about draft regulations published by the China 
Insurance  Regulatory Commission in 2015 , addressing the use of technology by companies in the 
insurance industry. A lthough the regulations were notified to the WTO Committee on Technical 
Barriers to Trade, provisions of the Draft Regulations might be of concern to the TRIMs  Committee 
as well, and would impose severe restrictions on a wide range of ICT products and serv ices. The 
Draft Regulations also raised broader concerns about China's investment and commercial 
environment for industries not directly affected by the measures. While the US respected China's 
desire to improve the integrity of ICT products in China's ins urance sector, such policies must not 
prohibit insurance institutions in China from choosing secure and reliable ICT hardware and 
software vendors anywhere in the world.  
13.  The United States highlighted provisions that caused it concern in relation  to the ob ligations of 
the TRIMs  Agreement. It sought clarification on whether Article 53 of the measure notified to the 
TBT Committee, which gave priority to procurement of "secure and controllable" hardware 
equipment and carried a reference to "conditions to raise  the indigenous research and 
development level", could be understood as a requirement to use indigenous or local hardware 
equipment and software products. The United States had raised concerns in April last year about 
certain draft measures issued by the C hina Banking Regulatory Commission pertaining to the use 
of technology in the banking sector. The phrase "secure and controllable technology" in these 
measures seemed to encompass a definition focused on indigenous technology and had once again 
come up in a draft measure in a manner that appeared to be linked to the use of indigenous 
technology. The United States also expressed concern that provisions in Article 25(2) and 54 could 
require purchase of indigenous encryption technology which might be incompati ble with the 
systems used by international insurance companies.  
14.  The United States hoped that China would fully consider the most appropriate way to improve 
the integrity of information and communication technology consiste nt with obligations of the TRIMs  
Agreement and other WTO instruments.  
15.  The European Union  acknowledged the need to reinforce network and information security in 
the insurance sector keeping in view the continuously evolving and complex cybersecurity risks in 
the financial sector. The EU noted that its cyber -related policy was geographically neutral and that 
it expected similar treatment from its global trade partners.  
16.  While it acknowledged the right of WTO Members to take steps to improve cyber security, the 
EU was concerned that the Guid elines on "Supervision regulations for Informatization of Insurance 
Institutions" set certain requirements that could lead to discrimination between Chinese and 
foreign insurance companies. In particular, the EU was concerned about the requirement in 
Article 53 asking insurance institutions to give preference in procurement to products that are 
"secure and controllable" and sought a clear definition of the term. Furthermore, a possible 
mandating of Multi -Level Protection Scheme (MLPS) level 3 and above purs uant to Article 20 and 
Article  56 might amount to a ban on procuring foreign ICT products.  
17.  In the view of the EU, for the insurance sector, China should focus on genuine security 
concerns within a narrowly/defined category of critical information infrastr ucture . It asked the 
Chinese authorities to clarify which security level within the MLPS the cited provisions referred to.  
18.  Canada  agreed with the concerns raised. In Canada's view, exclusion of innovative and 
cutting -edge foreign made ICT products from a firm's procurement options would decrease, not G/TRIMS/M/40  
 
- 3 - 
 
  increase, cyber security for China's network and insurance ICT infrastructure. Canada sought 
clarification on whether foreign -made software and equipment would be considered "secure and 
controllable", and if n ot, why China considered it necessary to impose such limitations? 
Highlighting its concerns regarding Article s 20, 23 and 56 of the Supervision Rules, Canada sought 
clarification as to why domestically produced ICT products were considered more secure than  
foreign produced products?  
19.  Japan  shared the concerns raised. With regard to the provisions on insurance system 
informatization, Article 25 require d insurance institutions to use technologies and products that 
satisfied state standards and encryption requi rements; Article 53 stipulate d that in surance 
institutions had to give first priority to the procurement of secure and controllable hardware 
equipment and software products and steadily introduce the application of secure and controllable 
products; and Art icle 56 require d insurance institutions to provide an appropriate level of security 
protection in accordance with the multi -level protection scheme. These provisions would be 
inconsistent with Article III:4 of  GATT and Article 2 of the TRIMs  Agreement as t hey constituted a 
de facto  requirement to use products originating from China. Japan requested China to provide 
detailed explanations on the implementation of these provisions as well as information on related 
regulations and requirements, if any.  
20.  China  considered the item  to not be relevant to the TRIMs  Committee.  
21.  The United States  asked China if it could confirm that there was no requirement or preference 
on the insurance industry to use Chinese technology or software and re -iterated the question 
posed earlier regarding the definition of the term "secure and controllable".  
22.  China  repeated that it had submitted a notification to the TBT Committee and stated that it 
would convey the United States' remarks to the capital.  
23.  The Committee took note  of the stat ements made.  
3  INDONESIA – LOCAL CONTENT REQUIR EMENTS FOR 4G LTE MO BILE DEVICES  
24.  The Chair noted that this item was on the agenda at the request of Canada, the 
European  Union, Chinese Taipei , and the United States. Previou sly, questions to Indonesia had 
been circulated in document G/TRIMS/W/148 and replies in document G/TRIMS/W/162.   
25.  The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu  had serious concern s 
regarding Indonesia's local content requirements for 4G smartphones. In its understanding , the 
Indonesian regulation requiring an increase in the quantity of locally produced content for all 4G 
LTE smartphones and their packaging violated the TRIMs Agreement , and it sought detailed 
clarification on the measure.  
26.  The United States  was deeply co ncerned about Indonesia's adoption and implementation of 
local content requirements for 4G LTE mobile devices and base stations. It understood that in 
order to obtain the advantage of being permitted to invest in Indonesia as a distributor of these 
product s, investors must meet the local content requirement.  
27.  The United States raised the following questions about the verification process to obtain a 
certificate or statement from the Minister "in charge of governmental affairs in the industrial 
sector" to de monstrate that they have fulfilled the local content requirement:  
-  What was the procedure by which such a certificate or statement is obtained? What 
were the differences between a certificate and a statement?  
-  Was the certificate or statement a prerequ isite for other documents? For instance, for 
other technical requirements or import licensing requirements?  
-  What were the consequences if a company was unable to fulfil the local content 
requirement and there fore could not  obtain the certificate or sta tement?  
 
28.  The United States asked that Indonesia keep it informed of developments related to 
calculation methodology and expressed its view that Indonesia's LCR policies were not in th e G/TRIMS/M/40  
 
- 4 - 
 
  interest of any member of the  Committee. It sought information on any f urther regulations or 
guidelines issued and Indonesia's plans to curtail various local content requirements.  
29.  Canada  continued to closely follow the development of Indonesia's draft regulations 
concerning the 4G/LTE mobile phone sector and observed that abs ence of a cl ear formulation on 
how to calculate the percentage of local content was affecting manufacturers' ability to introduce 
new products into the Indonesian market. Canada sought an update with regard to the status of 
these draft regulations.  
30.  The European Union  shared concerns raised by other Members and asked Indonesia for the 
timeline of publication of the regulation.  
31.  Korea  shared the concerns raised and was carefully monitoring the regulations in question. 
Korea looked forward to seeing Indonesia's  positive response to this concern.  
32.  Australia  was monitoring the status and implementation of the regulations, including in other 
WTO Committees. Australia thanked Indonesia for notifying changes to the regulations on LTE 
technology through the TBT Commit tee, but remained concerned regarding the TRIMs -consistency 
of the local content requirements.   
33.  Japan  shared the concerns raised. The p roblem was the very fact that Indonesia impose d a 
local content requirement . Japan considered that the requirement of 20 % local contents went 
against Article III:4 of GATT and Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement and requested Indonesia to 
eliminate the measures. Japan saw an inconsistency between the local content requirement 
specified in Regulation No. 27/2015 issued by Indon esia's Ministry of Communication and 
Information in 2015 and the TBT notification issued by the Indonesia in February. It requested 
Indonesia to provide accurate information. Japan also requested Indonesia to share the English 
translation of Regulation  27/2015 with Members.  
34.  Indonesia  appreciated the comments of Members. The policies within its regulations did not 
relate to investment measures and only applied to technical standards which support the 
compatibility of such systems with the existing systems in  Indonesia. The certification requirement 
was administered in a transparent and non -discriminatory manner. The system was flexible which 
allowed companies to re -submit certification applications in order to meet the requirement.  
35.  The United States  sought co nfirmation from Indonesia regarding its understanding that if 
technology was both safe and compatible with the local system, then it need not meet any local 
manufacturing requirement in Indonesia?  
36.  Indonesia  took note of the question and would answer upon receiving further instructions 
from the capital.  
37.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
4  INDONESIA – CERTAIN LOCAL CONTEN T PROVISIONS IN THE ENERGY SECTOR 
(MINING, OIL AND GAS )  
38.  The Chair noted that this item was on the agenda at the request of th e European Union, Japan 
and the United States. Previously, questions to Indonesia had been circulated in documents 
G/TRIMS/ W/70, 88, 108 and 128; and Indonesia's replies  in documents G/TRIMS/W/74, 79, 100, 
123, 128, 137 and 137 Corr.1.  
39.  The European Union  expressed concern regarding prioritisation of local content in Indonesia's 
legislation covering mining products in the mineral and coal sectors and asked Indonesia if it 
intended to review these measures. Certain measures taken by Indonesia over the past f ew years 
acted as a deterrent to foreign investment.  
40.  Japan  regretted that there was no improvement in the situation regarding the prohibition of 
the exportation of raw materials and that Indonesia had not explained why it considered the 
prohibition to be consistent with the relevant GATT Articles. Japan urged Indonesia to review the 
measures concerned , including the highest level , stating that if situation continue d, it w ould be G/TRIMS/M/40  
 
- 5 - 
 
  obliged to consider taking steps available  under the DSU. Japan also requested  Indonesia  to share 
the current status of the review.  
41.  The United States  reiterated its concerns over  investment restrictions in Indonesia's ener gy 
sector and its questions about the requirement to "prioritize" the use of domestic goods and 
services and how  that requirement was be ing enforced. It feared  that the term "prioritize" might 
have the same effect as "require" , and sought information from the Indonesian delegation 
regarding revisions to the Mining Law and the Oil and Gas Law.  
42.  Canada  continued to be  very concerned about the negative impact on foreign mining 
investments in Indonesia, particularly in relation to investment ownership requirements, the 
export ban and local processing requirements. It encouraged Indonesia to ensure WTO -consistent 
revision s to the 2009 Mining Law.  
43.  Australia  remained concerned about ownership divestment requirements, pressure to 
renegotiate Contracts of Work and restrictions on obtaining approvals for expatriate employees. It 
looked forward to further clarification on the i mplementation of these regulations.  
44.  Indonesia  referred Members to its responses in documents G/TRIMS/W/100, G/TRIMS/W/123, 
G/TRIMS/W/128, G/TRIMS/W/131, G/TRIMS/W/137, and G/TRIMS/W/137/Corr.1 and informed 
Members that amendment of relevant laws was still  in process and under consideration by the 
Indonesian Parliament.  
45.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
5  INDONESIA – NEWLY ADOPTED INDUST RY LAW AND TRADE LAW  
46.  The Chair noted that this  item was on the agenda at the request of the European  Union, J apan 
and the United States. Questions to Indonesia were circulated in documents G/TRIMS/W/138 and 
140, to which Indonesia responded in documents G/TRIMS/W/157 and 158.  
47.  The European Union  reiterated its concerns about  these laws. It sought updates on the s tate 
of play of the implementing regulations of the Trade and Industry Laws and inquired if Indonesia's 
reform packages affect ed these laws and the planned i mplementing regulations thereof.   
48.  The EU  also reiterated its concerns about certain provisions with  regard to possible export 
bans, the mandatory use of domestic products and the use of safeguards to protect the industry 
from international competition. It asked Indonesia to:  
a. clarify how the provisions of local content and use of domestic goods in the re gulation on 
the modern retail sector or telecommunications and LTE sectors was consistent with the 
provisions on the mandatory use of local content as further detailed in Indonesia's reply;  
b. to specify which rules applied to government procurement and how t hey differed from 
other areas of implementation.  
49.  Japan  had concerns about the consistency of the Law on Trade and the Law on Industry with 
Articles III:4 and XI:1 of GATT and Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement. Japan requested Indonesia 
to provide updates o n introduction of the Implementing Regulations and details regarding the 
review of relevant economic regulations.  
50.  The United States  shared the concerns expressed and was particularly interested in the 
questions posed by Japan. It sought updates on impleme ntation of the industry and trade law, and 
particularly flagged Industry Law Articles 31, 32, 33, 37 , and 84; and Trade Law Articles 3, 35 , 
and 54.  
51.  Australia  echoed the concerns raised about Indonesia's import restricting policies including the 
over-arching Industry and Trade Laws. Australia not ed that how Indonesia implemented  these 
laws would determine whether these laws directly impacted trade and investment, expressed 
particular interest in what this meant for Indonesia's trade remedies measures and so ught further 
updates from Indonesia.  G/TRIMS/M/40  
 
- 6 - 
 
  52.  New Zealand  echoed the concerns raised and noted that  updates from Indonesia, including on 
its reform process, would be welcome.  
53.  Indonesia  referred to its responses contained in documents G/TRIMS/W/157 and 
G/TRIMS/W/1 58. The laws were created to support Indonesia's economic development while 
ensuring commitments to the WTO.  
54.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
6  INDONESIA – MINIMUM LOCAL PRODUC T REQUIREMENT FOR MO DERN RETAIL 
SECTOR  
55.  The Chair noted that this i tem 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 141 respectively, and 
responses were provided in G/TRIMS/W/159 and 161.  
56.  Japan  had concerns about the consistency of these regulations with Article III:4 of GATT and 
Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement. Manufacturers who dealt with high -quality products depended 
on imported goods and found it difficult t o procure no less than 80% domestic products. The scope 
of exemption given to "premium products" under Article 22 of the Regulation 56/2014 was vague 
and unclear and accordingly Japan requested an English translation of the Decision 
No. 16/PDK/KEP/3/214. J apan requested Indonesia to explain why it considered the requirement 
to be consistent with Article III:4 of GATT and Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement.  
57.  The United States  thanked Indonesia for responding to its qu estions, but stated that they did  
not neces sarily address the underlying questions and concerns about this package of regulations. 
The United States had a fundamental concern regarding the direct link between access to the 
Indonesian market and mandated support for domestic products. This basic con cern remained 
unchanged despite the narrow and temporary exemptions. While supporting SMEs was a goal 
shared by all, the United States could not support the approach of providing domestic goods better 
treatment in the market and asked Indonesia to keep the  Committee apprised of any relevant 
developments.  
58.  The European Union  reiterated concerns about the 80% local content requirement imposed by 
Regulation 70/2013. It asked Indonesia to confirm its understanding that the relevant regulation 
on the retail secto r would only be applied as of September 2016, and to provide a copy of the 
Decision of the Director -General of Domestic Trade No. 16/PDK/KEP/3/2014. Furt her, the EU 
asked Indonesia to detail the modalities for carrying out "a partnership cooperation" which  in 
document G/TRIMS/W/159 was described as  a pre -condition for an exemption from the 15% 
limitation on the number of private labels goods sold.  
59.  New Zealand  echoed the concerns raised and noted that further clarifications from Indonesia, 
including as rega rds the WTO consistency of the measures and the prospects for reform, would be 
welcome.  
60.  Australia  maintained its concerns over Indonesia's introduction of local content requirements 
in the retail sector. While some exemptions were provided for in these me asures in certain 
circumstances, these requirements would still distort trade across a range of goods in which 
Australia had an interest. Australia asked Indonesia to ensure that these measures were 
implemented in a manner consistent with its obligations u nder the TRIMs Agreement.  
61.  Indonesia  stated that it had taken Members' concerns into consideration and had given some 
exceptions within the new regulations. The time -frame had been extended until September 2016 
for companies to conform to the regulation. I ndonesia would engage constructively with Members 
to inform progress on this matter.  
62.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.   G/TRIMS/M/40  
 
- 7 - 
 
  7  INDONESIA – CERTAIN MEASURES ADD RESSING LOCAL CONTEN T IN INVESTMENT IN 
THE TELECOMMUNICATIO NS SECTOR  
63.  The Chair noted th at this  issue was on the Agenda at the request of Japan and the 
United  States. The questions posed could be found in documents G/TRIMS/W/61, 71, 78, 86, 104 
and 154. Responses could be found in documents G/TRIMS/W/63, 75, 80, 96, 131, and 160 
respectively.   
64.  Japan  had significant concerns regarding local content requirements in Indonesia's 
telecommunications sector and regretted that Indonesia's response in G/TRIMS/W/160 did not 
provide answers to its questions at all. Indonesia's response to question number  1 was that the 
Decree "does not differentiate treatment between local and foreign service -providers" while the 
issue in question was the differentiated treatment of products and not that of service providers. In 
fact, Articles 16 and 17 of Ministerial Dec ree No. 7/2009 imposed a local content ratio on 
components of communication equipment or devices inconsistently with Article II I:4 of GATT and 
Article 2 of the TRIMs  Agreement. With regard to Indonesia's reply to question number 2, Japan 
disagreed with Ind onesia's response that the program fell under Article III:8(a) of GATT, because 
Japan understood that business operators envisaged in the measures were private and that there 
was no provision that stipulated the necessity for these operators to spend the g overnment 
budget. Japan asked Indonesia's why this program fell within the scope of Article III:8(a) and 
urged it to provide substantive responses to its questions in G/TRIMS/W/154.  
65.  The United States  continued to be concerned by Indonesia's use of local c ontent requirements 
in the telecommunications sector which resulted in favourable treatment for domestic versus 
imported products. The United States was extremely concerned about the expansion of local 
content requirements to other sectors because of the n egative impact on the global economy by 
diversion of global value chains as well as because of its effect on all Members of this Committee.  
66.  Korea  echoed the concerns raised and requested Indonesia to sincerely consider the concerns 
raised by Members.  
67.  The European Union  shared Japan and the United States' position and asked whether 
Indonesia planned to issue any other related measures.  
68.  Indonesia  emphasized that it had answered Members' questions in documents 
G/TRIMS/W/63, G/TRIMS/W/75, G/TRIMS/W/80, G/TRIM S/W/96, G/TRIMS/W/131, and 
G/TRIMS/W/160. It looked forward to continue working with other Members and asked them to 
send their new questions in writing.  
69.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.     
8  RUSSIAN FEDERATION – MEASURES IMPLEMENTIN G RUSSIA 'S IMPORT 
SUBSTITUTION POLICY  
70.  The Chair noted that this  item was on the agenda at the request of the European Union and 
the United States. Question s to the Russian Federation had been  circulated in document 
G/TRIMS/Q/RUS/4.  
71.  The United States  was concerned  about a growing emphasis in Russia on local content 
requirements and import substitution. While many provisions of the Anti -Crisis Plan related to 
government procurement, outside  the scope of this Committee, the US  understood that Russia was 
considering e xpansion of these kinds of requirements beyond government procurement and 
applying requirements to purchase Russian -made inputs to state –owned enterprises as well. The 
United States was concerned that elements of the Anti -Crisis plan could be implemented i n a WTO -
inconsistent manner and hoped for additional information from Russia. It sought confirmation and 
assurances that Russia would implement these measures consistent ly with its WTO obligations and 
that any requirements to purchase Russian goods would n ot be applicable to state -owned 
enterprises.  
72.  The European Union  supported the US intervention and raised concerns as to the growing 
utilisation of trade -related investment measures with the aim to condition certain benefits or G/TRIMS/M/40  
 
- 8 - 
 
  market access on local conte nt requirements and investment commitments. Noting that the 
localisation requirement trend had been extending to additional sectors and beyond public 
procurement, the European Union stressed four measures:  
-  Procurement by state owned enterprises and for investment projects funded by the 
State since new rules in this regard had been adopted inter alia with the law No.549 -
FZ of July 2015 amending Law No. 223 -FZ of 2011. Procurements by the above -
mentioned entities had to be approved by a "governmental commi ssion on export 
substitution".   
 
-  Subsidy to the automotive sector also seemed conditioned on local content 
requirements. In particular: the subsidy scheme introduced in January 2014 
(Resolutions 29, 30, 31 and 32); the cost -compensating subsidy scheme introduced 
end 2015 (Decree 1433 of 2014 amended by Decree 244 of 2015); and the subsidized 
car loan and car leasing introduced in April 2015 (Decree 364).  
 
-  Agriculture machinery was another sector where subsidies and preferential support 
seemed to be granted provided that local content requirements are met, with 
measures in place for several years such as: subsidies for manufacturers, 
representing up to 15% of the selling price (Decree 1432 of 2012 amended in 2014); 
subsidy scheme for purchasers (Regul ation 908 of 2013) and preferential leasing 
scheme managed by the RosAgroLeasing.  
 
-  "Specific investment contracts" seemed to be one more vehicle to provide specific 
advantages to individual economic operators provided they respected certain 
conditions i n line with the philosophy of the import substitution policy. The EU 
understood that investments in Russia by individual companies were to be 
compensated by preferential treatment such as the status of "sole supplier" in State 
public procurements, tax conc essions or access to certain subsidy schemes.  
 
73.  Canada  noted its interest in receiving more information on these measures and looked 
forward to the responses from Russia to the questions posed by the United States.  
74.  Japan  expressed its systemic interest an d would continue to closely monitor the situation 
surrounding these measures taken by Russia.  
75.  The Russian Federation  thanked the United States for its questions and would provide replies 
in due course. A number of items from the list of US questions did n ot constitute measures subject 
to discussion in t he Committee, but merely related  to published proposals or ideas that might or 
might not be implemented. The Russian Federation noted that a Member pursuing industrial 
development goals could use many tools without violating WTO Rules.  
76.  The Russian Federation drew the attention of the United States to the written replies on the 
issue of procurement by Russian Enterprises with state participation in document 
G/TRIMS/Q/RUS/3. Federal Law of 18 July 2011 No. 223  related to the purchase of certain types 
of machinery in course of implementation of public defence projects including those which are 
aimed at creation of infrastructure facilities for governmental purposes and the law is in full 
compliance with the obli gations of the Russian Federation within the WTO.  
77.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
9  NOTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 6.2 OF THE T RIMS AGREEMENT  
78.  The Chair recalled that Article 6.2 of the Agreement and the 1996 Committee Decision 
contained in doc ument G/TRIMS/5 required Members to notify the names of publications in which 
TRIMs might be found, where such publications exist ed, 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 
on 29 September in document G/TRIMS/W/163.  Since  the last meeting of the Committee, G/TRIMS/M/40  
 
- 9 - 
 
  Kazakhstan and Seychelles had submitted notifications under Article 6.2. She urged Members that 
had not yet notified to do so promptly.  
79.  The Committee took note  of the information provided.  
10  OTHER BUSINESS  
80.  No member rais ed any item under other business.  
11  ELECTION OF THE CHAI RMAN AND VICE CHAIRM AN 
81.  The Chair recalled that at its meeting on 11 May, the CTG had agreed on a slate of names for 
Chairpersons to the different subsidiary bodies, including the Chair to the TRIMs Com mittee.  
82.  The Committee elected  Ms Marine Willemetz as Chair, and Mr Muhammed de Gama as Vice -
Chair, of the Committee for 2016.  
12  DATE OF THE NEXT MEE TING  
83.  The Chair proposed that the next scheduled meeting of this Committee be held on 
17 October  2016. The Se cretariat would issue the annotated draft agenda three weeks before the 
meeting, i.e. 26 September 2016. Requests to place items on the annotated draft agenda should 
be communicated in writing to the Secretariat by 19 September 2016. The annotated draft ag enda 
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 20 16. 
84.  The meeting was adjourned .  
 
 
__________