RESTRICTED  
  
G/C/M/112  
 
5 March 2013  
(13-1182)  Page: 1/23  
Council for Trade in Goods    
 
  MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF TH E COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS  
26 NOVEMBER 2012 
 
CHAIRPERSON: H.E. AMBASSADOR DR. TOM MBOYA OKEYO (KENYA) 
The meeting of the Council for Trade in Good s was convened by airgram WTO/AIR/4049; the 
proposed agenda for the meeting was contained in document G/C/W/677.  The meeting proceeded 
on the basis of the following agenda. 
 
1   NOTIFICATION OF RE GIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS .................................................... 2  
2   MARKET ACCESS COMMITTEE ISSUES ......................................................................... 2  
3   ENLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION: PROCEDURES UNDER ARTICLE 
XXVIII:3 OF GATT 1994 ................................................................................................... 3  
4   REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE WAIVER FOR THE KIMBERLEY 
PROCESS CERTIFICATION SCHEME FO R ROUGH DIAMONDS – COLLECTIVE 
REQUEST ....................................................................................................................... ... 4 
5   PHILIPPINES – REQUEST FOR A WAIVER RELATING TO SPECIAL TREATMENT 
FOR RICE OF THE PHILIPPINES ....................................................................................... 6  
6   BRAZIL – DOMESTIC CONTENT RE QUIREMENTS IN BRAZIL'S IPI TAX – 
STATEMENTS BY AUSTRALIA, THE EUROPEAN UNION AND JAPAN ................................... 7  
7   UKRAINE'S ARTICLE XXVIII NOTIFI CATION - STATEMENTS BY ASEAN; 
AUSTRALIA; BRAZIL; CANADA; CHILE; COLOMBIA; CROATIA; EUROPEAN UNION; 
GUATEMALA;  HONG KONG, CHINA; ICELAND; JAPAN; KOREA; LIECHTENSTEIN; MEXICO;  NEW ZEALAND; NORWAY; OMAN; SWITZERLAND; TURKEY AND THE 
UNITED STATES ............................................................................................................... 9
 
8   RUSSIAN FEDERATION - IMPLEMENTATION OF WTO ACCESSION 
COMMITMENTS - STATEMENTS BY THE EUROPEAN UNION, JAPAN AND THE 
UNITED STATES ............................................................................................................. 13  
9   INDONESIA'S IMPORT RESTRICTING POLICIES AND PRACTICES - REQUEST 
BY THE EUROPEAN UNION AN D THE UNITED STATES .................................................... 15  
10   ECUADOR MIXED TARIFFS - REQUEST BY THE EUROPEAN UNION, JAPAN 
AND THE UNITED STATES .............................................................................................. 18  
11   WORK PROGRAMME ON ELECTRONIC CO MMERCE ................................................... 20  
12   ADOPTION OF THE ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE SUBSIDIARY BODIES OF THE 
COUNCIL FOR TRAD E IN GOODS .................................................................................... 21  
13   ADOPTION OF THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN 
GOODS TO THE GENERAL CO UNCIL (G/C/W/676) ......................................................... 21  
14   OTHER BU SINESS .................................................................................................... 22  
 
When adopting the agenda the Chairperson indicated that under the item "Other Business", he would update the Council on the informal consultations he had carried out in respect of room 
document RD/CTG/1 containing the revised format of the "Updating of the listing of notification G/C/M/112 
 
- 2 - 
 
  obligations and the compliance therewith as set out in Annex III of the Report of the Working 
Group on Notification Obligations and Procedures".  He would also inform the Council of the date of the next meeting.   
The European Union also requested to include un der this agenda item the issue of "Ukraine’s 
Recycling Fee Draft Law".  
The agenda was so agreed.  
 
 1  NOTIFICATION OF REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS 
1.1.  The Chairperson recalled that, under the wo rking procedures agreed by the Committee on 
Regional Trade Agreements (CRTA), following adopti on by the General Council of the Transparency 
Mechanism, the Council for Trade in Goods (CTG) was to be kept informed of Members' 
notifications of new regional trade agreements.1  He informed the CTG that the following regional 
trade agreements had been notified to the CRTA: 
a. Free Trade Agreement between the EFTA states and Ukraine (WT/REG315/N/1) 
b. Free Trade Agreement between Colombia and the Northern Triangle - El Salvador, 
Guatemala and Honduras (WT/REG316/N/1) 
c. Free Trade Agreement between the Russian Federation and Azerbaijan 
(WT/REG317/N/1) 
d. Free Trade Agreement between the Russian Federation and Belarus (WT/REG318/N/1) 
e. Free Trade Agreement between the Russian Federation and Kazakhstan 
(WT/REG319/N/1) 
f. Free Trade Agreement between the Russian Fe deration and the Republic of Moldova 
(WT/REG320/N/1) 
g. Free Trade Agreement between the Russian Federation and Tajikistan (WT/REG321/N/1) 
h. Free Trade Agreement between the EFTA states and Hong Kong, China 
(WT/REG322/N/1) 
i. Free Trade Agreement between the EFTA st ates and Montenegro (WT/REG323/N/1) 
j. Trade Promotion agreement between the United States and Panama (WT/REG324/N/1) 
1.2.  The Council took note of the information. 
2  MARKET ACCESS COMMITTEE ISSUES 
2.1.  The Chairperson noted that the Committee on Market Access had forwarded four items for 
consideration by the Council and suggested that they  be taken up in the order in which they were 
listed in the Airgram. 
2.1  Committee on Market Access – Periodic Report of the Committee 
2.2.  The Chairperson drew Members' attention to  the periodic report of the Committee on Market 
Access contained in document G/MA/286.  The report was factual in nature, and reflected the work 
undertaken in that Committee.   
2.3.  The Council took note of the periodic report.   
                                               
1 See documents WT/REG16, WT/L/671 and G/C/M/88. G/C/M/112 
 
- 3 - 
 
  2.2  Introduction of Harmonized System 2002 Changes into WTO Schedules of Tariff 
Concessions – Collective Request for Waiver Extension 
2.4.  The Chairperson drew Members' attention to th e collective draft waiver decision circulated in 
document G/C/W/672/Rev.1, made in connection with the introduction of HS2002 changes into 
WTO schedules of tariff concessions.  The current waiver decision was contained in document 
WT/L/832 and would expire on 31 December 2012.  The proposed one year extension of the waiver decision contained in document G/C/W/672/Rev.1 was considered at the formal meeting of 
the Committee on Market Access that took place on 16 October 2012 and forwarded to the CTG for 
action.  He proposed that the Council approve the draft waiver decision contained in G/C/W/672/Rev.1 and forward it to the General Council for adoption. 
2.5.  The Council approved the draft waiver decision contained in document G/C/W/672/Rev.1 and 
agreed to forward it to the General Council for adoption. 
2.3  Introduction of Harmonized System 2007 Changes into WTO Schedules of Tariff 
Concessions – Collective Request for Waiver Extension  
2.6.  The Chairperson drew Members' attention to th e collective draft waiver decision circulated in 
document G/C/W/673, made in connection with the introduction of HS2007 changes into WTO 
schedules of tariff concessions.  The current waiver decision was contained in document WT/L/833 
and would expire on 31 December 2012.  The propos ed one year extension of the waiver decision 
was considered at the formal meeting of the Committee on Market Access that took place on 16 October 2012 and forwarded to the CTG for acti on.  He proposed that the Council approve the 
draft waiver decision contained in G/C/W/673 and forward it to the General Council for adoption. 
2.7.  The Council approved the draft waiver decision contained in document G/C/W/673 and 
agreed to forward it to the General Council for adoption. 
2.4  Introduction of Harmonized System Changes 2012 Changes into WTO Schedules of 
Tariff concessions – Collective Request for a Waiver 
2.8.  The Chairperson drew Members' attention to th e collective draft waiver decision circulated in 
document G/C/W/674 made in connection with the introduction of HS2012 changes into WTO 
schedules of tariff concessions.  The current waiver decision was contained in document WT/L/834 
and would expire on 31 December 2012.  The proposed one year extension provided for in the waiver decision contained in document G/C/W/674 was considered at the formal meeting of the Committee on Market Access that took place on 16 October 2012 and forwarded to the CTG for 
action.  He proposed that the Council approve the draft waiver decision contained in G/C/W/674 
and forward it to the General Council for adoption. 
2.9.  The Council approved the draft waiver decision contained in document G/C/W/674 and 
agreed to forward it to the General Council for adoption. 
3  ENLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION: PROCEDURES UNDER ARTICLE XXVIII:3 OF 
GATT 1994 
3.1.  The Chairperson informed Members that under this agenda item, the Council was to consider 
a request for extension of the time period for the withdrawal of concessions for the two 
enlargements of the European Union that t ook place on 1 May 2004 and on 1 January 2007, 
respectively.   
3.1  Enlargement of the European Union on 1 May 2004  
3.2.  The Chairperson drew Members' attention to document G/L/695/Add.16 concerning the 
accession to the European Union on 1 May 2004 of Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, 
Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia.  In this document, the EU 
indicated that it would not assert that Members who had submitted a claim pursuant to Article XXIV:6 of GATT 1994 were precluded from withdrawing substantially equivalent concessions 
under Article XXVIII:3 of GATT 1994 because this wi thdrawal occurred later than six months after 
the EU's withdrawal of concessions, provided th at the claiming WTO Member withdrew concessions G/C/M/112 
 
- 4 - 
 
  no later than 111 months after the EU's modification of concessions.  He recalled that the General 
Council had on four earlier occasions, on the basis of similar communications from the EU, extended the deadline for withdrawal of concessi ons referred to in Article XXVIII:3 of GATT 1994, 
namely, at its meetings in October 2004; and in March, June, and December 2005.  Similarly, the 
CTG had extended the deadlines on thirteen o ccasions:  at its meetings of 12 July 2006; 30 
January 2007, 21 May and 23 November 2007; 22 May and 18 November 2008; 29 June and 30 October 2009; 21 May and 30 November 2010; 26 May and 7 November 2011; and 30 March 
2012.  
3.3.  The representative of the European Union said that following the completion of procedures 
associated with the implementation of the Geneva Agreement on Trade in Bananas, and in 
particular the certification of the EU tariff line on bananas on 27 October 2012, the EU was close to 
finalizing the procedures pursuant to Article XXIV.6 and Article XXVIII of GATT 1994 in respect of 
the EU's enlargement in 2004. A few steps remained and would be completed in the near future, including the certification of the EU-25 schedule, circulation of all agreements reached, and the 
submission of the final report on the negotiatio ns.  The EU had therefore circulated a message 
aimed at extending the period in which Members were allowed to withdraw substantially equivalent concessions. The message was identical to the one which the CTG had endorsed when extending 
the period for withdrawal in the CTG of 30 March 2012. 
3.4.  The Council took note of the statement made  and also of the EU communication contained in 
document G/L/695/Add.16 and agreed on the extension of the deadline as set out in the EU 
document G/L/695/Add.16.   
3.2  Enlargement of the European Union on 1 January 2007 
3.5.  The Chairperson drew Members' attention to document G/L/821/Add.11 concerning the 
accession to the European Union on 1 January 2007 of Bulgaria and Romania.  In this 
communication, the EU indicated that it would not assert that Members who had submitted a claim 
pursuant to Article XXIV:6 of GATT 1994 were prec luded from withdrawing substantially equivalent 
concessions under Article XXVIII:3 of GATT 1994 because this withdrawal occurred later than 
six months after the EU's withdrawal of conce ssions, provided that the claiming WTO Member 
withdrew concessions no later than 78 months after the EU's modification of concessions.  He recalled that the CTG had extended the deadline on eleven occasions, namely at its meetings of 21 
May and 23 November 2007; 22 May and 18 November 2008; 29 June and 30 October 2009; 21 
May and 30 November 2010; 26 May and 7 November 2011; and 30 March 2012. 
3.6.  The representative of the European Union informed the Council that the negotiations 
following the EU's 2007 enlargement had finalized; however, the EU was proceeding with the 
signature and conclusion of the final two agreements (US and China). Thus, in order to have 
sufficient time to finalize all the procedures and to ensure the entry into force of the agreements, another extension to the period in which Members were allowed to withdraw substantially 
equivalent concessions was necessary. The EU had therefore circulated a message aimed at 
extending the period in which Members were allowed to withdraw substantially equivalent concessions.  The message itself was similar to the one which the CTG had endorsed when extending the period for withdrawal in the CTG of 30 March 2012. 
3.7.  The Council took note of the statement made  and also of the EU communication contained in 
document G/L/821/Add.11 and agreed on the extens ion of the deadline as set out in the European 
Union's document G/L/821/Add.11.  
4  REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE WAIVER FOR THE KIMBERLEY PROCESS 
CERTIFICATION SCHEME FOR ROUGH DIAMONDS – COLLECTIVE REQUEST 
4.1.  The Chairperson drew the Council's attention to document G/C/W/675/Rev.1 which was 
submitted on 13 November 2012 by Australia, Botswana, Brazil, Canada, Croatia, the European 
Union, India, Israel, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Chinese Taipei, Thailand, Turkey 
and the United States, and which contained a request and a draft decision for a six year extension of the waiver for the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme for Rough Diamonds (KPCS), 
effective 1 January 2013 until 31 December 2018.  G/C/M/112 
 
- 5 - 
 
  4.2.  He recalled that in May 2003 after consider ation and approval by this Council of a draft 
waiver decision, the General Council had adopted,  in document WT/L/518, a "Waiver concerning 
the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme for Rough Diamonds" effective 1 January 2003 until 31 December 2006. Similarly, in December 2006 the General Council, after consideration and 
approval by this Council of a draft waiver de cision, in document WT/L/676, had adopted the 
extension of the said waiver effective 1 January 2007 until 31 December 2012.  
4.3.  The delegate of the United States when introducing the request for the extension of the 
waiver on the KPCS (document G/C/W/675/Rev.1), stated that her delegation was pleased to have 
led the initiative in 2012, and recalled that on 5 November 2002 participants in the KPCS had expressed their intent to implement an international scheme of certification for rough diamonds, with a view to helping break the link between  armed conflict and trade in rough diamonds. 
4.4.  She recalled that the initial request for a WTO waiver was granted in 2002, extended in 2006 
and effective until 31 December 2012; she further indicated that the extension of the current waiver was aimed at allowing the requesting Members to take the necessary measures to regulate 
the import and export of rough diamonds as outlined in the KPCS.  A waiver from the provisions of 
Article I:1, Article XI:1, and Article XIII:1 of the GATT 1994 would lend legal certainty to the relationship between those measures and the GATT 1994.  She also indicated that the draft waiver 
decision to be considered at this meeting of the CTG remained substantively the same as the 
previously approved waivers; the changes that had been proposed, updated the current waiver 
particularly for a further extension until 31 December 2018. 
4.5.  The representative of Zimbabwe said that his country, as a founding member of the KPCS 
and an important diamond producer, supported the extension of the existing waiver; furthermore, 
Zimbabwe strictly adhered to the principles of the KPCS.  He added that visits to Zimbabwean 
diamond fields had confirmed full compliance with the KPCS process and, therefore, Zimbabwe had 
been granted a clean bill to trade in diamonds, unfettered for the benefit of its people.  However, 
his delegation wished to record its concern that, in spite of the existence of mechanisms to promote the legitimate trade in diamonds, such as the KPCS and the current waiver, trade in 
diamonds in Zimbabwe continued to be hampered by unilateral coercive measures imposed by the 
United States.  These unilateral measures not only affected Zimbabwe but had negative implications on the global trade in diamonds as Zimbabwe's diamonds were being marketed at depressed market prices; Zimbabwe's diamonds should be marketed unconditionally as the 
country had met the KPCS' standards.  He therefore asked the US to remove such measures which 
were an obstacle to international trade and an impediment to the government and people of Zimbabwe to reap the full bene fits of the renewal of the WT O-KPCS waiver under discussion. 
4.6.  The delegates of the Russian Federation , Singapore, the Philippines and the Bolivarian 
Republic of Venezuela expressed their delegations'  support for the waiver extension and requested 
that their countries be included in the list of co-sponsors.  
4.7.  The delegates of Israel, Thailand, Turkey, Sr i Lanka, the European Union, on its own behalf, 
and that of Croatia, also expressed their de legations' support for the waiver extension. 
4.8.  The delegate of Botswana echoed the stat ement made by the US and reminded delegations 
that in the past, there had been a serious threat in some parts of the world to boycott diamonds 
due to their misuse. His country therefore joined others in the establishment of the KPCS which 
made notable strides in achieving its objectives, especially in ensuring that conflict diamonds did not enter the legitimate trade in rough diamonds.  Though the situation had not totally been 
solved, the objectives of the scheme remained relevant, and needed to be pursued.  
4.9.  The diamonds sector accounted for one-thir d of Botswana's GDP and about 70% of its export 
earnings. Revenues from the diamond industry played a critical role in driving the economic and 
social development of his country, and as such, any threats to the industry were taken seriously. 
Botswana supported the request for an extension of the current WTO waiver for the KPCS so as to support the humanitarian and security goals of the certification scheme. 
4.10.  The delegate of the United States in resp onse to the statement made by the representative 
of Zimbabwe, indicated that the reference the representative had made corresponded to the G/C/M/112 
 
- 6 - 
 
  sanctions of the Office of Foreign Assets Contro l (OFAC); in this regard she noted that OFAC 
sanctions list was separate and had no connection with the Kimberley Process. 
4.11.  The representative of Zimbabwe thanked the US for having led the initiative to extend the 
current waiver, and noted that he had referred to the US sanctions against Zimbabwe under 
ZIDERA Act, which were WTO incompatible. 
4.12.  The Chairperson proposed that the Council take note of the statements made, approve the 
draft waiver decision contained in document G/C/W/675/Rev.1 and agree to forward a revised 
version to the General Council for adoption, in cluding in the Annex, the Russian Federation, 
Singapore, the Philippines and the Bolivarian Repub lic of Venezuela as co-sponsors of the waiver 
extension. 
4.13.  The Council so agreed. 
5  PHILIPPINES – REQUEST FOR A WAIVER  RELATING TO SPECIAL TREATMENT FOR 
RICE OF THE PHILIPPINES 
5.1.  The Chairperson drew the Council's attention to document G/C/W/665/Rev.1 submitted by 
the Philippines on 15 November 2012 and containing a revised waiver request and a revised draft 
decision concerning the special treatment for rice of the Philippines.  He informed the Council that, as indicated at the meeting on 22 June, he had ma de a factual report to the General Council on 25 
July 2012, indicating that this Council needed further time to continue its work and that it would 
report back to the General Council once it would have completed its examination of this issue. 
5.2.  The delegate of the Philippines recalled that his country's request for a waiver was first 
considered by this Council on 30 March 2012, and that in June 2012 WTO Members had endorsed 
that the Philippines continue negotiations.  At  its meeting on 25 July 2012, the General Council 
mandated the CTG to complete its work.  In this vein, the Philippines had held intensive consultations with a view to concluding talks on improved market access for rice.  As a result of 
these consultations, a revised request for a waiver, contained in document G/C/W/665/Rev.1, 
dated 15 November 2012, had been submitted for Members' consideration. He thanked the interested delegations for their positive efforts but regretted that the revised text could not be 
completed at this meeting; this was a matter of concern given the important role that rice played 
in the food and livelihood security in the Philippines, particularly considering that rice was a predominant product and a major employment generator for at least 2.4 million small and poor farmers in his country.  He requested the Council to allow the Philippines more time to complete 
negotiations so that the waiver request could be considered and approved at the next Council 
meeting.  He also asked interested Members to remain fully engaged with his country in order to reach a concrete outcome.  The Philippines was ready to engage in intensive consultations with the 
few remaining interested Members that had yet to conclude bilateral talks. 
5.3.  The delegate of Australia thanked the Phil ippines for the discussions held on the waiver 
request.  Australia looked forward to an expediti ous conclusion of the negotiations so as not to 
prolong the current situation, particularly since the special treatment under Annex 5 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture had expired in June 2012.  Australia would continue working with the Philippines to bring these negotiations to a successful conclusion as soon as possible. 
5.4.  The delegate of Indonesia thanked the Ph ilippines for the update on the discussions and 
negotiations concerning the waiver.  Indonesia supported the Philippines' request to complete the 
negotiations with a view to approving the waiver as soon as possible. 
5.5.  The delegate of Thailand welcomed the po sitive development of negotiations between the 
Philippines and interested Members.  Bilateral discussions between the two countries had 
extensively progressed. However, additional time was needed to complete these discussions.  Thailand also looked forward to discussing the revised draft waiver request with interested 
delegations, and would continue to support the Philippines' efforts towards reaching a satisfactory 
conclusion to this matter. 
5.6.  The delegate of India noted that his country had taken part in the negotiations and 
discussions on this issue where, despite the sensit ivities concerning the need to reinvigorate the G/C/M/112 
 
- 7 - 
 
  rice sector and institute resilience programmes in the country, the Philippines had shown 
constructive engagement and flexibility. For both countries, rice was a commodity with direct linkages to food and livelihood security; and rural development of millions of farmers therefore, it 
was important to both Members.  India endorsed the Philippines' waiver and requested Members to 
engage positively in finalizing their bilateral ag reements and negotiations with the Philippines. 
5.7.  The delegate of El Salvador thanked the Phil ippines for the information provided on the status 
of negotiations with respect to the waiver.  El Salvador had held constructive bilateral 
consultations with the Philippines where significan t progress had been made.  She hoped that this 
issue would be solved in a positive manner as soon as possible. 
5.8.  The delegate of Canada said that his country continued to be engaged in constructive 
bilateral negotiations with the Philippines, and recognized the need to conclude the negotiations in 
a timely manner and, hopefully, with a mutually agreed outcome. Canada would only be in  
position to support the waiver request once the negotiations had been completed. 
5.9.  The delegate of China informed the Counc il that in April 2012 China had held bilateral 
consultations with the Philippines in Beijing.  China was currently discussing with the Philippines 
the possibility of having further consultations on this issue. 
5.10.  The delegate of Pakistan said that the Philippines had been very constructive in its efforts to 
approach interested Members.  She hoped that a positive and prompt outcome would result from 
the bilateral consultations. 
5.11.  The Council took note of the statements made and agreed revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. 
6  BRAZIL – DOMESTIC CONTENT REQUIREMEN TS IN BRAZIL'S IPI TAX – STATEMENTS 
BY AUSTRALIA, THE EUROPEAN UNION AND JAPAN 
6.1.  The Chairperson informed the Council that in a communication dated 15 November 2012, the 
delegations of Australia, the European Union and Japan had requested the Secretariat to include in 
the agenda of this meeting the following item: "Brazil – Domestic Content Requirements in Brazils' IPI Tax - Statements by Australia, the European Union and Japan". 
6.2.  The delegate of the European Union said that Brazil's recourse to indirect taxes as a means to 
protect and promote domestic manufacturing, part icularly through domestic content requirements 
in the automotive sector, was of concern to his authorities.  The EU had raised this issue at previous meetings of this Council, at the October 2012 meeting of the TRIMs Committee, and at 
the meeting of the Committee on Market Access in  October 2011. Brazil had assured Members that 
these measures, applied throughout 2012, would laps e at the end of 2012.  However, at the last 
CTG meeting in June 2012 Brazil had informed Members about the introduction of a new 
programme adopted in April 2012, the "INOVAR-AUTO".  
6.3.  The EU believed that the changes introduc ed to the system, modified on 17 September and 
implemented in October 2012, and concerning the conditions to qualify for the "INOVAR-AUTO" 
programme, and the basis to calculate the applicable tax credit, were designed to favour domestic 
manufacturers to the detriment of imported goods. In fact, the conditions to benefit from INOVAR-
AUTO programme included: performance in Brazil of major manufacturing activities; performance 
in Brazil of increasing Research and Development (R&D) activities and/or engineering activities; 
and/or adherence to a vehicle labelling programme. Accordingly, the IPI tax credit applied to those 
companies that qualified for the INOVAR-AUTO programme was calculated on the basis of their expenditures in Brazil.  Therefore, INOVAR-AUTO programme accorded tax advantages in a 
manner that appeared to favour domestic manufacturing of motor vehicles and components, 
and/or related business, engineering and R&D operations.  
6.4.  His delegation was concerned that similar domestic content conditions  for benefiting from 
sales tax advantages, or to the granting of tax breaks on sales of domestically-produced goods 
would be implemented in other sectors.  The EU asked Brazil not to adopt nor implement provisions that, with regard to indirect taxes, wo uld discriminate against imported goods.  It also 
sought from Brazil more information on its INOVAR-AUTO programme, and requested answers to G/C/M/112 
 
- 8 - 
 
  the questions it had previously posed on the cons istency of the Brazilian measures with the GATT 
1994 and the TRIMs Agreements. 
6.5.  The delegate of Japan recalled that at the April 2012 meeting of the Committee on Trade 
Investment Related Measures (TRIMs), Brazil had announced the INOVAR-AUTO assistance 
programme for the automotive sector, and that in October 2012, it had promulgated Decree 7819 
establishing the specific conditions under which certain eligible companies would benefit from tax reduction incentives for industrial products.  In Japan's view these measures were aimed at 
protecting domestic industry and would provide advantages pertaining to internal taxes on 
products from specific countries; Japan also considered that their implementation could be inconsistent with Articles I and III of the GATT 19 94 and Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement.  Japan 
had a systemic interest in following this issue an d would welcome Brazil's views on the background 
and objectives of the measures being implemented and their consistency with the WTO 
Agreements. 
6.6.  The delegate of Australia stated that the systemic and commercial concerns of his delegation 
over the nature and architecture of Brazil's assistance programmes to its automotive sector, had 
already been explained to the WTO membership. Australia acknowledged the bilateral technical consultations that had taken place both in Geneva and in Brasilia. His authorities recognized that 
the automotive sector had been impacted by the continued uncertainties of the global economy.  
However, a number of governments had intervened to ensure the viability and competitiveness of 
this sector. Moreover, the WTO rules provided parameters to governments on how best to provide assistance to the industry while avoiding trade impacts on other Members' interests.   
6.7.  Australia's concerns related mainly on how Brazil was choosing to assist its automotive 
sector, and the nature of the performance requir ements that underpinned the assistance scheme.  
His authorities were still analysing Brazilian Decree 7819 of 3 October 2012 and in the meantime, 
wanted to highlight some issues of concern: credits for the tax exemption were earned on the 
basis of undertaking eligible activities in Brazil; companies already present in Brazil and producing motor vehicles might meet a perf ormance threshold based on a minimum percentage of domestic 
production; for those planning a manufacturing presence in Brazil, there appeared to be certain 
quantitative and value limits on using credits on imported vehicles. Australia believed these measures restricted access to the Brazilian market and were distorting trade.  
6.8.  The delegate of Korea echoed the systemic concerns and recalled that his delegation had also 
raised this issue on various occasions, includin g in the past meetings of this Council and the 
Committee on Market Access.  Korea was closely monitoring both the impact of the IPI tax measure on exports of Korean cars to Brazil, and the discussions regarding its possible systemic 
implications.  Korea wanted the situation to  be resolved in a WTO consistent manner. 
6.9.  The delegate of Hong Kong, China reiterated  the systemic concerns of his delegation over 
Brazil's protectionist measure and would continue to monitor the issue.  
6.10.  The delegate of Canada recalled the stat ements made by his delegation at previous 
meetings of this Council.  His authorities had concerns over the duration of the IPI tax measure, 
and the domestic content requirement previously d e s c r i b e d  b y  B r a z i l  a s  t e m p o r a r y .   L a t e s t  
legislative developments did not indicate that this  measure would be dismantled in the near term.  
He recalled the commitment that Brazil and other G-20 members had made to continue to refrain 
from the use and introduction of protectionist and trade distorting measures.  Canada looked forward to receiving information from Brazil on the steps it intended to take in order to address 
the concerns raised by Members in respect of the IPI tax measure. 
6.11.  The delegate of the United States shared many of the concerns about Brazil's tax increase 
on imported autos and would continue to monitor the issue closely.  
6.12.  The delegate of Chinese Taipei also shared the concerns raised by other Members over 
Brazil's IPI tax measures and indicated that her authorities would follow the issue closely.  She 
urged all WTO Members to refrain from taki ng any form of protectionist measures. 
6.13.  In response, the delegate of Brazil stat ed that the INOVAR-AUTO scheme, which came into 
effect on 3 October 2012, was due to expire on 13 December 2017. The scheme was solely aimed G/C/M/112 
 
- 9 - 
 
  at providing support to technological developmen t, innovation, safety, environmental protection, 
energy efficiency, and to improve the quality of cars, trucks, buses and auto parts manufactured 
and traded in Brazil.  The regulation established the specific conditions under which three categories of eligible companies could benefit from incentives through the INOVAR-AUTO 
programme: companies that manufactured automotive products in Brazil; companies that traded 
automotive products in Brazil; and companies with investment plans approved by the Ministry of Development, Industry and Trade.  In this ve in, the conditions for admission to the regime 
included energy efficiency targets, minimum levels of expenditures in innovation and research, and 
development and percentage of vehicles included in the certification programme on energy efficiency of INMETRO.  The INOVAR AUTO programme complied with the WTO disciplines and Brazil was ready to provide further clarification on this programme. 
6.14.  The Council took note of the statements made. 
7  UKRAINE'S ARTICLE XXVIII NOTIFICATION  - STATEMENTS BY ASEAN; AUSTRALIA; 
BRAZIL; CANADA; CHILE; COLOMBIA; CROATIA; EUROPEAN UNION; GUATEMALA;  
HONG KONG, CHINA; ICELAND; JAPAN;  KOREA; LIECHTENSTEIN; MEXICO;  
NEW ZEALAND; NORWAY; OMAN; SWITZERLAND; TURKEY AND THE UNITED STATES 
7.1.   The Chairperson informed the Council that in a communication dated 15 November 2012, 
the European Union on its own behalf and that of the delegations of the ASEAN; Australia; Brazil; 
Canada; Chile; Colombia; Croatia; Guatemala; Hong Kong, China; Iceland; Japan; Korea; Liechtenstein; Mexico; New Zealand; Norway; Oman ; Switzerland; Turkey; and the United States, 
had requested to include in the agenda of this meeting the following issue: "Ukraine's Article 
XXVIII Notification - Statements by ASEAN; Australia; Brazil; Canada; Chile; Colombia; Croatia; 
European Union; Guatemala; Hong Kong, China; Iceland; Japan; Korea; Liechtenstein; Mexico; New Zealand; Norway; Oman; Switzerland; Turkey and the United States". 
7.2.  The delegate of Australia stated that his delegation, on its own behalf and that of the 
delegations of Brazil; Canada; Chile; Colombia; Croatia; the European Union; Guatemala;  
Hong Kong, China; Iceland; Japan; Korea; Liechtenstein; Malaysia; Mexico; New Zealand; 
Norway; Oman; Paraguay; Singapore; Switzerland; Tu rkey and the United States wanted to record 
systemic and commercial concerns about Ukraine's Article XXVIII notification contained in G/SECRET/34 and circulated on 12 September 2012. This expansive notification, given the number of tariff lines covered, called into question Ukraine's commitment to the spirit and letter of the 
WTO fundamental disciplines.  
7.3.  He recalled that several concerns had already been raised in recent meetings of the General 
Council, the Committee on Market Access and the Committee on Agriculture. The number of 
delegations supporting the statement and expressing  concerns in previous meetings demonstrated 
the seriousness of the issue both to individual Me mbers and to the WTO as a whole. It was in the 
interest of all WTO Members for Ukraine to withdraw its notification. 
7.4.  Members believed that Ukraine's intention to renegotiate 371 tariff lines including both 
agricultural and industrial products went beyo nd the intended scope of Article XXVIII of GATT 
1994.  Tariff binding, one of the basic WTO pr inciples, served to guarantee security and 
predictability of the multilateral trading system.  However, Ukraine's notification, submitted only a 
few years after its accession to the WTO challenged this basic principle.  Members' concerns also 
related to the difficulties for Ukraine to "maintain a general level of reciprocal and mutually advantageous concessions no less favorable to trade" given the number of tariff lines involved and 
the number of Members affected. It was unclear the extent to which Ukraine would be able to 
compensate Members for the concessions it sought to modify.  
7.5.  Ukraine had not, as required, circulated information about the proposed new rates or how it 
would compensate Members. This failure had limited Members' ability to understand Ukraine's 
objectives and to assess the likely impact thereon.   G/C/M/112 
 
- 10 - 
 
  7.6.  He urged Ukraine to withdraw its notification in the interest of the multilateral trading system 
and the global economy, and requested the Secretar iat to circulate the statement as an official 
document.2 
7.7.  The delegate of Brazil stated that Ukraine' s notification included a wide range of products, 
both agricultural and industrial, which were key export priorities for her country. These tariff lines 
covered 15% of Brazilian exports at 8-digit level.  Thus, almost US$4.6 billion of imports from 
Brazil could be affected as a result of the "re-binding", and depending on the level at which the 
modifications would be made, nearly 50% of Brazil's exports could be negatively affected.  She 
therefore urged Ukraine to reconsider its decision and withdraw its request. 
7.8.  The delegate of the European Union stated  that the number of Members supporting the joint 
statement by Australia indicated the seriousness of  the issue, both to individual Members and to 
the WTO as a whole.  The statement delivered by Ukraine's Prime Minister, that GATT Article 
XXVIII procedures had been initiated to renegotiate the terms and conditions under which Ukraine had acceded to WTO, created more concerns since Article XXVIII was not meant to be used for this 
purpose. 
7.9.  The EU was particularly affected by the scope of this notification and believed that it would be 
difficult for Ukraine to "maintain a general level of reciprocal and mutually advantageous 
concessions no less favourable to trade". The EU considered that Ukraine would not be able to 
compensate Members for the concessions it was seeking to modify. 
7.10.  The delegate of Egypt supported the joint statement delivered by Australia and reiterated 
the concerns of his delegation over Ukraine's notification.  Egypt was surprised by the notification 
and that as a recently-acceded Member, Ukraine had invoked GATT Article XXVIII to renegotiate 
more than 370 tariff lines, this was an unprecedented situation with negative systemic and commercial implications.  Egypt was concerned by the lack of transparency on the part of Ukraine 
with respect to the proposed modifications and the rationale behind them.  Egypt would be 
seriously affected by this "re-binding", as the tariff lines included in the notification covered 70% of its exports to Ukraine.  It would be impossible for Ukraine to maintain the general level of 
reciprocal and mutually advantageous concessions with Egypt, as required by GATT Article XXVIII 
procedures and therefore urged Ukraine to withdraw its request. 
7.11.  The delegate of Uruguay echoed the join t statement by Australia and urged Ukraine to 
withdraw its notification which was unprecedented in the WTO. 
7.12.  The delegate of Korea reiterated the syst emic concerns of his delegation over Ukraine’s 
notification which would negatively affect Korea’s commercial interests. This notification was 
unprecedented and too vast to maintain the general level of reciprocal and mutually advantageous 
concessions no less favorable to trade. Korea called into question Ukraine's commitment to the 
letter and spirit of the fundamental WTO disci plines, particularly GATT Article XXVIII.   
7.13.  The scope of the notification seriously und ermined the predictability and credibility of the 
multilateral trading system. Ukraine’s notification came at a time when all WTO Members needed 
to jointly work harder against trade protectionis m.  Korea encouraged Ukraine to withdraw its 
notification and to come up with other effective and acceptable solutions aimed at addressing the difficulties it was currently facing.   
7.14.  The delegate of Mexico supported the joint statement made by Australia.  Mexico was also 
concerned that Ukraine, only four years after it s accession to the WTO, had invoked GATT Article 
XXVIII intending to modify its tariff binding for more than 371 products.  No other Member had 
done so and this undermined the international trading system.  Mexico urged Ukraine to reconsider 
its decision to modify its bound rates. 
7.15.  The delegate of Hong Kong, China supported the statement delivered by Australia, and 
stated that his authorities were concerned about the far-reaching systemic implication of Ukraine’s 
notification to modify a large number of tariff concessions, particularly as a newly acceded Member.  Hong-Kong, China urged Members not only  to refrain from raising new barriers to trade 
                                               
2 See G/C/W/678. G/C/M/112 
 
- 11 - 
 
  in goods and services, or implementing WTO inconsistent measures in all areas, but also to 
rollback protectionist measures and continue to exercise maximum restraint in implementing WTO inconsistent measures with protectionist effects.  Amidst the currently unsatisfactory economic situation, Ukraine's intention could send a negative signal and Members might resort to 
backtracking from the current commitment so as to protect their domestic industries.  He 
therefore urged Ukraine, in the interest of al l WTO Members, to withdraw its notification. 
7.16.  The delegate of Japan shared the system ic concerns about Ukraine’s notification. While 
GATT Article XXVIII allowed Ukraine's trading partners to take certain countervailing measures, 
Japan believed that such recourse to Article XXVIII would create an irreversible adverse effect to the multilateral trading system, particularly given the unprecedented scale of Ukraine's proposed modification. Japan  was concerned about the lack  of transparency regarding the proposal, and 
believed that Ukraine’s intention could cause a negative effect on Japan's commercial interests as 
the tariff lines which Ukraine intended to modify related to Japan's major export items to Ukraine such as automobiles.  Japan also urged Ukraine to reconsider and withdraw the notification. 
7.17.  The delegate of Canada echoed the concerns expressed by previous speakers with respect 
to Ukraine's notification. From a procedural perspective, a Member seeking to modify its tariff 
schedule should indicate the nature of these modifications in the notification itself or very shortly 
thereafter.  He therefore asked Ukraine to clearly identify how it intended to modify each of the 
371 tariff lines implicated.  Ukraine's failure to provide this information to Members had limited their ability to understand the implications and objectives of the modifications, as well as to assess the commercial impact on their trade interests.  Apart from transparency concerns, Canada, as 
other Members, believed that there was a broader concern over the systemic impact of Ukraine's 
action.  Canada was also of the view that the noti fication went beyond the intended use of Article 
XXVIII, and urged Ukraine to withdraw its notification. 
7.18.  The delegate of Colombia echoed the join t statement made by Australia, and reiterated 
Colombia’s concerns as regarded the lack of transparency shown by Ukraine throughout this 
process. He urged Ukraine to submit complete and clear information so that Members could 
understand Ukraine's intentions and assess the impact.  He asked Ukraine to reconsider this issue 
and withdraw its notification under GATT Article XXVIII. 
7.19.  The delegate of New Zealand indicated that  her authorities shared the systemic and legal 
concerns expressed in Australia’s statement and as previously underscored in the General Council 
and in Committee on Market Access.  She stressed the importance of a more transparent approach 
by Ukraine so that the full WTO membership could better understand its intentions.  Though their current bilateral trade with Ukraine was relatively low, Ukraine's notification gave rise to systemic 
and economic concerns. New Zealand supported Ukraine's accession to the WTO and appreciated 
the quality of the commitments it had made on that occasion.  It also anticipated that over time, the accession would enable both countries to build their own bilateral relationship as evidenced by 
the very large number of Initial Negotiating Rights (INRs) that New Zealand held. As a result of 
the request which covered 130 INRs assigned to New Zealand, her authorities believed that the options to build this economic relationship might be curtailed.  Accordingly, New Zealand asked Ukraine to withdraw its notification. 
7.20.  The delegate of El Salvador indicated that her delegation was closely analyzing Ukraine's 
notification and hoped to be able to discuss the i ssue bilaterally.  She requested Ukraine to provide 
further information on the scope of the planned changes. 
7.21.  The delegate of Switzerland shared th e concerns expressed by Australia and other 
delegations about Ukraine's Article XXVIII notification. The wide range of tariff lines involved called 
into question Ukraine's commitment to the spirit and letter of fundamental WTO disciplines.  His 
authorities believed that the large number of tariff lin es and sectors both agricultural and industrial 
covered by this notification went beyond the in tended scope of GATT Arti cle XXVIII.  Lack of 
transparency by Ukraine in respect of its proposed modifications and the process it intended to pursue was also a matter of concern, particularly since Ukraine had still not circulated any 
information on the proposed new rates nor on how it intended to compensate Members.  This was 
contrary to the renegotiation procedures und er GATT Article XXVIII. Switzerland also urged 
Ukraine to reconsider its notification. G/C/M/112 
 
- 12 - 
 
  7.22.  The delegate of Norway shared the concer ns raised by Australia and a number of other 
delegations.  The systemic concerns related to  the predictability of the commitments in the 
multilateral trading system.  Norway also urged Ukraine to reconsider its request and address these systemic concerns. 
7.23.  The delegate of Turkey stated that the intended increase in the bound tariffs for more than 
371 tariff lines raised serious concerns as it went beyond the scope of GATT Article XXVIII.  The 
compensation process for the affected Members, wh ich would include a significant number of tariff 
lines, would technically have the impact of reopening the accession negotiations, and practically it 
would be impossible to manage and complete it.  He invited Ukraine to reconsider the issue and withdraw its notification. 
7.24.  The delegate of the United States suppor ted the joint statement made by Australia and the 
additional statements made by other delegations. The US urged Ukraine to reflect on the 
statements made and to withdraw its proposed request. 
7.25.  The delegate of Israel echoed the concerns regarding Ukraine's GATT Article XXVIII 
notification.  Israel attached great importance to this matter and looked forward to a satisfactory 
solution in line with WTO rules. 
7.26.  The delegate of China joined others in ex pressing China’s concerns on this matter.  As 
previously pointed out at the General Council and the Committee on Market Access, China believed 
that tariff binding was one of the fundamental pr inciples of the WTO which preserved the value of 
market access and guaranteed the security and pred ictability of the multilateral trading system.  
His authorities were carefully analyzing each line in order to assess the impact that such a 
modification could exert on China's industry and bilateral trade, particularly since China was a 
major supplier of various products covered by Ukra ine’s notification. His authorities urged Ukraine 
to provide more detailed information on the proposed modification and would continue to closely 
follow the matter. 
7.27.  The delegate of Paraguay supported the statement made by Australia and echoed the 
concerns expressed therein. 
7.28.  The delegate of Iceland said that in a time when WTO Members had shown unity to the calls 
for resistance against protectionism, Ukraine was seeking to increase its binding for a substantial 
number of tariff lines under GATT Article XXVIII.  Consequently, the onus was on Ukraine to explain how its intention did not serve protectionist aims.  Ukraine’s notification undermined the 
predictability and transparency of the rules-based international trading system.  Small economies 
that relied on international trade would probably be the most affected.  Iceland believed Ukraine's notification went beyond the scope of Article XXVIII and would result in a renegotiation of a large 
part of its accession commitments.  Therefore, it urged Ukraine to reconsider its request. 
7.29.  The delegate of Singapore on behalf of  the ASEAN echoed the previous statements and 
reiterated ASEAN’s concerns as previously raised  in other WTO fora, over the potential systemic 
implications that could arise from Ukraine’s notifi cation to modify its schedule of concessions. The 
significant number of tariff lines affected, where ASEAN members had export interests, would render it difficult, in particular for developing country Members, to assess the impact of such modification especially considering that there was no clarity on the rationale and objectives 
behind.  ASEAN countries believed that Members needed to fully understand the implications of 
this notification not only on their exporting inte rests but also on the multilateral trading system.  
She called Ukraine to fully engage with other Members in a thorough discussion of its notification 
in a structured, transparent and inclusive manner.   
7.30.  The delegate of the Dominican Republic  indicated that her delegation had requested 
additional information from Ukraine on its notification so as to better assess the impact of the 
request on her country’s international trade. She urged Ukraine to provide this information and to 
fully explain the intended modification. 
7.31.  The delegate of Croatia supported the stat ement made by the EU, associated her delegation 
with the joint statement delivered by Australia, and urged Ukraine to with draw its notification. G/C/M/112 
 
- 13 - 
 
  7.32.  The delegate of Peru echoed the concerns voiced by Australia and other Members. 
7.33.  The delegate of Pakistan shared the concerns expressed by previous speakers.  
7.34.  The delegate of Honduras informed the Council that his authorities had requested 
negotiations with Ukraine and that some meetings had taken place in this regard.  Honduras was 
awaiting a further exchange of information with Ukraine. He also noted that at this meeting, 
Members had expressed concerns over the syst emic issues and implications of Ukraine’s 
notification.  His delegation believed that this was due to a lack of political will to continue 
negotiations under the Doha Round, and hoped that the financial crisis and the current blockage in 
negotiations would not lead to any further temptation on the part of the WTO membership to follow a similar path. 
7.35.  The delegate of Ukraine thanked delegations for their interest and opinions concerning 
Ukraine’s notification under GATT Article XXVIII. Ukraine had reserved its rights under Article 
XXVIII of GATT 1994 and had notified this to the WTO.   He said that Ukraine had also taken into 
account the recommended procedures for negotiatio ns under Article XXVIII, and that, on a regular 
basis, Members had invoked the provisions under th is Article to introduce modifications to their 
schedules of concessions that they considered ap propriate in the context of their trade policy.  
Thus, it was normal practice that should not be perceived as protectionism.  On the contrary, there 
were less transparent instruments in the WT O which were often used by Members.  
7.36.  He indicated that in light of the high interest on the notification, technical meetings had 
taken place in Geneva with interested Members at  the level of heads of delegations.  At these 
meetings, Ukraine had provided additional clarif ications and answered some questions.  Some 
written expressions of interest had also been rece ived from other Members.  Ukraine was open to 
constructive negotiations and consultations aimed at reaching mutually acceptable solutions as it strongly believed in the WTO's ability to accommodate the needs of its individual Members. 
7.37.  The Council took note of the statements made. 
8  RUSSIAN FEDERATION - IMPLEMENTATION OF WTO ACCESSION COMMITMENTS - 
STATEMENTS BY THE EUROPEAN UNION, JAPAN AND THE UNITED STATES 
8.1.  The Chairperson informed the Council that th e European Union, Japan and the United States 
had requested to include on the agenda of this meeting the following issue “Russian Federation -
Implementation of WTO Accession Commitments - Statements by the European Union, Japan and the United States”. 
8.2.  The delegate of the European Union stated that his authorities supported Russia’s accession 
to the WTO as this would contribute to a better integration of the Russian economy in the world 
market and push its modernization and diversification. However, Russia had taken protectionist 
measures which undermined the positive effects of its accession to this Organization.  Some of 
these measures were not in line with Russia’s WTO commitments.  The EU, therefore, had engaged in consultations with Russia to solve these issues. Concerns related particularly to the applied 
recycling fee legislation, and the sanitary and ph yto-sanitary (SPS) related issues like the import 
ban on live animals from the EU. 
8.3.  As regarded the SPS measures, he underlin ed the import ban on slaughtered pigs from the 
EU, a measure put in place by Russia on 20 Ma rch 2012 the rationale of which, according to 
Russia, was the deficiency in inspections in two EU member States and a series of issues which 
questioned the reliability of the EU safety cont rol system. Despite several meetings where the EU 
had made concrete proposals to alleviate these concerns, there had been no progress.  The EU 
found the measure disproportionate, and doubted its justification since it was based on risk 
assessment and applied to pigs for slaughteri ng, but not for breeding and fattening. During 
bilateral discussions on the issue, Russia had mentioned that many local farmers were concerned 
by the decrease of the import duty for this ca tegory of animals in the WTO (from 40% to 5%). 
Despite numerous requests, his authorities had still not received a copy of the risk assessment that the Russian Federation had carried out which was contrary to the WTO SPS Agreement. G/C/M/112 
 
- 14 - 
 
  8.4.  As of 1 September 2012, Russia had imposed a "recycling fee" on imported vehicles of 
approximately €420 per vehicle for small cars, to  €150.000 per vehicle for heavy construction 
vehicles.  However, locally produced vehicles with a certain level of localization were exempted from this fee and a recycling guarantee was sufficient. This was incompatible with Article III of the 
GATT 1994 as it discriminated between locally produced vehicles and those imported. The first 
group had the choice between a guarantee scheme for recycling or a recycling fee and the second group had no choice and was required to pay the latter. This measure reinforced unfair advantages 
given to integrated local producers and had a strong negative impact on EU exports. Consultations 
aimed at withdrawing or substantially changing the provisions of this regulation were in process 
and the EU was confident that these would lead to a positive outcome. 
8.5.  There were a number of other areas where the EU had questions and doubts about the due 
implementation of Russia's WTO obligations.  Ther e were on-going consultations with Russia to 
clarify these situations and remove any potential inconsistencies with Russia's multilateral commitments. 
8.6.  The delegate of Japan also expressed conc erns about the imposition by Russia of recycling 
fees on vehicles, a measure which appeared to be  discriminatory against foreign companies in that 
imported vehicles could be treated under disa dvantageous conditions.  The exemption to pay 
vehicle recycling fee was allowed exclusively to domestically produced vehicles.  Japan had 
requested relevant information and clarification from Russia and awaited the responses, particularly regarding the consistency of the measure with WTO Agreements. 
8.7.  The delegate of the United States said that her authorities appreciated the environmental 
goals that Russia had articulated when establishi ng the recycling fee, but were concerned about 
the possible unequal fee application vis-à-vis imports of vehicles.  As this policy raised questions 
pertaining to Articles III, VIII and XI of the GA TT 1994, the US had posed questions to the Russian 
Federation, and hoped to discuss the responses bilaterally.   
8.8.  With regard to the Information Technology Agreement (ITA), she reiterated the request that 
the Russian Federation take the final steps necessary to become a Participant.  The US, as other 
Members, believed  that this required only some technical refinements.  
8.9.  She indicated that in reviewing the Russian applied tariff schedule, the US had noticed that a 
select number of tariff lines had applied rates that might not be equal to or below Russia’s WTO bound rates; ensuring that Russia’s applied rates were consistent with its WTO obligations was a 
priority and her authorities were still assessing the issue.  
8.10.  The US was also concerned as to how the Russian Federation was implementing some of its 
SPS obligations, such as the harmonization of sanitary and veterinary measures with the relevant 
international standards, the adoption of inspection guidelines in accordance with the FAO  Codex 
Alimentarius, ensuring that SPS measures that we nt beyond international standards were based on 
science and risk analyses, and the approval of esta blishments for export to the Russian Federation 
and Customs Union territory.   
8.11.  Her delegation appreciated and had taken note of Russia’s notification of a series of free 
trade agreements as highlighted in the agenda. She however requested Russia to notify its Customs Union, as required by the WTO rules.   
8.12.  The delegate of Norway welcomed the Russi an Federation as a full Member of the Council 
which, more than any other body in the WTO, re presented the historical continuation of the GATT 
and was the essential pillar of the multilateral trading system. Russia had made significant 
progress in its regulatory reform and in promot ing market openness, however, there was room for 
improvement which resulted more from the manner  in which rules were implemented rather than 
from the rules by themselves.  An example was the compliance with the TBT and SPS Agreements, 
and the harmonization of technical standards within the Customs Union between Russia, Belarus 
and Kazakhstan.  Norway was concerned about the system of import permits required for goods subject to veterinary control and the listing and de -listing of enterprises authorized to export the 
relevant goods to the Russian Federation territory.  He referred to Norway’s statement delivered in 
the SPS Committee expressing that with a common basis in the SPS Agreement, the road was G/C/M/112 
 
- 15 - 
 
  open for more predictable conditions and fair trade for enterprises interested in exporting to 
Russia. 
8.13.  The delegate of Russia thanked delega tions for their questions and statements, and 
requested that they be submitted in writing for on ward transmission to capital.  She acknowledged 
receipt of the United States' questions on the re cycling fee, and requested that further questions 
be submitted in writing as well.  
8.14.  The Council took note of the statements made. 
9  INDONESIA'S IMPORT RESTRICTING POLICIES AND PRACTICES - REQUEST BY THE 
EUROPEAN UNION AND THE UNITED STATES 
9.1.  The Chairperson informed the Council that the European Union and the United States had 
requested the inclusion in the agenda of this m eeting of an item titled “Indonesia's Import 
Restricting Policies and Practices - Request by the European Union and the United States”. 
9.2.  The delegate of the United States said that her authorities were concerned about the trade 
policy trends in Indonesia.  There was an increasing number of laws and regulations which 
generated systemic consequences for accessing Indonesia’s market and which affected its 
attractiveness as a trading partner, as well as on its ability to fulfil its WTO commitments. 
9.3.  As she had already noted at the June 2012 meeting of the Council, despite its impressive 
economic performance, Indonesia had introduced  and was implementing a large number of new 
trade and investment restrictions, including import licensing requirements, trading rights limitations, pre-shipment inspection requirements, local content and domestic manufacturing requirements, including those in the energy sector, as well as export restrictions including taxes 
and prohibitions.  Each one of these policies cr eated an additional burden on traders, and 
altogether created a complex web of approvals that made Indonesia’s market impenetrable. 
9.4.  These concerns, explained in depth by her delegation at the June 2012 meeting, had also 
been raised in the appropriate WTO committees, including the Import Licensing, Agriculture and 
TRIMs Committees.  Despite repeated requests in  the Committee on Customs Valuation, Indonesia 
had failed to notify its requirements to the WTO, as provided for by the Agreement on Pre-
shipment Inspection.  Rather than addressing all these concerns, Indonesia had continued to close 
its market by making its regulations even more  complicated, disruptive, and trade restrictive. 
9.5.  Her authorities found Indonesia’s licensing requirements complicated and complex.  It was 
unclear how such system-wide licensing requirements, or the underlying measures these 
implemented, were consistent with the GATT 1994 and the Agreement on Import Licensing 
Procedures (ILPs). Indonesia’s import licensing scheme seemed an opaque, complex, multi-layered, and multi-dimensional system for ensuring that few, if any, imports - particularly 
horticultural and livestock products - entered Indonesia’s market.  Indonesia appeared to be using 
import licensing as a tool to ensure that the ov erwhelming paper flow and bureaucratic procedures 
impeded products from crossing its borders.  Her delegation had submitted questions in writing 
and responses thereto were still pending. Bilateral and multilateral discussions at the WTO and at 
the highest level of her government had been to no avail.  
9.6.  Her authorities had also requested Indonesia not to implement its regulations on horticultural 
products until Members had been given the opportunity to discuss these concerns and their 
consistency with Indonesia’s WTO obligations.  In response, Indonesia had enacted a new 
regulation on horticulture which appeared just as complicated and prohibitive as the one it was intended to amend.  The US remained equally concerned on livestock sector. 
9.7.  The trade rights requirements in Minist ry of Trade Regulation 27/2012 were equally of 
concern.  The recent amendments in Ministry of Trade Regulation 59/2012 remained complex and had the potential to make trade even more difficult for companies as they prohibited companies 
from acting as both  producer-importers and general-importers.  This was a considerable problem 
for companies with global production operations that relied on trade to serve customers in different countries.  G/C/M/112 
 
- 16 - 
 
  9.8.  There were also concerns about local cont ent requirements in a growing number of sectors, 
including telecommunications, mining, oil and ga s.  A number of other Members had joined the 
United States in expressing these concerns in the TRIMs Committee and in seeking from Indonesia explanation on how these measures were consistent with its obligations under the TRIMs 
Agreement.  Her delegation had indicated on several occasions that such measures distorted trade 
and sent a negative signal to potential investors. 
9.9.  As to the new Law on Food whose developments were being monitored by her authorities, 
this appeared to only allow imports of food an d agriculture where national demand could not be 
met domestically, and exports from Indonesia where demand had already been met.  The law covered all food products using policies similar to those already indicated with regard to the concerns expressed about the horticulture and livestock sectors. 
9.10.  Indonesian officials openly acknowledged th at the government’s policies were intended to 
promote domestic production, create jobs, and mo ve the Indonesian economy up the value chain 
to a higher level of development.  While these objectives were understandable, closing the market 
was not the best way to achieve them.  Indonesia’s trade policy regime could become inconsistent 
with its WTO commitments and G-20 pledge to refrain from trade-distorting policies at this important time for the global economy. 
9.11.  It was of concern that Indonesia did not acknowledge that its import substitution policy 
regime not only had commercial consequences for a number of Members, but also systemic consequences for the WTO as a whole. The US hope d that Indonesia would begin to believe in its 
own competitive abilities, as indicated by its President at the World Export Development Forum, 
where he emphasized the need to ensure that “businesses, especially SMEs, and entrepreneurs 
truly benefitted from greater linking of growth measures to the rest of the world” to achieve growth in trade, investment and sustainable development. 
9.12.  She encouraged Indonesia to re-evaluate its laws and regulations with a view to ensuring 
that they were supportive of Indonesia's WTO commitments, including those related to market 
access, non-discrimination, and transparency.  Her delegation sought from Indonesia, written 
responses to all outstanding questions. 
9.13.  The delegate of the European Union ec hoed the concerns expressed by the US on 
Indonesia’s recent import regulations as these nega tively affected EU exports to Indonesia. Due to 
food safety regulations, horticultural products impo rted from the EU were restricted from entering 
Indonesia through the Tanjung Priok port, while other countries had been offered a “country 
recognition agreement” that allowed their exports t o  b e  i m p o r t e d  a s  u s u a l .  T h e  E U  w a n t e d  t o  
benefit from the same treatment with an EU-wid e Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA). Despite 
the fact that Indonesia had a trade surplus with the EU (€9 billion in 2011), EU companies found it 
increasingly difficult to enter the Indonesian market. 
9.14.  Import conditions should be transparent in order to prevent trade distortions. These new 
regulations appeared to introduce new procedures to Indonesia’s import licensing regime, set 
quantitative restrictions for a number of products and add administrative measures. Thus, the EU hoped Indonesia would act in the spirit of the G-20 leaders’ commitment to keep markets open, 
including in times of crisis. 
9.15.  Despite the important changes to its import licensing regime, Indonesia had not notified 
these regulations to the WTO or had done so very  late. Where some of these had been notified, 
the comments made by his delegation had not been taken into account.  He therefore reiterated 
the importance of complying with Members' notification obligations in WTO Agreements, and 
encouraged Indonesia to submit its notifications in a timely manner and using, where appropriate, the new notification forms.  
9.16.  The delegate of Japan recalled that at th e last meeting of the Council, his delegation had 
raised serious concerns over Indonesia's restrictions on import licensing for industrial products and 
import restrictions on agricultural products. As the relevant measures in both areas had been revised in September 2012, Japan remained interested in their implementation and encouraged 
Indonesia to continue improving the procedures so as to ensure their consistency with the relevant 
WTO Agreements. G/C/M/112 
 
- 17 - 
 
  9.17.  The delegate of Canada stated that his auth orities continued to uphold systemic and specific 
concerns as regarded several aspects of Indonesia's ILPs.  From a systemic perspective, Canada 
was concerned that Indonesia's ILPs remained excessively complex, non-transparent and operated as a barrier to trade.  Main concerns related to:  the procedures applied to livestock and livestock 
products; linking the issuance of import permits to domestic supply and demand considerations; 
and the imposition of quantitative restrictions on  livestock imports in violation of Indonesia’s WTO 
commitments.  Only stable markets provided the basis for successful and mutually beneficial 
commercial exchanges.  Thus, these procedures jeopardized the growing potential bilateral trade 
and co-operation in the livestock sector.  Since a number of Ministerial decrees pertaining to livestock imports were currently under review, Canada wanted an update on this process and also wanted to know what measures Indonesia intended to take in order to ensure that its ILPs were in 
compliance with its WTO commitments.  Canada urged Indonesia to respect its WTO obligations as 
well as its commitments as a G-20 member not to introduce new protectionist measures. 
9.18.  The delegate of Australia echoed the concerns over Indonesia's import restricting policies 
and practices.  These policies were of significant in terest to Australian exporters and his delegation 
looked forward to working with Indonesia in resolving these issues. 
9.19.  The delegate of Thailand joined other Members in expressing concerns over Indonesia’s 
ILPs. Such measures created unnecessary obstacles to trade and hindered importation of 
horticultural products, fresh fruits and vegetables from Thailand.  Additionally, the ILPs put burden 
on Thai exporters as they were lengthy processes which increased transaction costs.  Thailand had also engaged in plurilateral and bilateral discu ssions with Indonesia, and looked forward to 
receiving substantive responses to the issues raised.  
9.20.  The delegate of New Zealand expressed concerns over a range of trade-related measures 
taken by Indonesia, including those related to beef and horticultural products.  New Zealand had 
noticed that a revised Food Law had recently been passed that could have an impact on imports of 
food products.  Her authorities appreciated Indo nesia’s willingness to engage in bilateral and 
multilateral discussions on these concerns, as well as the recent notifications submitted to the 
Committee on Import Licensing. 
9.21.  The delegate of Indonesia stated that his delegation had taken note of Members’ concerns. 
With regard to the decree on imports on horticultural products, he stated that according to 
Indonesia Statistics Bureau, in the last five years, imports of horticultural products had increased 
significantly. Import values in 2007 were $787,86 million; $881,62 million in 2008; $ 1,054,20 
million in 2009; $ 1.254,62 million in 2010; and $ 1,8 billion in 2011. During the first semester of 2012 the import value was about $1,24 billion, and it was estimated that by the end of 2012, this 
would be more than $2 billion.  He added that current trade statistics showed that the value of 
imports had increased yearly, and that the view of several Members who considered that Indonesia’s current import policy for horticultural products had caused a decrease in imports was 
not true. 
9.22.  Concerning investment restrictions, these measures contained exceptions which limited 
their negative impacts. The mining divestment re gulation did not apply to existing companies and 
the single ownership regulation for banks was applicable to existing shareholders only in banks 
that had weaker financial and corporate governance  ratings. The banking regulation was aimed at 
improving corporate governance and did not limit ac quisition of domestic banks by strong foreign 
banks. When concluding, he underscored Indonesi a’s continued intention to address Members’ 
concerns in the WTO Committees, plurilaterally, bilaterally, and in a constructive manner.  
9.23.  The delegate of Argentina stated that the reference made by the US to import taxes and 
other charges was not covered by any WTO provision and its claim was not pertinent under this 
agenda item.  
9.24.  The Council took note of the statements made. G/C/M/112 
 
- 18 - 
 
  10  ECUADOR MIXED TARIFFS - REQUEST BY THE EUROPEAN UNION, JAPAN AND THE 
UNITED STATES 
10.1.  The Chairperson informed the Council that  in a communication dated 15 November 2012, 
the European Union, Japan and the United States ha d requested the inclusion in the agenda of this 
meeting the following item  “Ecuador Mixed Tariffs  - Request by the European Union, Japan and 
the United States”. 
10.2.  The delegate of the United States thanked Ecuador for the information provided on its 
efforts to reform its economy and on its trade data. However, the US was compelled to raise this 
issue again not only because Ecuador remained unresponsive to the specific questions her delegation had posed on the methodology that Ecuador was using to change its tariffs, but also because her authorities were concerned that Ecuador’s apparent unwillingness to fully enlighten 
the WTO membership about its tariff changes refl ected a disturbing trend in Ecuador’s trade 
policy on several fronts.  Some of the issues of concern to the US, such as Ecuador’s newly a p p r o v e d  t r a d e  r e s t r i c t i o n s  t h a t  i n c l u d e d  t a r i f f s  a n d  q u o t a s  o n  k e y  c o n s u m e r  g o o d s ,  w e r e  n o t  
within the purview of the CTG, so she would a ddress these in the Committee on Market Access. 
10.3.  She recalled that at the June 2012 CTG meeting, her delegation had posed additional 
specific questions on 19 tariff lines that Ecuador had mentioned in its statement contained in 
document G/C/W/669.  Ecuador had indicated that it was looking into the matter and had cited the 
Secretariat’s report on its 2011 Trade Policy Review (TPR), which had identified 19 tariff lines where Ecuador’s applied tariffs exceeded the bound rates by 5-15 %. The US had also been informed that Ecuador was working expeditiously to make the necessary adjustments, and that in 
April 2012 it had amended 15 subheadings in Schedule I of its national tariff schedule, as 
published in the Official Gazette No. 711.  Her dele gation found this information vague as it did not 
clarify what exactly the Ecuadorian government had done.  
10.4.  The US considered that tariff bindings were a core element of the rules-based trading 
system, regardless of the country – developed or de veloping, as well as transparency.  To abide by 
these principles was to respect the multilateral  rules-based trading system.  The US requested 
Ecuador to indicate when it would finally prov ide specific answers to the questions posed.  
10.5.  The delegate of the European Union recalle d that at the June 2012 meeting of this Council, 
the EU had reiterated its request to Ecuador to present a clear methodology for the calculation of 
the ad valorem  equivalent (AVE) so as to ensure that the EU’s WTO rights had been preserved 
under the mixed tariff system.  Instead, Ecuador had provided assurances that the new mixed 
tariff system for a number of products  did not affect Members’ rights.  
10.6.  However, on 26 June 2012 Ecuador enacted a new legislation, (COMEX Resolutions 63-68) 
changing inter alia  the method of determining dutiable value of import tariffs.  This was done 
without notifying the WTO membership, and again, without presenting a clear method for the calculation of AVE.  The EU objected to this pr actice and requested transparency as to how WTO 
tariff bindings were respected. The newly applied mixed tariff system had already negatively 
affected EU exports of some alcoholic beverages.  
10.7.  The EU also objected to the newly introduced import quota in the new legislation (COMEX 
Resolutions 63-68), inter alia  for cars, radios, DVD players and mobile phones, and also expressed 
its reservations as to the applicability of the WTO health and environmental exceptions invoked by 
Ecuador in relation to these new restrictive import measures. His delegation sought clarification from Ecuador in this respect.  
10.8.  The delegate of Japan reiterated the systemic  concerns of his delegation with regard to the 
mixed tariff system of Ecuador.  Japan appreciated Ecuador's efforts towards legal and social 
reforms in the country. It also appreciated Ecuador’s explanation on the import statistics of 
particular tariff lines. However, Japan remained unconvinced that Ecuador’s mixed tariffs system 
was fully compatible with its WTO commitments, particularly given the absence of a methodology for the calculation of the AVE.  Japan emphasized that tariff bindings were a key component which sustained a credible and predictable multilateral  trading system.  Therefore, Japan encouraged 
Ecuador to provide more information on the methodology for converting the ad valorem tariffs to G/C/M/112 
 
- 19 - 
 
  mixed tariffs in order to ensure Members that such measures were consistent with Ecuador’s tariff 
bindings. 
10.9.  The delegate of Switzerland shared th e concerns expressed by other delegations. 
Switzerland did not understand the difficulty for Ecuador to provide the requested information, in 
particular the methodology used to calculate the AVE for certain textiles and footwear.  This 
information had been requested in previous meetings of this Council, but had not been provided. 
10.10.  The delegate of Canada thanked Ecuador for the information it had provided in respect of 
this item.  However, Ecuador had not provided specific information on the methodology it had used 
to calculate the AVE on the new tariff structure.  He encouraged Ecuador to provide this information. 
10.11.  The delegate of Ecuador indicated that at the last meeting of this Council and also 
according to the information prepared for the November 2011 Trade Policy Review (TPR), Ecuador 
was currently undertaking wide reforms to its legal, productive and social framework so as to develop, strengthen and make more dynamic the domestic market based on the strategic 
objectives set out in its National Developing Plan.  In this context, the setting of tariffs was one of 
the key trade policy instruments of Ecuador.  The average MFN applied rate had been reduced from 11.4% in 2005 to 9.3% in 2011.  Similarly, nearly 51% of the applied MFN rates currently 
stood between 0 and 5%.  
10.12.  The non-oil trade balance was in deficit in recent years.  The total non-oil deficit between 
2006 and 2011 stood at $36,345 billion. Oil revenue continued to account for a major proportion of Ecuador’s economy.  Indeed, on average, duri ng the last three years (2009 – 2011), oil revenue 
had represented 15% of Ecuador’s GDP and 35% of the public revenue.  As indicated in previous 
occasions, the Ecuadorian economy did not have its own currency and for normal day to day transactions, the US dollar was used in Ecuador.  This had two fundamental effects for the country, 
firstly the absence of a monetary policy and the inability to make use of monetary instruments to 
influence the economy, and secondly, the growing dependency and sensitivity of the Ecuadorian economy when it came to foreign trade. 
10.13.  Between 2001 and 2011, Ecuadorian exports of non-agricultural and agricultural goods did 
not exceed, respectively, 0.0964% and 0.2411% of the world trade in those products.  Ecuador 
despite its export efforts, continued to represent a minimal share of world trade.  It was subject to multiple and frequent fluctuations of foreign currencies and also to variations of oil, an essential 
product in its economy. 
10.14.  With regard to the measures adopted in 2010 and published in Decrees 367 of 21 May and 
372 of 20 May 2010, he reiterated that statistics confirmed the absence of any real problems with 
regard to trade flows for the 349 products subject to mixed tariffs.  In fact, during 2011 an 
increase in total imports of these products had been recorded: apparel increased by 64%; textiles by 21%; and footwear by 33%.  With regard to 2012, the period between January to September, 
the figures indicated that overall trade in products subject to mixed tariffs had continued to grow 
when compared with the same period of 2011, with  an overall increase of imports close to 23%.  
Particularly, there had been a notable increase in total imports of textiles of 26% with some notable increases from the EU (88% growth) an d the US and Japan which both recorded an 
individual increase of 86%.   
10.15.  The figures for 2012 had followed closely the upward trend in imports that had been 
observed since the application of the mixed tariff policy. This indicated that the application of the 
mixed system had not had any limiting effect, nor any real injury to trade in these products.  This 
element was to be borne in mind by Members since it indicated that Ecuador’s trade policy for these products was fully compatible with the WTO objectives and in line with the disciplines of the 
multilateral trading system.   The measures in qu estion had been published in Ecuador’s Official 
Gazette in line with  Article X of the GATT 1994 requiring the publication of trade measures that might have an effect on trade.  
10.16.  Ecuador reiterated that the WTO commitments did not limit Members’ ability to review or 
modify their tariff structure in line with their social, trade and economic realities.  Ecuador believed 
that the measures in question respected the provis ions of Article II of GATT 1994, and was also of G/C/M/112 
 
- 20 - 
 
  the view that the tariff reforms it had undertaken in 2010 were in line with the rights and 
obligations that Ecuador had assumed in February 1995 as part of its accession commitments. 
10.17.  He recalled that this issue had been dealt with by Members at eight meetings of this 
Council.  Ecuador requested that Members bear in mind the Rules and Procedures of this Council 
set out in document WT/L/79, particularly Rule 27 which provided that "Representatives should 
make every effort to avoid the repetition of a full debate at each meeting on any issue that has already been debated in the past and in which there appears to have been no change in Members' 
positions already on record". 
10.18.  The delegates of Cuba and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela en dorsed the statement by 
Ecuador and expressed that the actions and measures to which Ecuador had referred to were in 
compliance with WTO Agreements. 
10.19.  The Council took note of the statements made. 
11  WORK PROGRAMME ON ELECTRONIC COMMERCE  
11.1.  The Chairperson recalled that at the last meeting of this Council it had been agreed to 
include again the issue of the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce as an agenda item of this 
meeting, in order to fulfil the mandate of the Ministerial Decision contained in document WT/L/843 where Ministers had decided: 
 “To further instruct the General Council to hold periodic reviews in its sessions of July and 
December 2012 and July 2013, based on the report s submitted by the WTO bodies entrusted with 
the implementation of the Work Programme, to assess its progress and consider any recommendations on possible measures related to electronic commerce in the next session of the 
Ministerial Conference”. 
 11.2.  The delegate of Ecuador recalled that in the framework of the Work Programme on E-
commerce, his delegation along with other Members had submitted document WT/COMTD/W/179, 
dated 14 July 2011, which provided a technical de scription of the situation of e-commerce in a 
number of developing countries and stressed the need for the WTO to systematically address these 
concerns.   
11.3.  In this vein Ecuador had also proposed a workshop on “E-Commerce, Development and 
Small and Medium Size Enterprises (SMEs)” aimed at examining access to e-commerce by SMEs and micro enterprises, including small producers in developing countries; this with a view to 
addressing the relationship between e-comme rce and development.  Following various 
consultations, Ecuador had submitted document WT/COMTD/W/189 and, at the 86
th Session of the 
Committee on Trade and Development (CTD), Memb ers had approved the workshop which would 
take place on 8 - 9 April 2013. The structure of  the workshop would enable SMEs and small 
producers in developing countries to have access and enjoy full use of e-commerce and information technologies.   
11.4.  Recent data indicated that in 2011 e-commerce had exceeded $1 billion of transactions; this 
demonstrated the importance for developing countries to have access to such tools.  Given the existing gap between developing and developed countries in terms of IT and e-commerce, improving and increasing access to and use of e-commerce would contribute in breaking down 
these differences since SMEs and small producers in developing countries would become “real 
players” in a new electronic economy. 
11.5.  The delegate of Cuba acknowledged the work of the Council towards the success of the 
Work Programme on E-commerce.  Delegations had worked intensively to set up the “Workshop on 
E-commerce, Development and SMEs”.  Cuba wanted the current coordination between the CTD and this Council to continue in the future in addressing the pending issues, based on Members’ 
suggestions and including developmental related issues. 
11.6.  The representative of the Bolivarian Repu blic of Venezuela supported the statement made 
by Cuba. G/C/M/112 
 
- 21 - 
 
  11.7.  The delegate of Nicaragua supported the pr evious statements and invited Members to take 
part in the workshop. 
11.8.  The Chairperson thanked delegations for their statements. He proposed to make, on his own 
responsibility a purely factual report to the General Council in December, on the discussions held 
in this Council during 20123.  He also proposed to revert to this issue at the next meeting of the 
Council in March 2013.  
11.9.  The Council so agreed. 
12  ADOPTION OF THE ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE SUBSIDIARY BODIES OF THE COUNCIL 
FOR TRADE IN GOODS 
12.1.  The Chairperson recalled that, pursuant to the "Procedures for an Annual Overview of WTO 
Activities and for Reporting Under the WTO," (WT/L/105) which were adopted by the General 
Council on 15 November 1995, all bodies constituted under Agreements in Annex 1A of the WTO 
Agreement were required to annually submit  a factual report to the Council for Trade in Goods, and the Council was to take note of these reports.   
12.2.  The Chairperson proposed that the Council take note of the following annual reports
4: (i) 
Committee on Agriculture, document G/L/999; (ii)  Committee on Trade Related Investment Measures, document G/L/1003;  (iii)  Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, 
document G/L/1005; (iv) Committee on Antidumping Practices, document G/L/1006 and 
G/L/1006/Corr.1; (v)  Working Party on State Trading Enterprises, document G/L/1007;  (vi)  Committee on Safeguards, document G/L/1009;  (vii) Committee on Market Access, document G/L/1010;  (viii)  Committee on Import Licensing, document G/L/1011;  (ix)  Committee on 
Customs Valuation, document G/L/1012;  (x)  Committee on Sanitary and Phyto-sanitary 
Measures, document G/L/1013;  (xi)  Committee of Participants on the Expansion of Trade in Information Technology Products, document G/L/1014;  (xii) Preshipment Inspection - 
Independent Entity, document G/L/1015;  (xiii)  Committee on Rules of Origin, document 
G/L/1016.  
12.3.  The Council so agreed. 
13  ADOPTION OF THE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS TO THE 
GENERAL COUNCIL (G/C/W/676) 
13.1.  The Chairperson recalled that the draft Annua l Report of the Council had been circulated in 
document G/C/W/676. In accordance with the "Procedures for an annual overview of WTO 
Activities and for Reporting under the WTO" (WT/L/105) which was adopted by the General Council 
on 15 November 1995, it was agreed that "The re spective sectoral Councils should report in 
November each year to the General Council on the activities in the Council as well as in the 
subsidiary bodies" and that the reports of the sectoral Councils should be "factual in nature, 
containing an indication of actions and decisions taken, with cross references to reports of subordinate bodies and could follow the model of the GATT 1947 Council reports to the 
CONTRACTING PARTIES".  He noted that the draft report would be updated in light of this 
meeting.  
13.2.  The Chairperson proposed that the Council agree to adopt the report, subject to the update 
and revision to take into account the Council's work at this meeting5. 
13.3.  The Council so agreed. 
                                               
3 See document G/C/50. 
4 Given that the Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade held its meeting on 27 – 29 November 2012, 
it submitted its annual report directly to the General Council. 
5 The Annual Report to the General Council was circulated in document G/L/1018. G/C/M/112 
 
- 22 - 
 
  14  OTHER BUSINESS 
14.1  Ukraine’s Recycling Fee Draft Law 14.1.  The Chairperson recalled that at the start of the meeting the delegation of the European 
Union had requested to include under the agenda item “Other Business”, the issue of “Ukraine’s 
Recycling Fee Draft Law” 
14.2.  The delegate of the European Union ex pressed concern about the recycling fee measure 
that Ukraine intended to adopt. This measure would discriminate between imported and domestic 
products, and would raise concerns of compatibility with Ukraine's commitments under WTO. The 
EU believed that this regulation, very similar to the Russian measure discussed under agenda item 
VII, was not compatible with Article III of the GATT 1994 as it discriminated between locally produced and imported vehicles. The first group had the choice between a guarantee scheme for 
recycling or a recycling fee, the second group had no choice but to pay the recycling fee.  With 
respect to second-hand vehicles, the measure would also produce trade-restrictive effects which went far beyond the scope of the alleged environmental justifications. He asked Ukraine to 
reconsider this measure and either make it comp atible with Ukraine's obligations under the WTO 
or not introduce it at all.   
14.3.  The delegate of Ukraine said that he had taken note of the EU’s concerns and requested the 
statement in written form. 14.4.  The Council to took note of the statements made. 
14.2  Report by the Chairperson on the inform al consultations carried out in respect of 
Room Document RD/CTG/1. 
14.5.  The Chairperson informed the Council that he had carried out informal consultations in 
respect of Room Document RD/CTG/1 containing th e revised format of the "Updating of the listing 
of notification obligations and the compliance therew ith as set out in Annex III of the Report of the 
Working Group on Notification Obligations and Procedures". At these consultations he indicated 
that the revised format preserved the current structure as well as the explanatory notes currently contained in document G/L/223 and Revisions, but only contained notifications for the preceding 
three years. The only exceptions concerning annual notifications referred to the ones made to the 
Working Party on State Trade Enterprises and the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures which were notified every two years.  
14.6.  He also indicated that at the informal meeting, one delegation had raised a point on the 
importance of preserving the overall picture of noti fications so as to track, in a single document, 
Members' compliance with transparency provisions under each of the Agreements in Annex IA of 
the WTO Agreement.   
14.7.  Since it was up to this Council to decide on the listing of notifications, as it had been the 
case at the meeting on 15 October 1996 when it had considered the Report of the Working Group 
on Notification Obligations and Procedures (G/L/ 112) and decided that the listing of notification 
obligations and the compliance therewith, contained in its Annex III, should be maintained on an 
on-going basis and circulated to Members.  This Council had also agreed on 5 July 2004 to introduce technical changes to the list of notifications and to update it annually.  He reiterated his invitation to Members to explore ways of findin g the right balance between transparency and the 
cost saving recommendations endorsed by the Ge neral Council at its meeting in November 2011. 
14.8.  Consequently, he proposed to hold informal  consultations with all interested Members and in 
this vein requested those delegations wishing to take part in these consultations to inform the 
Secretariat of their interest, not later than 30 January 2013. 
14.9.  The Council took note of this information. G/C/M/112 
 
- 23 - 
 
  14.3  Date of next meeting 
14.10.  The Chairperson informed the Council that its next meeting was scheduled to take place on 
Monday, 25 March 2013 and that the agenda would close on Thursday, 14 March 2013. 14.11.  The meeting was adjourned. 
 
__________