. /.   WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SCM/Q2/CHL/22 
30 March 2010 
 
 (10-1711) 
Committee on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures Original:   Spanish 
 
 
 
SUBSIDIES  
 
Replies to the Questions Posed by the UNITED STATES1 
Regarding the New and Full Notification of CHILE2 
 
  The following communication, dated 29 March 2010, is being circulated at the request of the delegation of Chile.  
_______________ 
 
  Questions posed by the United States (document G/SCM/Q2/CHL/21) on the latest notification of subsidy programmes by  Chile (document G/SCM/N/186/CHL). 
 Question 1 
 
General 
 
 • We note that Chile's Notification do es not include many subsidy programmes 
discussed in the course of Chile's recent Trade Policy Review of 7 and 
9 October 2009.  In response to questions in  the TPR, Chile stated that it would 
examine the measures discussed and determine whether they should be notified under Article 25 of the Subsidies Agreement.   For example, Chile indicated that 
it would examine whether it was required  to notify the special tax and tariff 
incentives for commercial activities in  Tierra del Fuego and the Antarctic 
territory under Law No. 19.149, which appear to have a 25 per cent local content requirement.  Please provide an update on the review of the relevant programmes.  
 Reply
 
  The United States specifically asks the reason wh y this notification does not include many of 
the subsidies discussed in the course of Chile's Trad e Policy Review (TPR), while at the same time 
recalling Chile's response during the TPR to this question, namely that Chile "would examine the 
measures discussed and determine whether they shou ld be notified under Article 25 of the Subsidies 
Agreement".   The question posed by the United States befo re the Committee on Subsidies corresponds to 
the one it asked during Chile's TPR (page 64 of document WT/TPR/M/220/Add.1).  It should be 
noted that the reply by the Chilean authorities in th e context of the TPR was given at the meeting of 
                                                     
 
1 G/SCM/Q2/CHL/21. 
2 G/SCM/N/186/CHL. G/SCM/Q2/CHL/22 
Page 2  
 
  7 and 9 October.  Chile welcomed the fact that th e United States had raised this concern, which it 
considered brought an extra dimension to these transp arency exercises and would prove very useful in 
the internal discussions in Chile to determine fina lly whether or not the measure was to be notified 
under the SCM Agreement.  
 The notification in question was made by  Chile to the Committee on Subsidies on 
15 October 2009.  The fact that Chile stated its in tention at the TPR meeti ng of determining whether 
or not the measure at issue should be notified under the SCM Agreement did not mean that it was going to take an immediate decision on the matter.  Only one week elapsed between the TPR meeting 
and submission of the notification to the Committee on Subsidies, a period which was clearly 
insufficient to allow the Chilean aut horities to address the issue properl y.  In any case, Chile takes this 
opportunity to report that its national authorities are currently discussing the issue;  if they conclude that the measure is subject to the requirements of  the SCM Agreement, it will, needless to say, be 
notified accordingly.  Question 2  
 
Fund for the Promotion and Development of Remote Areas 
 
 As noted above, certain tax credits for remote areas under other programmes appear to 
have a local content requirement.  Are the gran ts which are provided to eligible companies 
under this programme contingent upon the use of domestic over imported goods?  If so, please 
further explain. 
 
Reply
 
 
 No, the Fund for the Promotion and Developm ent of Remote Areas does not have a local 
content requirement.  
__________