WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
G/SCM/M/79 
2 February 2012 
 (12-0648) 
Committee on Subsidies 
and Countervailing Measures  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING 
HELD ON 26-27 OCTOBER 2011 
Chairman:  Mr. Andreas Krallmann (Germany) 
 
 
1. The Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures ("the Committee") held a regular 
meeting on 26 and 27 October 2011. 
2. The Chairman recalled that the proposed agenda for this regular meeting had been circulated 
in WTO/AIR/3830, dated 14 October 2011.  The delegate of the United States indicated his 
delegation's intent to raise the issue of India' s export competitiveness in textiles and apparel sector 
under other business. The Chairman indicated that he himself would make a statement with regard to 
the late submission and the quality of notifications, also under other business. 
3. The Committee adopted the agenda as amended: 
A.  NATIONAL LEGISLATION – REVIEW OF NOTIFICATIO NS OF NEW OR AMENDED 
LEGISLATION OR REGULATIONS NOT PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE  ................... 2  
1.  Brazil ........................................................................................................................ .................. 2  
2.  Ecuador ....................................................................................................................... ............... 3  
3.  Japan ......................................................................................................................... ................. 4  
4.  Kuwait ........................................................................................................................ ................ 4  
5.  Togo .......................................................................................................................... .................. 4  
B.  NATIONAL LEGISLATION – CONTINUED REVIEW OF PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED 
NOTIFICATIONS OF LEGISLATION OR REGULATIONS  ................................................................... 4  
C.  SEMI -ANNUAL REPORTS OF COUNTERVAILING DUTY ACTIONS  ................................................... 4  
1.  Australia ..................................................................................................................... ............... 5  
2.  Canada ........................................................................................................................ ............... 5  
3.  China ......................................................................................................................... ................. 5  
4.  European Union ................................................................................................................ ........ 5 
5.  Mexico ........................................................................................................................ ................ 6  
6.  United States ................................................................................................................. ............. 6  
D.  NOTIFICATIONS OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL COUNTERVAILING DUTY ACTIONS  ....................... 8  
E.  TRANSITIONAL REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 18 OF THE PROTOCOL OF ACCESSION OF 
THE PEOPLE 'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA TO THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION  ................................ 8  G/SCM/M/79 
Page 2  
 
  F. 
PERMANENT GROUP OF EXPERTS  ............................................................................................... 14  
G.  EXTENSION OF THE TRANSITION PERIOD UNDER ARTICLE 27.4  OF THE SCM 
AGREEMENT  ..............................................................................................................................  15 
1.  Review of compliance with transparency and standstill obligations .................................. 15  
2.  Decisions under paragraph 1(d) of the Ge neral Council Decision of 27 July 2007 
to continue the extension of the tran sition period for calendar year 2012......................... 16  
H.  REQUEST FROM THE UNITED STATES TO CHINA PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 25.10  OF THE 
SCM AGREEMENT  ....................................................................................................................... 17  
I.  REQUEST FROM THE UNITED STATES TO INDIA PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 25.10  OF THE 
SCM AGREEMENT  ....................................................................................................................... 21  
J.  CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSIONS ON IM PROVING THE TIMELINESS AND COMPLETENESS 
OF NOTIFICATIONS AND OTHER INFORMAT ION FLOWS ON TRADE MEASURES UNDER 
THE SCM AGREEMENT  ............................................................................................................... 24  
K.  DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING ............................................................................................ 29  
L.  OTHER BUSINESS  ....................................................................................................................... 29  
1.  Export competitiveness of India's textile and apparel sector.............................................. 29  
2.  Timing and textual quality of notifications........................................................................... 30  
M.  ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS  ......................................................... 30  
 
 A. 
NATIONAL LEGISLATION – REVIEW OF NOTIFICATIONS OF NEW OR AMENDED LEGISLATION OR 
REGULATIONS NOT PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE  
4. The Chairman noted that under this item of th e agenda of the meeting, the Committee would 
review notifications of countervailing duty legi slation and/or regulations in accordance with 
procedures adopted by the Committee at its specia l meeting in April 1996 (document G/SCM/W/293).  
These procedures provided inter alia  that at each regular meeting the Committee would consider 
notifications of new or amended legislations not previously reviewed by the Committee if such 
notifications had been circulated to Members in a ll three working languages at least six weeks prior to 
the scheduled date of the meeting. In accordance with this provision, the Committee had before it at 
this meeting new notifications of countervailing du ty legislation from Brazil, Ecuador, Japan, Kuwait 
and Togo.  
1. Brazil 
5. The Chairman stated that the Committee had before it two legislative notifications from 
Brazil, which had been circulated in documen t G/SCM/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.5 dated 12 April 2011 and 
in document G/SCM/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.6 dated 9 June 2011. The first notification contained 
Directive 21 of 18 October 2010 setting forth rules w ith respect to anti-circumvention proceedings.  
The second notification contained Resolution CAMEX No. 25 revoking parts of Resolution CAMEX 
No. 63.  The Committee had received questions fro m the United States with respect to these two 
notifications. 
6. The delegate of Brazil stated that answers had been already provided to the delegation of the 
United States during the meeting of the Anti-Dumping Committee.  He noted that Brazil was 
reviewing this particular legislation and that some  changes would be made in the future, which would 
be notified to the Committee in due course.   G/SCM/M/79 
 Page 3 
 
 
  7. The Committee took note of the statement made. 
2. Ecuador 
8. The Chairman noted that Ecuador's notifi cation had been circulated in document 
G/SCM/N/1/ECU/3 dated 24 May 2011 and conveye d the Organic Code of Production, Trade and 
Investment and the Regulations to Implement Book IV of that Code.  The United States had presented 
questions with respect to this notificati on, circulated in document G/SCM/Q1/ECU/12  dated 
29 September 2011.   
9. The delegate of Ecuador stated that his dele gation had already explained, during the meeting 
of the Anti-Dumping Committee, the new trade regul ation which was soon to be approved by the 
Committee on External Trade (COMEX).  He recalled that this new regulation corresponded to a full 
and comprehensive legislation, with a view to se tting standard procedures consistent with the SCM 
Agreement.  This would be in line with the concerns  raised by the United States in its questions.  He 
next proceeded to answer certain of the concerns  and questions raised by the United States with 
regard to the application of these rules with respec t to subsidies. With regard to question 8 of the 
United States, the delegate stated that the draft re solution provided (in accordance with Article 21.3 of 
the SCM Agreement) that any countervailing duty woul d be terminated on a date not later than five 
years from its imposition.  With regard to questio n 11, the regulation, in its preamble, contained 
definitions of "interested parties" and of " domestic industry", which were in accordance with 
Article 16 of the Agreement. With regard to ques tion 12, Articles 104 to 108 of the Organic Code of 
Production provided certain requirements for the acceptance of petitions and the initiation of investigations into alleged subsidies.  Concerning question 13, he noted that Article 12.6 of the SCM 
Agreement provided that investigating authorities can  carry out investigations in the territory of 
another Member, and the draft resolution provided sta ndards to ensure that the investigating authority 
carried out such a procedure.  With regard to qu estion 14, the delegate indicated that the resolution 
provided that the application of countervailing dutie s had to take into account the obligation to hold 
consultations under Article 13 of the SCM Agreement. With regard to question 15, the delegate noted 
that the resolution contained provisions with r espect to the investigation process as well as the 
maximum duration of provisional measures, in line with Article 17.4 of the SCM Agreement. With 
regard to question 16, the delegate noted that th e draft resolution established an obligation to give 
public notice of any decision - preliminary or final de terminations, whether affirmative or negative, or 
acceptance of price undertakings - in accordance with Article 18 of the SCM Agreement.  Turning to 
question 17, he indicated that his delegation beli eved that it was not necessary to modify the 
regulation as long as Article 109 provided that COMEX would establish provisions concerning 
judicial review of administrative actions in acco rdance with Article 23 of the SCM Agreement.   
10. As for question 18, the delegate stated that there was no discrepancy between the provisions 
of Section I (concerning anti-dumping measures) an d those of Section III (concerning countervailing 
duties) of the Regulation.  He added that, althoug h there is a single investigating authority making 
injury (or threat of injury) determinations in both anti-dumping and in countervailing duty 
investigations in Ecuador, discrepancies between the two types of proceedings were not likely to 
occur.  In any event, COMEX had responsibility fo r making decisions in case such discrepancies 
arose.  Finally, the delegate asked that the Un ited States wait until the resolution was officially 
approved and notified to the Committee.  His de legation was confident that the United States' 
concerns would be fully satisfied.  
11. The delegate of the United States thanked Ecuador  for its detailed answer and indicated that 
his delegation would await the official approval of the Resolution. 
12. The Committee took note of the statements made. G/SCM/M/79 
Page 4  
 
  3. Japan 
13. The Chairman recalled that the notifica tion of Japan, circulated in document 
G/ADP/N/1/JPN/2/Suppl.7-G/SCM/N/1/JPN/2/Suppl.7 dated 29 August 2011, c ontained the relevant 
articles of the amended Guidelines for Procedures Relating to Countervailing Duty and Anti-Dumping 
Investigations. 
14. The delegate of Japan indicated that the amendment concerned both anti-dumping and 
countervailing duty investigations  and that her delegation had provided explanations on this 
amendment during the meeting of Anti-Dumping Committee. 
15. The Committee took note of the statement made. 
4. Kuwait 
16. The Chairman stated that Kuwait's notif ication had been circulated in document 
G/SCM/N/1/KWT/1 dated 20 June 2011 which c ontained the Common Law of Anti-Dumping, 
Countervailing Measures and Safeguards of the Co-opera tion Council for the Arab States of the Gulf.  
Questions with respect to this notification had been received from the United States and circulated in document G/SCM/Q1/KWT/1 dated 30 September 2011. 
17. The delegate of Kuwait recalled that his delega tion had already indicated, in the meeting of 
the Anti-Dumping Committee, it was ready to receive  any additional requests from the United States 
regarding these questions or regarding additional questions. 
18. The Committee took note of the statement made. 
5. Togo 
19. The Chairman stated that Togo's legislative notification had been circulated in document 
G/SCM/N/1/TGO/1 dated 26 May 2011, which indicated that Togo did not have any laws or 
regulations on countervailing duty  investigations. No delegation took the floor to comment or ask 
questions on this notification. 
B. NATIONAL LEGISLATION – CONTINUED REVIEW OF PREVIOUS LY REVIEWED NOTIFICATIONS OF 
LEGISLATION OR REGULATIONS  
20. The Chairman recalled that procedures contained in G/SCM/W/293 for the review of 
countervailing duty legislation provided that the Co mmittee would revert to a previously reviewed 
legislative notification if written questions were submitted on such notification not later than six 
weeks in advance of the meeting.  Pursuant to this  provision, and in light of written questions posed, 
the Committee had before it at this meeting Brazil' s notification of countervailing duty legislation.  
The Chairman noted that at the regular meeting held on 3 May 2011, the Committee had reviewed a 
notification received from Brazil containing a resolution that explained anti-circumvention 
proceedings.  Subsequent to that meeting, Kore a had presented a question with respect to this 
notification which had been circulated in docum ents G/SCM/Q1/BRA/12 & Rev.1 to which Brazil 
had provided its reply, circulated in documents G/ SCM/Q1/BRA/13 & Corr.1.  No delegation took the 
floor to comment or ask quest ions on this notification. 
C. SEMI -ANNUAL REPORTS OF COUNTERVAILING DUTY ACTIONS  
21. The Chairman noted that document G/SCM/N/228 dated 29 June 2011 invited Members to 
submit, not later than 31 August 2011, semi- annual reports under Article 25.11 of the SCM  G/SCM/M/79 
 Page 5 
 
 
  Agreement of countervailing duty actio ns taken in the period 1 January  to 30 June 2011.  Reports on 
countervailing duty actions taken in  the first half of 2011 had been received from Australia, Canada, 
China, the European Union, Mexico, and the United States.  As stated in paragraph 2 of document 
G/SCM/N/228/Add.1, 36 Members had informed the Committee that they had not taken any 
countervailing duty action in the first six months of 2011.  The Chairman noted that recently, Kuwait 
had submitted nil notifications dating back to 1995 a nd Uruguay, to 2003. For the sake of efficiency 
and saving paper, he had requested the Secretariat to  reflect this only in the addenda pertaining to the 
notifications of the last two semi-annual reports, a nd not to all such addenda since 1995 and 2003.   
22. The Chairman recalled that the Committee, at  its regular meeting on 20 October 2009, had 
adopted a one-time notification format for Memb ers that did not have CVD legislation, which 
therefore had not conducted an investigation so  far and which were unlikely to do so in the 
foreseeable future.  So far, 18 Members had subm itted one-time notifications.  The list of such 
Members was contained in paragraph 5 of document G/SCM/N/228/Add.1.  The Chairman stated that 
one-time notifications served an important transp arency purpose in the sense that they allowed 
Members to see a clearer picture of the level of compliance with the notification obligation pertaining 
to semi-annual reports of counterva iling actions.  Further, they fac ilitated the bureaucratic aspect of 
notifications because once a one-time notification was made, the Member making that notification 
was no longer expected to submit semi-annual repor ts of countervailing actions until such time as 
circumstances changed. The Chairman theref ore urged Members that qualified for one-time 
notifications to submit such a notification in due c ourse.  He noted that the Secretariat was ready to 
assist Members if they were in doubt as to whethe r they qualified to make such a notification. 
23. The Chairman noted that, unfortunately, there was a very large number of Members that had 
not submitted a semi-annual report for this period.  These Members were  listed in paragraphs 3 and 4 
of document G/SCM/N/228/Add.1.  He urged th ese Members to submit such a report as soon as 
possible.   
1. Australia 
24. The semi-annual report of Australia on countervailin g duty actions taken in the first half of 
2011 was contained in document G/SCM/N/228/AUS.  No delegation took the floor to comment or ask questions on this notification. 
2. Canada 
25. The semi-annual report of Canada on countervailin g duty actions taken in the first half of 
2011 was contained in document G/SCM/N/228/CAN.  No delegation took the floor to comment or 
ask questions on this notification. 
3. China 
26. The semi-annual report of China on countervailing du ty actions taken in the first half of 2011 
was contained in document G/SCM/N/228/CHN.  No delegation took the floor to comment or ask questions on this notification. 
4. European Union 
27. The semi-annual report of the European Uni on on countervailing duty actions taken in the 
first half of 2011 was contained in document G/ SCM/N/228/EEC.  No delegation took the floor to 
comment or ask questions on this notification. G/SCM/M/79 
Page 6  
 
  5. Mexico 
28. The semi-annual report of Mexico on countervailin g duty actions taken in the first half of 
2011 was contained in document G/SCM/N/228/MEX.  No delegation took the floor to comment or ask questions on this notification.   
6. United States  
29. The semi-annual report of the United States on c ountervailing duty actions taken in the first 
half of 2011 was contained in document G/SCM/N/228/USA.    
30. The delegate of China raised certain concerns relating to practices of the United States in the 
first half of the year.  The first such practice wa s the question of the imposition of a "double remedy".  
The delegate noted that in the dispute United States - Definitive Anti- Dumping and Countervailing 
Duties on Certain Products from China  (DS379), the Appellate Body ha d found that the United States 
had failed to address the issue of double remedy in  its simultaneous imposition of countervailing and 
anti-dumping duties determined while treating Chin a as a non-market economy and in doing so had 
violated its obligations under the Anti-Dumping and SCM Agreements. The United States had yet to 
take the necessary measures to correct this double re medy issue. The double remedy issue also arose 
in US decisions taken in the first half of the year 2011 in the aluminium extrusions and multilayer 
wood flooring cases.  This, his delegation considered, violated the principle of fairness in trade 
remedy investigations.  China hoped that the Un ited States would implement the Appellate Body's 
decision immediately and stop this practice of double remedy. 
31. The second issue of concern was that of the selection of only one mandatory respondent.  The 
delegate of China noted that in the on-going anti-dumping and countervailing investigations of high 
pressure steel cylinders  from China, the United States had only selected one company as the 
mandatory respondent, while refusing another Ch inese exporter's request to be a voluntary 
respondent. This was not in conformity with th e countervailing duty laws and regulations of the 
United States and deviated from the usual practi ce of the USDOC of selecting more than two 
mandatory respondents.  His delegation considered that this would increase the uncertainty of the 
level of the "all others" rate, and hoped that the United States would stop this practice.  
32. The third concern related to new certification re quirements.  China noted that in March 2001, 
the USDOC had required the submission of a new version of a government certification letter in 
countervailing duty investigations, which imposed inappropriate liab ility on government officials of 
the respondent Member. This involved cases such as Certain steel wheels  and Galvanized steel wire .  
China had serious concerns with respect to this requirement.  China was of the view that it was 
improper for the Chinese government and especially fo r government officials to bear extraordinary 
liability in responding to a countervailing duty inv estigation. This would bring unnecessary obstacles 
to the co-operation by the Chinese government to the countervailing duty investigation, and would affect the mutual trust between China and the Un ited States.  China hoped that the United States 
would stop this unreasonable practice.  
33. China's fourth concern pertained to alleged subsidy programmes in administrative review 
investigations that differed from those in the original  investigations.  China wished, in particular, to 
express its concerns with respect to the admi nistrative reviews in the investigations on citric acid  and 
certain citric salts  from China. The alleged programmes in th e review investigations were different 
from the ones which had been investigated in the or iginal investigation.  For example, the alleged 
programme of government policy lending had been found not to exist by the USDOC in the original 
investigation.  However the USDOC had listed this  programme again in the review questionnaire, 
examined it based on evidence provided by the appli cant, and found that it existed.  His delegation 
considered that this practice constituted a procedural failure.  G/SCM/M/79 
 Page 7 
 
 
  34. In conclusion, his delegation hoped that the United States would reconsider these practices 
and conduct countervailing investiga tions in future cases in line with WTO rules and with the 
principle of fairness. 
35. The delegate of the United States made the following comments in reply to the concerns 
expressed by China:  First, with respect to the f act that the United States had failed to address the 
double remedy issue, he stated that at the March 2011 meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body, the 
United States and a number of other Members had raised serious concerns with respect to the 
Appellate Body report in dispute DS379.  However, as his delegation had stated at the 21 April DSB 
meeting, the United States intended to comply with its WTO obligations in this dispute.  China and 
the United States had mutually agreed to a reasona ble period of time in which to implement the DSB 
findings.  This reasonable period of  time ended in February 2012.  The United States was in the 
process of carefully considering the DSB findings and the changes that were necessary to bring the 
measures in dispute into compliance with its WTO obligations. 
36. With respect to the second question, the delegate noted that in the high pressure cylinders  
case, the USDOC had selected one mandatory respondent which accounted for a very significant 
portion of the imports of that product into the United States.  The selection of this company had been 
made according to US law and practice which were  consistent with WTO rules in this area.  A 
detailed explanation of the reasons for the selecti on of this mandatory respondent had been provided 
in a 13 July 2011 respondent selection memorandum wh ich was part of the public record of the case 
and had been made available to interested parties,  including the government of China. Further, the 
USDOC had issued a preliminary determination in this case on 11 October 2011, in which it had 
indicated that it welcomed comments from interested parties - including the government of China - on 
its selection of one respondent and its decision not to select other companies as mandatory respondents.   
37.  With respect to the new certification requireme nt, China's concern pertained to a process the 
USDOC had undertaken in revising the content of th e written certification of accuracy that it required 
to accompany the submission of factual information from the parties to an anti-dumping and 
countervailing duty case, including governments.  Comme rce had not yet made a final determination 
as to the content of the certifications that fo reign governments would be required to submit. 
Accordingly, at that time, Commerce was allowing foreign governments the option of using either the 
old format or a new proposed format that Co mmerce had published for comments. This issue, 
including the current requirements and reasons why changes could be appropriate, had been made 
clear in a notice of supplemental interim final rule which Commerce had published in the Federal 
Register on 2 September 2011. Commerce intended to i ssue a final rule in 2012 clarifying the content 
of the required certification by parties, incl uding foreign governments participating in US 
countervailing duty procedures. 
38. With respect to policy lending in the citric acid  administrative review, the delegate noted that 
in a preliminary determination for that administ rative review, Commerce had determined that the 
respondent companies had benefited from a programme  of policy lending. This finding reflected a 
change from an earlier finding by Commerce in th e original investigatio n that there had been 
insufficient record evidence to support a finding of countervailable policy lending. In sum, the reason 
for the change was that the petitioning industry,  as well as the government of China, had provided 
additional factual information and explanation on th e record of the administrative review which had 
not existed on the record of the investigation. In evaluating all the evidence including this new 
information and accompanying explanations on the record of the administrative review, Commerce 
had determined that this policy lending met the st atutory requirements for a countervailable subsidy. 
A detailed explanation of the record informati on and the rationale for Commerce's finding in the 
administrative review was available in the public  notice of the preliminary findings in the citric acid  G/SCM/M/79 
Page 8  
 
  administrative review. The discussion of this issu e began on page 33226 of the Federal Register 
notice. 
39. The Committee took note of the statements made. 
D.  NOTIFICATIONS OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL COUNTERVAILING DUTY ACTIONS  
40. The Chairman noted that since the last regular meeting of the Committee on 3 May 2011, 
notifications under Article 25.11 of the SCM Agreem ent of preliminary and final countervailing duty 
actions had been received from Canada, China, the European Union and the United States. These 
notifications were listed in documents G/SCM/N/225,  227 and 229-231, respectively. No delegation 
took the floor to comment or ask questions on these notifications. 
41. The delegate of Australia noted that, as al ready mentioned in the meeting of the Anti-
Dumping Committee, due to an oversight, her delega tion had, earlier in the week emailed to the 
Secretariat preliminary or final reports that were due. These would, obviously, be available before the 
next meeting of the Committee.  
42. The Committee took note of the statement made. 
E. TRANSITIONAL REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 18 OF THE PROTOCOL OF ACCESSION OF THE 
PEOPLE 'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA TO THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION  
43. The Chairman stated that paragr aph 18 of the Protocol of Acces sion of the People's Republic of 
China to the World Trade Organization provided that  all subsidiary bodies, including this Committee, 
"which have a mandate covering China's commitments under the WTO Agreement or [the] Protocol 
shall, within one year after accession, review, as appropriate to their mandate, the implementation by 
China of the WTO Agreement and of the rela ted provisions of [the] Protocol."   
44. China was to provide relevant information in advance of the review, including information 
specified in Annex 1A to the Protocol.  China could also raise issues relating to any reservations under 
Section 17 or to any other specific  commitments made by other Member s in the Protocol, in subsidiary 
bodies which had a relevant mandate.  This Committee had to report the results of the review promptly 
to the Council for Trade in Goods.  Review was to take place  after accession in each year for eight years, 
with a final review in year ten or at an earlier date decided by the General Council.  The Chairman 
recalled that this was the ninth and thus the last transitional review conducted under China's Protocol of 
Accession. 
45. The Chairman indicated that the Protocol c ontained no procedures for the conduct of the 
transition review, except that China was to provide re levant information in advance of the review.  In 
this regard, Annex 1A specified that China was reque sted to provide information on the following to the 
Committee in accordance with Article 18.1 of its Accession Protocol:  "Pricing Policies": (a) 
"application of existing or any other price contro ls and the reason for their use"; and (b) "pricing 
mechanisms of China's st ate trading enterprises for exported pr oducts".  The notification by China 
provided for in Annex 1A had been circulated in document G/SCM/N/232, dated 20 October 2011. 
46. The delegate of China stated that the info rmation provided in document G/SCM/N/232 was 
self-explanatory and that it reflecte d efforts made by China after access ion with regard to pricing reform. 
47. The delegate of the United States stated that when  China had signed its Protocol of Accession to 
the WTO ten years ago, it had agreed to an a nnual Transitional Review Mechanism (TRM) to be 
conducted before 16 Committees and C ouncils each Fall for eight years, with a final review by year  G/SCM/M/79 
 Page 9 
 
 
  ten.  This was year ten.  For this final TRM, the United States shared its observations on China's first 
ten years of WTO membership. 
48. As Members could recall, the TRM had been  created largely because China had been 
admitted to WTO membership before it had revised a ll of its trade-related la ws and regulations to 
become WTO-compatible, and because China had been  allowed a variety of transition periods before 
it took on certain WTO obligations.  Active mon itoring of China's commitments through the TRM 
was considered important for China to successfully  integrate into the WTO's open, market-oriented 
and rules-based trading system and to help ensure  that WTO Members benefited fully from liberalized 
trade with China.  The annual TRM meetings therefore provided Members with opportunities to 
review with China, in a multilateral setting, the efforts that China had taken to implement specific 
commitments made in its Protocol of Accession as well as China's efforts to comply with the 
obligations that it had taken on under the many ag reements that made up the WTO Agreement.   
49. During the initial phase-in period following its accession to the WTO, China had 
implemented a set of sweeping commitments, in cluding reducing tariffs, eliminating non-tariff 
barriers that denied national treatment and mark et access for goods and services imported from other 
WTO Members, and making legal improvements in intellectual property protection and in 
transparency.  These actions had d eepened China’s integration into the international trading system, 
facilitating and strengthening China's rule of law and economic reform.  Trade and investment had 
also expanded dramatically between China and its many trading partners.      
50. Nevertheless, even though China had taken ma ny impressive steps to reform its economy 
since joining the WTO ten years ago, the overall pict ure remained complex, given a troubling trend in 
China toward increased state inte rvention in the Chinese economy in recent years.  Frequently, trade 
frictions with China could be traced to China's pur suit of industrial policies that relied on excessive, 
trade-distorting government intervention – includin g the widespread use of subsidies – intended to 
promote or protect China's domestic industries a nd state-owned enterprises.  This government 
intervention reflected the fact th at China's movement away from a centrally-planned economy toward 
a free-market economy governed by rule  of law remained incomplete.   
51. Looking at developments relating to the juri sdiction of this Committee in particular, the 
delegate recalled that, as a result of its accessi on negotiations, China had agreed to assume the 
obligations of the SCM Agreement.  As a result, China had become subject to the SCM Agreement's 
disciplines on a Member's use of subsidies, and it ha d also become obligated to adhere to detailed 
rules prescribing the manner and basis on which a Member could take action to offset the injurious subsidization of products imported from another Member. 
52. Over the past 10 years, China had made significant progress in developing a legal framework 
for its countervailing duty regime.  Nevertheless, while there had been numerous improvements in 
China's countervailing duty practice since the first TR M in 2002, China had more to do to make its 
countervailing duty investigative and decision-maki ng processes fully transparent and procedurally 
fair for all parties, as envisioned by the SCM Ag reement.  The United States delegation had recently 
made a detailed statement about these concerns during the TRM before the Anti-Dumping Committee 
and would not repeat them before the Subsidies Committee. 
53. The United States also noted that, in recent y ears, China had initiated certain countervailing 
duty investigations under troubling circumstances.  Some of th ese investigations had generated WTO 
disputes in which multiple WTO violations had been  alleged, including claims of inconsistency not 
only with fundamental obligations relating to transparency and pro cedural fairness, but also key 
aspects of the injury determinations.  The Unite d States had initiated two of those disputes, one 
involving grain-oriented electrical steel (DS414) and the other involving broiler products  (DS427).   G/SCM/M/79 
Page 10  
 
  54. Turning to subsidies disciplines, China's record  of compliance was poor when it came to the 
obligations that China took on regarding its use of subsidies.  As would be discussed, China 
maintained an opaque subsidies regime, and it a ppeared to have employed numerous prohibited 
subsidies as an integral part of industrial polic ies designed to promote or protect its domestic 
industries and state-owned enterprises. 
55. Transparency was a core principle of the WT O Agreement, and it was firmly enshrined as a 
key obligation under the SCM Agreement.  Article  25 obligated every Member to file regular 
notifications of all of the specific subsidies that it maintained. This information was required so that it 
was possible to assess the nature and extent of a Member's subsidy programs.  Until the preceding 
week, despite being one of the top traders among WTO Members, China had filed only one subsidy 
notification since joining the WTO almost ten years prior, and it had only covered the time period 
from 2001 to 2004.  That notification, submitted in  2006, had been incomplete as it had failed to 
notify any subsidies provided by provincial and local government authorities, as well as numerous 
central government subsidies.  At that time, the United States and several other Members had 
expressed serious concerns about the incompleten ess of China's notification.  Since then, the 
United States and several other Members had repeatedly requested that China submit its notifications 
for the periods subsequent to 2004.   
56. Given China's lack of transparency, the Un ited States had devoted significant time and 
resources to identifying, monitoring and analysing China's subsidy practices, and these efforts had 
confirmed significant omissions in China's subsidy notification.  These efforts had also made clear 
that provincial and local governments played an im portant role in implementing China's industrial 
subsidy policies.  Recent academic literature, fo r example, indicated that provincial and local 
governments were responsible for a large percentage  of China's investment in industry, much of 
which was often misdirected into sectors with excess capacity.  The significant scope of the 
government's support in pursuit of its industrial polici es at all levels of government could be seen in 
the massive funds allocated as part of China's recently issued Twelft h Five-Year Plan, which, by some 
accounts, amounted to over RMB 1.2 trillion.   
57. China's large and growing role in world produc tion and trade made it important that Members 
understood the nature of China's subsidy regime at both the central and sub-central government level.  
China's lack of compliance with its subsidy notif ication obligation, however, prevented Members 
from obtaining the necessary knowledge  and understanding of subsidy policy formulation in China.  
In the face of repeated unfulfilled promises from China that it would soon file a new subsidy 
notification, the United States earlier that month ha d raised this issue through the filing of a counter-
notification under Article 25.10 of the SCM Agreement.   In the counter-notification, the United States 
had identified 200 unreported subsidy programs th at China had maintained since 2004, including 
many provided by provincial and local government authorities.   
58. After the United States had filed its counter-no tification, China had finally submitted the new 
subsidy notification that it had been promising.  Covering only the period from 2005 to 2008, China's 
notification had again failed to notify a single subsidy administered by provincial or local 
governments.  Moreover, the notified central govern ment subsidies were largely the same partial 
listing of subsidies as those notified in China's 2006 s ubmission.  As a result, China's notification was 
again incomplete.   
59. The United States noted as well that China's re cent subsidy notification included only a few 
of the subsidies identified in the United States' counter-notification.  It was now incumbent upon 
China to promptly provide detailed information and data regarding the operation of the many subsidy 
programs from the United States' counter-notification that China had yet to notify.  G/SCM/M/79 
 Page 11 
 
 
  60. The United States noted that China had also ha d a poor record of adherence to a separate 
transparency obligation to which China had committed in its Protocol of Accession.  There, China 
agreed to notify all "annual economic developmen t programmes, China's five-year programmes and 
any industrial or sectoral programmes or polici es (including programmes related to investment, 
export, import, productions, pricing or other targets,  if any) promulgated by central and sub-central 
government entities."  These industrial policy plans typically were a major source of government 
subsidization in China, particularly w ith respect to state-owned enterprises. 
61. This was an important transparency ob ligation for China because industrial policy 
implementation in China favoured state-owned ente rprises and involved government, or non-market-
based, allocations of resources.  It also involved gove rnment restrictions on firms with respect to their 
choice of technologies, the scale of their operations , the selection of investment projects and products 
produced, and the provision of subsidies.  Given the size of China's economy, industrial policy 
implementation in China had the potential to adversel y affect the interests of other Members, whether 
or not China achieved its policy objectives.    
62. Over the past 10 years, while China had provided some limited information with regard to its 
national five-year plans, it appeared that China ha d not provided any information with respect to the 
national plans governing particular sectors or th e plans adopted by sub-central governments. 
63. It was particularly troubling that, throughout its first 10 years of WTO membership, China 
appeared to have made frequent use of subsidi es that were prohibited by the SCM Agreement.  
Indeed, to date, the United States had brought three separate WTO cases challenging scores of Chinese central, provincial and local government subs idies as prohibited.  In 2007, the United States, 
together with Mexico, had initiated WTO disput e settlement proceedings against China (DS358) 
challenging tax-related subsidies that appeared to take the form of both export subsidies and import 
substitution subsidies.  In 2008, the United States and co-complainants Mexico and Guatemala had 
initiated WTO dispute settlement proceedings (DS3 87) challenging a Chinese government industrial 
policy that generated a vast numbe r of central, provincial and lo cal government programs promoting 
increased worldwide recognition and sales of famous brands of Chinese merchandise through what 
appeared to be prohibited export subsidies.  In  2010, the United States had initiated WTO dispute 
settlement proceeding (DS419) challenging subsid ies being provided by the Chinese government to 
manufacturers of wind turbine systems that appeared  to be contingent on the use of domestic over 
imported components and parts.  While bilateral di alogue failed to resolve any of these matters prior 
to the initiation of WTO dispute settlement proceedi ngs, in each case China had either repealed the 
challenged measures or eliminated the benefits in those measures after being challenged at the WTO. 
64. Despite the positive steps that China had take n after being challenged at the WTO, it 
remained concerning that China continued to face WTO challenges alleging significant use of 
prohibited subsidies at every level of government even after 10 years of WTO membership.  The 
SCM Agreement's disciplines were clear and straight forward, and it was unacceptable for China or 
any other Member to maintain prohibited subsidies.   Going forward, the United States urged China to 
consider carefully the outstanding concerns that  the United States and other Members had raised 
about China's use of subsidies that appeared to be prohibited.  In addition, China's failure to comply 
with important transparency commitments was deep ly problematic.  Transparency was needed to 
provide the necessary balance between the rights of China and the interests of other Members that was 
so fundamental and crucial to the preservation the ru les-based trading system.   China had agreed to 
this important balance in principle, but had yet to fully live up to it in practice.  The United States also 
urged China to take steps to address the con cerns that had been raised about MOFCOM's 
countervailing duty practice.  The United States woul d continue to engage China, both at the WTO 
and bilaterally, until all of these outsta nding issues were satisfactorily resolved. G/SCM/M/79 
Page 12  
 
  65. The delegate of Canada stated that his delega tion continued to have concerns about China's 
industrial policies and their linkages with regard to subsidization.  For example, on numerous 
occasions, including in the context of previous transiti onal reviews, Canada, either individually or in 
concert with other NAFTA countries had sought clarif ications regarding China's iron and steel policy. 
Canada's concerns - which were centred on the hi gh degree of intervention of the Chinese government 
in the direction and decision making regarding the allocation of resources into and out of its steel 
industry, including subsidization - remained.  Canada acknowledged that there were difficult 
challenges in this sector in China and Canada appr eciated that China recognized this.  Canada had a 
continuing interest, as did its NAFTA partners, in learning more about the relationship between 
national five-year plans and specific government i ndustrial policies broadly and how such policies 
were implemented, coordina ted and funded between various levels of governments.  Canada noted in 
particular the efforts of China's Ministry of In dustry and Information to reduce and/or eliminate 
steelmaking capacity in China and would ask for information that China could provide on any 
possible role that subsidization would or might play in this endeavour.  In its answers to questions by 
the NAFTA countries in the context of the 2010 trade po licy review of China, China had stated that its 
government would provide subsidies to support adjust ment assistance related to relocation due to out-
dated capacity, not only in the steel but other indus tries as well.  The delegate asked whether China 
could inform the Committee as to recent implementati on of that policy.  Canada also looked forward 
to seeing China's answers regarding the role of th e state-owned enterprises in advancing industrial 
policies. 
66. The delegate of Japan welcomed this opportuni ty to review China's implementation of the 
SCM Agreement.  In the previous reviews, Ja pan had made certain remarks with regard to 
transparency.  Japan attached gr eat importance to the notification and surveillance scheme stipulated 
in Part VII of the SCM Agreement.  The poor not ification record as well as the poor content of 
notifications would severely undermine the efficacy of notifications and surveillance scheme in the 
SCM Agreement.  Japan welcomed the fact that Ch ina had made a notification the Friday before the 
Committee meeting, after five years of silence.  As  a next step, Japan expected China to meet the 
requirements of timeliness and completeness as well. 
67. The delegate of Mexico noted at the outset th at although it had successfully eliminated certain 
subsidies since accession, concerns remained that  China continued to keep in place a significant 
number of subsidies both for production and export with  the aim of according benefit to its enterprises 
in the local market and rendering them more competi tive in international markets. Mexico also wished 
to express its concerns regarding the application of  export restrictions, in view of the fact that 
domestic subsidies could result from such restrictio ns, and could work to the benefit of national 
producers.  Mexico's principal concerns were the foll owing: First, in China, participation by local and 
provincial governments in industrial investment wa s of particular importanc e.  Certain subsidies 
identified in the past had been implemented by such government bodies.  The monitoring of such measures was considerably more complicated than for central government measures that had been 
notified to the Committee.  This situation created concerns given the lack of knowledge of these 
subsidies and the difficulty of monitoring subsid ies granted by local governments in China.   
68. The delegate further noted that the Chinese Government had indicated that it no longer 
granted export subsidies.  However, in certain circ umstances, China had made use of border taxes to 
encourage the export of certain products with impor ted components in other finished products in a 
number of sectors.  The delegate also stated that  China had undertaken to no longer apply subsidies 
for the export of tyres in China.  It was wort h mentioning that the production of Chinese tyres had 
fallen abruptly in the first nine months of 2008 pr incipally as a result of the faltering global economy.  
This was on the basis of information coming from th e China Rubber Industry Association (CRIA).  In 
order to assist members of the Association of Na tional Producers of Tyres, China had announced an 
increase from 5 to 9 per cent as of 1 December 2008 of  the subsidy granted on VAT credit in relation 
to exports of Chinese tyres.  This sort of subsidy essentially took the form of export credits  G/SCM/M/79 
 Page 13 
 
 
  administered by the Export and Import Bank (EXIM) and the export credit in surances granted by the 
China Credit and Export Insurance Corporation (SINOS URE).  One example of this were the credits 
accorded to Chinese importers to enable them more easily to import essential technology and 
equipment as well as oil and natural gas and ot her mineral products imported in large volume 
containers and in long-term storage.  In his de legation's opinion, this sort of support and activities 
undertaken by the Chinese Government could le ad to unfair competition between Chinese and 
Mexican enterprises that would not be able to compete on an equal footing.  For example, a 
significant number of incentives were being maintain ed in relation to the apparel industry, where 
China was the only country participating in  the yarn and textile garment chain.  
69. Finally, his delegation wished to mention the difficulty of monitoring measures.  Mexico in 
the past had participated in disputes against Chin a concerning the implementation of export subsidies, 
as was the case in relation to the "famous Chinese brands" and "globally recognized brands".  
Although China had undertaken to remove these measur es, there continued to be concern as to the 
difficulties surrounding the monitoring of the conti nued existence or not of prohibited subsidies, 
particularly in view of the fact that the majority  of such potential subsidies would be implemented by 
local or provincial governments, and that such  subsidies were not notified to the Committee on 
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.  Mexico expect ed China to fully comply with its notification 
commitments and that this be done in a complete and transparent fashion. 
70. The delegate of the European Union stated th at the European Union shared many of the 
concerns raised by the previous speakers regardi ng China's subsidies practices.  These concerns were 
compounded by China's record with regard to its WTO obligations to notify regul arly details of all the 
specific subsidies that it maintained on all governme nt levels. Therefore, the European Union urged 
China to fully meet its notification obligations and furnish complete and timely notifications in 
accordance with the SCM Agreement. 
71. The delegate of Norway thanked China for pa rticipating in this TRM.  His delegation 
welcomed the information received from China in document G/SCM/N/232.  He also thanked China 
for having notified subsidies covering the period fro m 2005-2008.  Like others, his delegation was, 
however, looking forward to seeing China notifying  all its subsidy programmes.  His delegation 
attached great importance to transparency as an obligation under the SCM Agreement. 
72. The delegate of China stated that over the p ast ten years, China had been making continuous 
and persistent efforts in fulfilling the treme ndous commitments made upon accession to the WTO.  
On the countervailing side, China's legislative fra mework was clear and consistent with the WTO 
SCM Agreement, as reflected in the notifications made to the Committee of China's Foreign Trade 
Law, the Regulations on Countervailing Measures, together with six pieces of department rules.  In 
practice, in contrast to the fact that China ha d been the most frequent target of countervailing 
measures for four years and there had been more than 30 countervailing duty investigations against 
Chinese products since 2004, China had thus far init iated only four cases, and had always been very 
prudent in using countervailing measures, as it di d with respect to other contingency measures. 
73. In respect of subsidies, before long after acc ession, China had eliminated all known subsidy 
programmes falling within the scope of Article 3 of the SCM Agreement as undertaken, including 
those contained in Annex 5B to the Accession Protocol.  Since then, China had also been engaged in 
discussions with some Members in an open and candid spirit on certain policies and measures which these Members had believed to be problematic.  Wh ile in view of the technicality as well as the 
historical background of some of these issues Ch ina might not always agree with these Members on 
the nature of these measures, China had been clear and consistent on such a principle that WTO rules 
and China's accession commitment should be honoure d, and China would bring such policies and 
measures into conformity with the relevant WTO rules and its accession commitment if they were 
confirmed to be WTO-inconsistent. G/SCM/M/79 
Page 14  
 
  74. Transparency of subsidies in China had also been a major issue discu ssed under this agenda 
item of the Committee in a ll these years.  China was fully aware of the importance of this obligation 
in the WTO, and therefore had made unimaginabl e efforts ever since accession not only to gather 
huge amounts of information but also to analyse thei r inter-relationship and to identify their nature as 
to whether a subsidy programme did exist and whethe r it indeed was subject to notification under the 
SCM Agreement.  In this course of accumulation of  experiences and expertise, a working mechanism 
at the central government level had also gradually been  put in place.  In view of the fact that China 
had started this work virtually from scratch, Ch ina believed that progress made thus far had been 
significant and had fully demonstrated China's seri ousness in honouring its commitment in this regard 
in a long-term and effective manner. 
75. China had recently submitted to the Committee its second subsidy notification.  With this 
submission, the information since accession on subs idy programmes at the central level had been 
complete up to the year 2008.  It was true that local  programmes at that stage were not yet covered.  In 
this regard, the concerns expressed by Members we re well taken.  China would try its best to 
accelerate the work related to the local programs in the next stage and in the meantime continued to 
further improve the notification of the subsidy programmes at the central level. 
76. The Canadian delegation, in its statement, had sought clarification from China on subsidies in 
the form of adjustment assistance relating to relocati on due to out-dated capacity.  In this regard, after 
the submission of China's second subsidy notificati on, information gathering for the next subsidy 
notification was under way in Beijing.  If the inform ation gathered confirmed the existence of support 
provided in this regard, it would be in cluded in China's next notification. 
77. At the last transitional review of China by the Committee, China also called on Members not 
to misinterpret many policy statements of China as being specific subsidies within the meaning of the 
SCM Agreement, and also not to mistake implem entations by local governments of the already-
notified programmes initiated by the central govern ment as local programmes initiated at the sub-
national level.  These issues had been much deba ted all these years in the discussions under this 
agenda item.  After the closure of this agenda  item, China would continue its exchanges with 
Members, in mechanisms and th rough channels which were bala nced and which would treat all 
Members on an equal footing.  Finally, the delega te of China expressed appreciation to all Members 
for their attention to and interest in the discussions held all these years under this agenda item of the 
Committee and thanked the Secretariat for th e work done to facilitate this work. 
78. The Committee took note of the statements made. 
79. The Chairman noted that the Protocol containe d no guidelines with regard to the Committee's 
report on the transitional review.  Following the revi ew conducted in 2009, the Chairperson, acting on 
his own responsibility, had prepared a brief, f actual report, with references to the documents 
concerned, and attaching the portion of the minutes  of the meeting which related to the transition 
review.  The Chairman proposed that the Committee ag ree to follow the same procedure.  It was so 
decided. 
F. PERMANENT GROUP OF EXPERTS  
80. The Chairman recalled that the term of Dr. Manzoor Ahmad as member of the Permanent 
Group of Experts had ended in the Spring and that his position needed to be filled. The previous 
Chairman had started informal consultations on this  matter prior to the regular meeting of 3 May 2011 
and informed the Committee at that meeting that his consultations had not yielded consensus.  He had 
therefore refrained from putting forward a name for selection.  G/SCM/M/79 
 Page 15 
 
 
  81. The Chairman noted that since he had taken ove r the chairmanship, he had also engaged in 
several informal consultations. Unfortunately, no  progress could be reported so far. The Chairman 
noted that he would inform the Committee if and when such consultations resulted in consensus on 
this matter. 
82. The delegate of the United States reiterated his delegation's support for the one nominated 
candidate. 
83. The Committee took note of the statements made. 
G. EXTENSION OF THE TRANSITION PERIOD UNDER ARTICLE 27.4  OF THE SCM AGREEMENT  
84. The Chairman recalled that under this agenda item, the Committee would first review whether 
Members that had been granted an extension of the transition period for calendar year 2011 under the 
procedures contained in the General Council Decision  of 27 July 2007 (WT/L/691) had complied with 
the transparency and standstill requirements provi ded for in those procedures. Thereafter, the 
Committee would adopt decisions to extend the tr ansition period for calendar year 2012 in accordance 
with the procedures contained in document WT/L/691.  
85. The Chairman recalled that paragraph 2(a) of the General Council Decision required that 
notifying Members also had to provide info rmation regarding actions taken pursuant to 
paragraphs 1(e) and 1(f) of th e General Council Decision, which concerned the notification of 
beneficiaries and the action plan for the elimin ation of export subsidies under the programme.  
86. The Committee had received annual updating notific ations from all of the 19 Members that 
currently benefited from extensions in accordance with the General Council Decision. The Chairman 
drew attention, in this regard, to the Secretar iat paper that had been circulated as document 
JOB/SCM/2, dated 13 October 2011,  which listed the programmes in respect of which the Committee 
had agreed in 2010 to continue the extension of the transition period until 31 December 2011, and the 
updating notifications relating to those programmes that had been submitted by the Members in 
question as of 13 October. The Secretariat paper also  contained a model text for the decisions to be 
taken by the Committee regarding the extension of the transition period for calendar year 2012.   
1. Review of compliance with transparency and standstill obligations  
87. The Chairman recalled that the procedures set  forth in the General Council Decision in 
WT/L/691 provided for an annual review by the Co mmittee of compliance with  certain transparency 
and standstill requirements in paragra phs 2 and 3 of that Decision. This  annual review was to be based 
on annual updating notifications submitted by the Members in question. At the Committee's regular 
meeting held in October 2010, the Chairman had requested the Members concerned to submit their 
notifications by 30 June 2011. The notifications had been circulated in the G/SCM/N/226/xxx 
document series. The Job document circulated by the Secretariat on 13 October contained a table that listed these notifications. Since the circulation of this document, the Committee had received 
additional notifications from Barbados, F iji, Saint Lucia and Papua New Guinea.  
88. The Chairman proposed that instead of examining the updating notifications received from 
beneficiary Members one by one, he would ask wh ether any delegation wished to make comments on 
any of these notifications.  No delegation took the floor to comment or ask questions on any of the 
notifications. This being the case, the Chairman proposed that the Committee take note of the 
notifications made and that the Committee agree that it had concluded its  annual review under the 
procedures in WT/L/691 of the transparency a nd standstill requirements contained in those 
procedures.  It was so agreed. G/SCM/M/79 
Page 16  
 
  89. The delegate of the United Stat es stated that the Article 27. 4 procedures had provided a good 
example of developed and deve loping country Members working together to address specific 
problems in a constructive way.  His delegation also expressed his appreciation to each of the 
beneficiary Members for submitting their notificati ons and providing the information as required by 
the General Council Decision.   
2. Decisions under paragraph 1(d) of the Gene ral Council Decision of 27 July 2007 to 
continue the extension of the transition period for calendar year 2012  
90. The Chairman stated that the General Council Decision of 27 July 2007 provided that "during 
the period 2008-2012 the Members of the Committee sh all agree to continue the extensions pursuant 
to these procedures" subject to verification that th ere had been compliance with the transparency and 
standstill requirements. In order to facilitate the decision-making process under this item, the 
Secretariat had prepared a model text for the d ecisions to be adopted by the Committee under this 
provision. This model text was contained in the S ecretariat paper circulated on 13 October 2011. This 
document contained a full list of programmes w ith respect to which the Committee had approved 
extension requests at its 2010 Autumn meeting and for which requests had been made in the 
beneficiary Members' 2011 updating notifications. 
91. The Chairman next proposed that the Committee ag ree to continue to extend the transition 
period for calendar year 2012 in respect of the pr ogrammes that currently benefited from such an 
extension.  It was so decided. 
92. The Chairman  further  proposed that based on the text of the model decision in the Job 
document, the Secretariat prepare and circulate individual decisions pertaining to each of the 
programmes for which extension requests had been approved by the Committee. It was so agreed.   
93. The Chairman finally proposed that the Comm ittee agree to request the Members concerned 
to provide their updating notifications covering cal endar year 2011 not later than 30 June 2012.  It was 
so agreed. 
94. The Chairman stated that, in 2011, as in pr evious years, the Secretariat had extreme 
difficulties in the receipt of the annual updating noti fications from some of the beneficiaries before 
this meeting. Secretariat staff had had to make  many phone calls, send ma ny reminders by email and 
in the end the Chairman had sent diplomatic letters to  some of the beneficiaries. Surely, beneficiaries 
were aware that this was a process agreed upon by the General Council in order to respond to their 
special needs. Beneficiary Members were therefor e invited to pay more attention to sending their 
notifications on time in order to allow the Secretariat to better allocate its resources to its many 
different tasks, particularly in pe riods leading to a Committee meeting. 
95. The delegate of Guatemala made explanations with regard to the progress made by Guatemala 
since its last notification circulated in docum ent G/SCM/N/226/GTM on 7 July 2011. As could be 
seen from this notification, Guatemala was carrying out a number of the actions proposed in the 
Action Plan notified in 2010, and ha d made substantial progress so far.  In this regard, he noted that 
the Working Group within the Ministry of Econo my continued its regular meetings, and from 
August 2011, there had been partic ipation from representatives of the Ministry of Public Finance and 
those of the Tax Administration Agency as well. Furthermore, from 19 to 27 August 2011, the Advisory Minister to the Mission of Guatemala in Ge neva had travelled to Guatemala with a view to 
supporting the said Group and had participated in di scussions and held bilateral meetings with the 
different government bodies in charge of this topic, su ch as the Ministry of Economy, the  Ministry of 
Public Finance, the Tax Administration Agency, the Bank of Guatemala and the Economic Cabinet as 
well as the private sector, academia, some non-gove rnmental organizations, political parties and 
consultants in this particular field. These efforts had been very constructive and thanks to this, the  G/SCM/M/79 
 Page 17 
 
 
  main stakeholders were actively playing a role in seeking long-term solutions for Guatemala.  Further, 
at the beginning of September the process of hiring a consultant who was currently putting together a 
proposal to bring export subsidies measures in lin e with Guatemala's commitments to the WTO was 
completed.  This consultant was working toge ther with the Working Group and was conducting 
consultations with the private sector and the bene ficiaries of the programmes. The consultant would 
also, at the appropriate time, propose legislativ e changes that might be necessary. Thus, as the 
Committee could note, Guatemala was firmly committe d to eliminate the export subsidies before the 
transitional period expired and was carrying out appr opriate and relevant work in accordance with the 
Action Plan and the schedule notified in 2010. 
96. The delegate of Japan recalled that export subsid ies were the most trade destructive subsidies 
and, as such, were prohibited under the SCM Agr eement. A limited number of Members had been 
granted transition periods with respect to the e limination of certain export subsidy programmes and 
this therefore was a very limited process. Her delega tion agreed with the continuation of the extension 
period for year 2012.  Her delegation also urged benefiting Members to take steps towards the 
elimination of export subsidies by the end of 2015. 
97. The Committee took note of the statements made. 
H. REQUEST FROM THE UNITED STATES TO CHINA PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 25.10  OF THE SCM 
AGREEMENT  
98. The Chairman indicated that this item had been  added to the agenda at the request of the 
United States. The United States had submitted to th e Committee a request directed at China under 
Article 25.10 of the Agreement, circulat ed in document G/SCM/Q2/CHN/42 and dated 
11 October 2011. Subsequently, the United States ha d also submitted in electronic format information 
with respect to the measures identified in this doc ument. Such information was maintained by the 
Secretariat on a CD, a copy of which could be obtained by interested Members upon request.  The 
Chairman noted that document G/SCM/Q2/CHN/42 had not  yet been translated into the three working 
languages.  He suggested that the Committee have a preliminary discussion on this issue. 
99. The delegate of the United States recalled th at up to the preceding week, China had only 
submitted a single subsidy notifica tion in its ten years of WTO membership. This notification, 
submitted in 2006, covered the time period from 20 01 to 2004. At the time, the United States and 
several other Members had expressed serious concerns  about the incompleteness of the notification. 
Since 2006, the United States and several other Member s had repeatedly request ed that China submit 
its notification for the period subsequent to 2004. In the last two years, China had stated in the 
Committee that its next subsidy notification was in the final stages of completion. And yet, until the 
preceding week, nothing had been submitted.  
100. Last year, before this Committee, the United Stat es had made it clear that if a new notification 
was not submitted, it would have to consider othe r alternatives under the SCM Agreement such as the 
mechanism under Article 25.10. Given the continui ng absence of a subsidy notification from China, 
despite the United States' urging before this Comm ittee and in numerous bilateral settings over the 
years, the United States had had no choice but to pursue the procedures set out under Article 25.10 of the Agreement. The situation had simple become intolerable. On October 6, the United States had 
submitted a request to China under Article 25.10 of  the SCM Agreement which listed approximately 
200 subsidy programmes in China that had not been notified, and requested that these programmes be 
promptly notified. 
101. The delegate recalled that, although not re quired under Article 25.10, as part of its 
submission, the United States had included translated copies of a ll the underlying legal measures 
establishing all 200 programmes at issue. Inform ation regarding these programmes was publicly G/SCM/M/79 
Page 18  
 
  available and had been obtained by the United Stat es in various legal proceedings. The central and 
sub-central government subsidy programmes gene rally covered the time period from 2004 to the 
present. None of these programmes had been included in  China's notification made five years ago. An 
initial review of the notification submitted by China in the week preced ing the Committee meeting 
had indicated that approximately 190 of the 200 pr ogrammes in the Article 25.10 request remained 
unnotified. Yet these 190 programmes were subject to notification to the Committee because they 
appeared to provide specific subsidies within th e meaning of the Agreement. The United States 
therefore requested that these 190 subsidy progra mmes be promptly notified to the Committee in 
accordance with Article 25.10 of the Agreement.  
102. The list of subsidy programmes in the United States' submission included many programmes 
that it had identified in various countervailing duty  investigations. Nevert heless it had not included 
numerous additional programmes identified in the same  investigations, including, for example, certain 
programmes involving grants, policy lending by st ate-owned banks and the provision of various 
goods at less than adequate remuneration by stat e-owned enterprises. These subsidy programmes had 
not been individually identified in the list, b ecause, among other reasons, they involved business 
confidential information provided to the United States in the course of a countervailing duty 
proceeding.  
103. The delegate further stated that the long list of subsidy programmes included in his 
delegation's Article 25.10 request strongly suggested  that a vast number of sub-central programmes 
had not been notified by China. More than 100 s ub-central government programmes were included in 
the United States' submission and most of these pr ogrammes provided various subsidies based on a 
single central government initiative. The large number of subsidies provided as a result of this one 
central government action and a large number of  other central government programmes in his 
delegation's submission taken togeth er strongly suggested that the number of unreported sub-central 
government measures was likely enormous.  There was no reason to believe that the 200 subsidy 
programmes in the United States submission represente d even a small fraction of the subsidies in 
China provided at the sub-central and central govern ment levels. For this reason, his delegation's 
submission could in no way be cons idered as a substitute to the fu ll subsidy notification that China 
owed this Committee.  
104. Generally the subsidies in the US Article 25.10 request originated from three sources: several 
WTO dispute settlement proceedings; a set of allega tions made by labour unions regarding various 
green technology programmes; and several counterva iling duty investigations. The delegate of the 
United States had five specific observations to make regarding the subsidy programmes included in 
the 25.10 request submitted by his delegation. First, he noted the prevalence of sub-central 
programmes.  Over half of the programmes in his delegation's submission were  sub-central in nature. 
This supported the point that his delegation had been making for ma ny years before this Committee 
that sub-central programmes were critically importa nt in China. Actual implementation of central 
government industrial subsidies polic ies were often, if not normally, the responsibility of sub-central 
governments. A subsidy notification from China wit hout notification of sub-central programmes was, 
in his delegation's view, simply not the full notification. 
105. Second, in the past as well as earlier in this meeting, the Co mmittee had discussed the 
importance of Five-Year Plans in China. In res ponse, Members had heard that Five-Year Plans and 
other industrial plans did not establish subsidy programmes in China. Whether or not this was true in 
a narrow technical sense, it was nevertheless clear that industrial plans established industrial support 
policies under which actual subsidy programmes were implemented. For example, the eleventh Five-
Year Plan with respect to renewable energy po licy stated that one objective was to "implement 
preferential tax, investment and mandatory market  shares policies". Clearly, this language was 
establishing the overarching legal basis for the est ablishment of particular subsidy programmes.  G/SCM/M/79 
 Page 19 
 
 
  106. Third, as his delegation had already noted in previous transition reviews, certain subsidy 
programmes in China were only in effect for a shor t period, such as two years, and then replaced by 
other measures which might just be slightly different. This could be seen in some of the central government's famous "export brand" measures. This  underscored the importance of China notifying 
its subsidy programmes on a regular and timely b asis. If delayed, many programmes would have 
come and gone without any notification provided during the time that the programmes had been in 
effect, leaving Members in a never-ending game of trying to catch up. Obviously such a result undermined the purpose of the transparency pr ovisions set out in the SCM Agreement. 
107. Fourth, insisting on a complete and timely notification of China's specific subsidy 
programmes was not simply an academic exercise. Among the 200 subsidies that the United States 
had identified in its submission, there were some that appeared to be prohibited export and import-
substitution subsidies as well as actionable subsidies that  had been found to be a direct and significant 
cause of harm to US industries. Not providing a complete and timely notification of these subsidies 
fundamentally upset the balance of the rights and obligations of Members under the SCM Agreement. 
108. Fifth, the fact that the United States had been able to compile and analyse all this information, 
much if not all of it from publicly-available Chinese government sources, cast doubts on China's 
repeated claims that it lacked the ability to collect and report the same information, especially after ten 
years of WTO Membership. The delegate of the Un ited States noted China's earlier statement that it 
had exerted unimaginable efforts to collect huge amounts of information. However, China's most 
recent notification had been submitted five years af ter the first notification, and yet the programmes 
notified most recently were largely the same progra mmes that had been notified five years before. 
109. In conclusion, his delegation considered it di sturbing that China had failed to meet its 
obligation under the SCM Agreement to notify its programmes. His delegation had repeatedly urged 
China to do so in multiple fora over many years. Assurances had been made but never realized. His 
delegation had considered the intermediary step  of submitting additional questions to China under 
Article 25.8 but his delegation's previous ques tions under Article 25.8 in 2004 had remained 
unanswered. Given the prevalent use of subsidies in  China and China's increasingly important role in 
the world economy, his delegation simply could not wait any longer to consider using the mechanism under Article 25.10. The United States looked fo rward to reviewing China's recent subsidy 
notification.  As he had already noted, his delegati on's initial review indicated that approximately 190 
of the 200 programmes in its Article 25.10 request remained unnotified.  His delegation's hope and 
expectation was that China would promptly notif y these programmes and immediately submit a full 
subsidy notification that included subsidy programmes at all levels of government. 
110. The delegate of China expressed his delegation' s belief that the United States' Article 25.10 
submission contained several misunderstandings on  China's subsidy programmes and therefore had 
exaggerated the situation of subsidies in China.  It was unclear whether many items in the United 
States' submission really were subsidies subject to  notification. And China had already notified many 
other items to the WTO. They could be found in bo th of China's first and second notifications. It 
appeared to his delegation that the United States had failed to understand correctly China's notified 
programmes and in particular had failed to link th e notified programmes to the information that the 
United States had gathered. China was fully aware that the submission of a full subsidy notification 
was an important transparency obligation for th e WTO Members pursuant to the SCM Agreement. 
Subsidy notifications entailed a huge amount of work, of information gathering, and more of analysis. 
This posed not only great challenges to developi ng countries like China that faced serious capacity 
constraints, but also even to developed Members. Yet, China had been making every effort in this 
regard ever since accession and had produced a co mplete and comprehensive notification of the 
programmes at the central level.  China would cont inue its work. In particular, China would work 
towards incorporating local programmes. Given the great technicality and complexity of the issues 
involved in the United States' understanding of China' s subsidies as reported in the US submission, G/SCM/M/79 
Page 20  
 
  there was a need to have exchanges of views betw een China and the United States in a more effective 
manner. 
111. The delegate of Canada agreed with the opini on voiced by several delegations earlier in the 
meeting that the subsidy notification was fundament ally important to transparency.  His delegation 
understood the concern underlying the request made  by the United States, and hoped that China 
would make every effort to make its notification in a complete and timely manner.  His delegation 
also emphasized that it was the re sponsibility of individual Members to provide a notification of their 
subsidies and that submissions from other Members were not adequate or desirable substitutes for 
fulfilling this responsibility. 
112. The delegate of Japan recalled that the ne xt step for Members receiving a request under 
Article 25.10 was to explain their programmes, make necessary modifications to their notifications or 
in case a programme was not yet notified, to notif y it in accordance with th e agreed notification 
format. The notification and the surveillance schemes stipulated in Part VII of the SCM Agreement 
played a very important role in ensuring the e fficacy of this Agreement. Members that made 
notifications often included programmes which might  not constitute subsidies under Article 1 of the 
Agreement or might not be specific within the meaning of Article 2 of the Agreement. In order to 
achieve maximum transparency, Japan urged Members to make timely and complete notifications and 
increase transparency. 
113. The delegate of the European Union agreed that WTO Members were under an obligation to 
submit regular notifications of their subsidies in th e area of trade in goods under the SCM Agreement. 
She recalled that some WTO Members had consistently  failed to provide meaningful notifications of 
their subsidies schemes. This seriously undermined the relevance of the transparency provisions in the 
SCM Agreement and as a consequence the work of th is Committee. In this re gard, the United States' 
decision to activate the provisions of Article 25.10 of the SCM Agreement and to bring to attention 
alleged subsidies being granted in India and China which both countri es had failed to notify was very 
relevant. The next step should normally be for In dia and China to promptly notify the measures 
concerned in accordance with the agreed notification format. She stated that China had submitted a 
notification with only some of its subsidy programmes; this raised c oncerns about the completeness of 
the notification both in terms of periods  and level of government covered.  
114.  The delegate of Turkey stated that transp arency was a key principle underpinning the rules-
based trading system. This system had been seriously undermined by those Members which had 
significant market shares of world trade and which had huge subsidy programmes failing to adhere to 
key transparency provisions. The requirement to no tify subsidies was the most important transparency 
obligation under the SCM Agreement and compliance w ith this obligation was critically important to 
the successful functioning of the Agreement and to the trust in the rules-based trading system. He 
noted that China's last notification did not incl ude sub-central government subsidy programmes. The 
lack of sub-central programmes in China's notificat ion was particularly troubling as such programmes 
were essential and complementary of central programmes. They were as important as the central ones. 
A subsidy notification that did not cover sub- central measures unarguably was an incomplete 
notification that did not fulfil Members' tran sparency obligations and which prevented WTO 
Members from obtaining a full picture of the subsidy re gime in the notifying country. He urged China 
to make its notification in a complete and timely manner. 
115. The delegate of Australia agreed that notif ication was one of the key rules of the SCM 
Agreement. It was necessary, to get a true pictur e of Members' subsidy programmes, to report both 
central and sub-central programmes. Australia, whic h also had both central and sub-central subsidy 
programmes, was one of the first Members to not ify its sub-central programmes. Her delegation 
looked forward to China's notification of its sub-centr al programmes.  She further noted that Australia 
had notified terminated programmes, which was very  useful to other Members, instead of suddenly  G/SCM/M/79 
 Page 21 
 
 
  removing the terminated programmes from its notif ications without explanation, which was not 
particularly helpful. Her delegation firmly believe d that Members should likewise include terminated 
programmes in their notification.  Finally, she not ed, with respect to Article 25.10, that when 
Members notified their programmes it was up to othe r Members to ask questions, including questions 
as to whether some programmes were not included in  the notification. There was, under Article 25.10, 
an obligation on China to take action. 
116. The delegate of New Zealand stated her delegation's view that the Committee's discussion on 
the United States' submission under Article 25.10 re garding China and India was demonstrative of a 
more systemic issue.  Transparency was essentia l to the functioning of the international trading 
system and the work of this Committee, and this included the timeliness and completeness of 
notifications. It was particularly important for small economies such as New Zealand in order to 
understand how the trading system was working and what measures were in place in some of its trading partners.   
117. The delegate of Norway stated that his dele gation attached importance to the work of the 
Committee to enhance transparency.  A key element of this work was notifications and discussions on 
notifications. As he had stated earlier, it was an obligation to notify all subsidy programmes, both at 
the national and sub-central levels.  Furthermore, all subsidies to the fisheries sector had to be 
notified. 
118. The Committee took note of the statements made. 
I. REQUEST FROM THE UNITED STATES TO INDIA PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 25.10  OF THE SCM 
AGREEMENT  
119. The Chairman stated that the United States had submitted to the Committee a request directed 
at India under Article 25.10 of the Agreement,  circulated in document G/SCM/Q2/IND/20 dated 
10 October 2011. Subsequently, the United States had also submitted in electronic format information 
with respect to the measures identified in that doc ument.  Such information was maintained by the 
Secretariat on a CD, a copy of which could be obtained by interested Members upon request.  The 
Chairman noted that document G/SCM/Q2/IND/20 had not  yet been translated into the three working 
languages.  He suggested that the Committee have a preliminary discussion on this issue. 
120. The delegate of the United States stated that India had recently submitted a subsidy 
notification covering the period 2003 to 2009. Prior to this notification, India had not submitted a 
subsidy notification since 2001, meaning that Indi a had not submitted a subsidy notification in ten 
years, despite its obligation under the SCM Agreem ent to submit subsidy notifications on a regular 
basis. Furthermore, the subsidy notifications subm itted by India only provided information on three 
export subsidy programmes, all administered by the central government. No sub-central government 
programmes were included and India had never not ified a single sub-central government programme. 
At the time India had submitted its notification, the United States and several other Members had 
expressed serious concerns about the timeliness and completeness of India's notification. The 
provision of a subsidy notification that only included  a small fraction of the programmes that had to 
be notified pursuant Article 25 could not be considered a full notification. Such an approach undermined the notification obligation imposed by the SCM Agreement and raised serious systemic 
issues. Last year before this Committee, the United States had made  it clear that if some Members 
were not going to honour their subsidy notification obligation, Members would have to consider other 
alternatives under the SCM Agreement, su ch as the mechanism under Article 25.10. 
121. On 6 October, the United States had submitted a request to India under Article 25.10 of the 
SCM Agreement.  This request lis ted approximately 50 subsidy pr ogrammes at both the central and 
sub-central levels that had not been notified, and requested that these programmes be promptly G/SCM/M/79 
Page 22  
 
  notified. Although not required under Article 25.10, the United States had, as part of its submission, 
included copies of all the underlying legal measure s establishing the 50 programmes. These measures 
had been identified in various countervailing duty investigations conducted by the United States and 
other Members and generally fell within the time -period 2004 to the present. None of the subsidy 
programmes established by these measures had been incl uded in India's recent subsidy notification. 
The subsidy programmes contained in the United States ' submission were subject to notification to the 
Committee as they appeared to provide specific subs idies within the meaning of the Agreement. His 
delegation requested that India notify the listed subsidy measures to the Committee in accordance 
with Article 25.10 of the Agreement. Finally, he not ed that to the extent export subsidies included in 
the United States' submission benef ited the textiles and apparel industr y in India, Article 27.5 of the 
Agreement required such subsidies to be phased out given the calculations issued by the Secretariat 
indicating that products in the textiles and apparel sector were export competitive.  His delegation was 
not aware of any steps taken by India to begin phasing out these subsidies. 
122. The delegate of India stated that India was carefully going through the programmes listed in 
the United States' request and was consulting with  the various agencies involved to understand the 
exact nature of these programmes and the related notification obligation under the SCM Agreement. 
This process was time consuming as many of the pr ogrammes listed pertained to various agencies and 
state governments that had to be consulted. Many of  the programs listed were in the nature of policy 
declarations and his authorities had to verify with  the agencies concerned to confirm their actual 
implementation status.    
123. The statement of the United States that none of the programmes listed in its request had been 
notified by India might not be entirely correct. In fact, substantial parts of some of the programmes 
listed in the United States' request were already co vered in the notifications made by India to the 
Committee. For example, the United States had liste d Schemes such as EOU - Export Oriented Unit 
Scheme and EHTP - Electronics Hardware Technology Park Scheme.  Income Tax benefits under the 
EOU scheme were provided under section 10B of th e Income Tax Act and under the EHTP scheme 
under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act. Both the se Sections of the Income Tax Act were already 
included in the subsidy notifications made by India.   He referred the Committee, in this respect, to 
paragraphs 6(a) (ii) and (iii) of India's notifi cation circulated in document G/SCM/N/155/IND and 
paragraph 6(a)(i) and (ii) of India's notificati on circulated in document G/SCM/N/123/IND/Suppl.1. 
124. The delegate further noted that the request  and CD-ROM provided by the United States 
merely detailed various programmes of the centr al and State governments. Many of these programmes 
had various components. It was not clear from the request why each programme, whether in whole or 
in part, was to be treated as a specific subsidy subj ect to notification. That information would have 
been very useful in appreciating the request better,  since according to India's preliminary examination 
many of the programmes included in the United Stat es request were not subject to the notification 
requirement. He stated in this respect that to  be subject to the notification requirement under 
Article 25 of the SCM Agreement, a programme had to  be in the nature of a subsidy as defined in 
paragraph 1 of Article 1 and had to be specific wi thin the meaning of Article 2. Several of the 
schemes listed in the United States' request appare ntly did not meet these criteria. For instance, 
schemes such as the Duty Free Replenishment Sc heme, Advance License/Advance Authorization 
Scheme, Duty Free Import Authorization Scheme , Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme which were 
included in the request, were in the nature of exemp tion or refund of duties borne by inputs used in 
exported products.  These were not in the nature of subsidies. Footnote 1 to Article 1 of the SCM 
Agreement clearly stated that the exemption of an exported product from duties or taxes borne by the 
like product when destined for domestic consumpt ion or the remission of such duties or taxes in 
amounts not in excess of those having accrued were not  a subsidy. Some of the programmes of the 
state governments would be covered by this provis ion in Footnote 1 of the SCM Agreement.     G/SCM/M/79 
 Page 23 
 
 
  125. The delegate of India further stated that many  of the sub-central govern ment schemes listed in 
the United States' request were in the nature of general investment promotion schemes with objectives 
such as promotion of those States as attractive i nvestment destinations, development of backward 
areas and encouragement for women and weaker sections. Some of the schemes aimed at the 
development of newly-formed States. A majority of the concessions under these schemes were 
available to all industries establishing themselves in  those States and were therefore not specific. 
Therefore, to the extent that these schemes were not specific, they were not subject to the notification 
requirement. The same was true in respect of t hose schemes which were in the nature of the 
government providing general infrastructure. These also did not have to be notified. Further, some of 
the programmes listed pertained to the services sector .  Disciplines for subsidies in services were yet 
to be developed. Therefore, these programmes insofa r as they pertained to services, were not subject 
to notification under the SCM Agreement.  
126. India would keep on working with relevant st akeholders to identify appropriate subsidies 
subject to notification under the  SCM Agreement. 
127. The delegate of Japan stated that her delega tion attached importance to the notification and 
surveillance scheme in the SCM agre ement. She reiterated that the next step following the submission 
under Article 25.10 was that the Members concerne d explain their programmes and improve their 
notifications. Although Japan's authorities were still  reviewing the US submission, she wished to 
highlight number 17 in the list of the central gove rnment subsidies, the Jawaharal Nehru National 
Solar Mission, which had also attracted Members'  attention in India's Trade Policy Review in 
September.  Her delegation looked forward to India providing further explanations on the 
programmes contained in the US request, including this programme. 
128. The delegate of Canada reitera ted the fundamental importance,  for Canada, of the subsidy 
notification process. His delegation hoped that I ndia would make every effort to provide its 
notifications in a timely and complete manner. He recalled that it was the onus of individual Members 
to provide notification of their subsidies; subm issions from other Members were not substitutes for 
fulfilling this responsibility. 
129. The delegate of Turkey indicated his delegation' s appreciation for the United States' efforts in 
compiling information on India's subsidy programm es and sharing this valuable information with 
other Members. His delegation hoped that it woul d encourage India to make timely and complete 
notifications in the coming days.  He also added that his authorities were looking into the programmes 
identified by the United States and that Turkey reserved its right to raise this issue in the future and to 
ask specific questions regarding the US submission to India. 
130. The European Union indicated th at the comment made earlier by his delegation in respect of 
the US request to China pursuant to Article 25.10 of  the Agreement equally applied to the US request 
to India. 
131. The delegate of Australia expressed her dele gation's appreciation to the United States for 
providing information on subsidies provided by Indi a. She recalled that Australia also had state 
governments and these state governments had broad- based investment attraction programmes and 
competed with one another in this respect. Aust ralia nonetheless notified those programmes. Finally, 
she noted that all Members faced similar difficu lties in analysing whether a given programme 
required notification or was specific.  
132. The delegate of China stated that he had not ed with interest the comments made by the 
delegate of Australia with respect to Australia 's experience in notifying sub-central subsidy 
programmes.  He asked the delegate of Australia  whether she could indicate how long it had taken 
Australia to have the information ready for its  notification of sub-central programmes to the G/SCM/M/79 
Page 24  
 
  Committee and what Australia thought of the comple teness of the information on these sub-central 
programmes when it first notified them.  
133. The delegate of Norway stated that the earlier comments made by his delegation in respect of 
the US request to China also a pplied under this agenda item. 
134. The delegate of Australia stated in reply to Ch ina's question that the collection of data on sub-
central programmes and the notifica tion of such programmes had been a challenging task but that 
Australia had been able to do it.  It had taken Au stralia approximately 18 months.  Part of these 18 
months consisted of touring Austra lia and visiting state governments to  provide basic information, to 
explain what a subsidy was and to explain that the notification of subsidies was part of Australia's 
obligations under the WTO. Because Australian states were competing between themselves to attract 
investments, Australia had aggregated some of th e figures and the firm-specific data for investment 
attraction programmes. However, at the state leve l, Australia provided the actual dollar amount and 
number of companies that had benefited from th e programme. She recognized that Australia's 
situation might not actually be identical to other Me mbers' situations; different Members notified their 
sub-central programmes in different ways, but all tried to be as complete as possible.  
135. The delegate of Chile stated that notifica tions were highly important not only for this 
Committee, but also systemically for the multilateral trade system as whole. This was particularly 
important for a small country such as Chile which was highly dependent on international trade. The 
credibility of the Committee and that of the system was largely based on the fact that Members had to 
notify what they were doing or not doing.  
136. The delegate of the European Union made  comments on the difficulty of gathering 
information at the sub-federal level. She stated  that the European Un ion also had significant 
difficulties in this respect.  It had to gather  information on schemes administered at the 
European Union level as well as information on schemes administered by 27 Member States, many of which were also applying subsidies at the sub-fede ral level.  Hence, her delegation acknowledged the 
difficulties involved in the exercise.  It was, however, a doable exerci se; with determined effort it 
could be done in a timely and complete fashion. 
137. The delegate of India noted the statements of  Australia and the European Union about the 
difficulty of gathering information on subsidies at the sub-federal level. He stated that difficulties also 
actually depended on the level of de velopment and the resources available to the Member concerned.  
Developing Members were short of such resources.  
138. The delegate of China thanked the delegate of Australia for the information she had provided 
on Australia's experience.  He stated that his delegation had in the past ten years prepared 
notifications of central-level government subsidi es based on a very similar procedure as the one 
described by Australia, which consisted of having c onversations with different ministries. He also 
indicated that China would do its utmost in the future  with respect to the notification of local subsidy 
programmes. 
139. The Committee took note of the statements made. 
J. CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSI ONS ON IMPROVING THE TIMELINESS AND COMPLETENESS OF 
NOTIFICATIONS AND OTHER INFORMATION FL OWS ON TRADE MEASURES UNDER THE SCM 
AGREEMENT  
140. The Chairman recalled that following the request  of 23 March 2009 from the Chairman of the 
Trade Policy Review Body to discuss "ways to  improve the timeliness and completeness of 
notifications and other information flows on trade measures" in the context of the SCM Agreement,  G/SCM/M/79 
 Page 25 
 
 
  the Committee had discussed this issue at various in formal meetings as well as at its four regular 
meetings held in the course of 2009 and 2010.  
141. As a result of these discussions, several step s had been taken which contributed to the 
objective identified in the request from the Chairman  of the Trade Policy Review Body. First, in 
April 2009, the Committee's Chairman had sent reminde r letters to those Members that had not made 
their 2007 new and full subsidy notifications as of the end of March 2009. The next Chair had done 
the same in April 2010 with respect to Memb ers that had not yet made their 2009 subsidy 
notifications as of then. Second, at the request of Members, the Secretariat had prepared a background 
note which had been circulated in document G/ SCM/W/546 dated 28 April 200 9 and which offered a 
snapshot of the level of compliance with various  notification obligations under the SCM Agreement 
since 1995. This compendium had been updated prio r to the Spring meetings of the Committee in 
2010 and 2011 and circulated in documents G/SCM/W/ 546/Rev.1 and Rev.2, respectively. Third, at 
the October 2009 regular meeting, the Committee ha d adopted new standard formats for the semi-
annual reports of countervailing ac tions as well as the minimum info rmation to be provided in 
connection with ad hoc  notifications of countervailing actions . At the same meeting, the Committee 
had also decided to add a new table to its annual re port which showed the time periods covered by the 
most recent subsidy notification made by each Member. 
142. The Chairman stated that at the last regula r meeting of the Committee, several Members had 
indicated their willingness to continue discussions on ways to improve timeliness and completeness of 
notification obligations under the SCM Agreement. Th e notification of subsidies was by far the most 
important notification obligation found in the SC M Agreement and Members' discussions so far had 
naturally focussed on this obligation. Unfortunately, the low level of compliance with this important 
notification obligation continued to  undermine the transparency function of this Committee. With 
regard to the up-to-date figures, the Chairman noted that as of this meeting, 73 Members had not yet 
made their 2009 new full subsidy notification.  Further, a significant portion of these Members had 
not observed their previous subsidy notificatio n obligations either. The 2011 new and full 
notifications were due on 30 June 2011. Yet, as of the date of the meeting, the Committee had 
received a 2011 notification from 36 Members only. No  doubt, this constituted an important problem 
that the Committee had to look into. 
143. He recalled that at the May 2011 regular mee ting, the previous Chairman had invited non-
complying Members to explain to the Committee the reasons that precluded them from making timely subsidy notifications. Given the figures before the Co mmittee, it did not appear that this initiative had 
an important impact on the level of compliance. Therefore, the Chairman invited Members that had 
not yet made their 2009 new and full subsidy notifications to once again explain to the Committee why they had failed to fulfil this  important notification obligation. 
144. The Chairman indicated that, as the previous Chair had done, he would read out the names of 
non-complying Members and invite them to explain the reasons for their failure to make a subsidy 
notification. If this proved to be a futile exercise, he intended at the next regular meeting to invite 
non-complying Members one by one to take the floor and explain to the Committee why it took them so long to make a subsidy notification which other Members had submitted on time. The Chairman 
was of the view that Members that submitted th eir notifications on time were entitled to hear 
convincing explanations from those that regularly fa iled to make timely notifications. Intentions to 
submit a notification were welcome but could not re place the actual submission of the notification.  G/SCM/M/79 
Page 26  
 
   
145. The Members that had not yet made their 2009 new and full subsidy notifications were as 
follows:  
Angola 
Bahrain 
Bangladesh 
Belize Benin Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  
Bolivia, Plurinational State 
of Botswana Brunei Darussalam Burundi 
Cambodia 
Cameroon Cape Verde Central African Republic Chad Congo 
Congo, Dem. Rep. 
Côte d'Ivoire Djibouti Dominica Egypt 
Fiji 
The Gambia Georgia 
Ghana 
Guinea Bissau 
Guinea, Rep. of Guyana Haiti Iceland 
Indonesia 
Israel Kenya Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Kuwait 
Lesotho 
Maldives Mali Mauritania Mexico Moldova 
Mongolia 
Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Nepal 
Nicaragua 
Niger Oman 
Pakistan 
Panama 
Papua New Guinea Peru The Philippines Rwanda 
St. Kitts & Nevis 
Senegal Sierra Leone Singapore Solomon Islands 
South Africa 
Sri Lanka Swaziland Tanzania Togo Tonga 
Tunisia 
Uganda United Arab Emirates Uruguay Viet Nam 
Zambia 
Zimbabwe 
 
146. The delegate of Mexico stated that his dele gation fully supported and was fully committed to 
the objective of transparency under the SCM Agreem ent. Mexico's most recent notification listed 
those programmes that it had identified for the current period. He acknowledged that there were 
technical issues that needed to be worked on in or der to improve Mexico's notification, particularly 
with respect to the document number assigned to  the notification and the year to which the 
notification pertained.  He hoped this could be solv ed with the support of the Secretariat.  He also 
indicated that to the extent that Mexico identifie d additional programmes, its existing notifications for 
previous years would be supplemented. 
147. The Chairman indicated that, in his view, reading out the list of non-complying Members had 
not been sufficient.  He reminded Members that, at the next Committee meeting, he intended to invite 
non-complying Members one by one to explain to th e Committee the reasons that had prevented them 
from submitting timely notifications. 
148. The Committee took note of the statements made. 
149. The Chairman stated that the United States ha d presented a paper concerning timeliness and 
completeness of notification obligations and ot her information flows under the SCM Agreement, 
which had been circulated in documen t G/SCM/W/555 dated 21 October 2011.    G/SCM/M/79 
 Page 27 
 
 
  150. The delegate of United States stated that his dele gation had, in the past, raised an issue with 
respect to Article 25.8 of the SCM Agreement.  He  noted that under this pr ovision, any Member could 
make a written request for information on the nature a nd extent of a subsidy gr anted or maintained by 
another Member or for an explanation why a speci fic measure was not considered as subject to the 
requirement of notification. He recalled that th is specific mechanism allowed Members to draw 
attention to and request information on specific subs idy measures which were of particular concern. 
Under Article 25.9, Members which had received such  a request must answer "as quickly as possible 
and in a comprehensive manner" . Nevertheless many questions  under Article 25.8 remained 
unanswered or were only answered many years af ter first being submitted. In order to clarify 
Members' obligations in this area, his delegati on had submitted a proposal that the Committee develop 
guidelines for the answering of Article 25.8 ques tions including deadlines for the submission of 
written answers under Article 25.9, similar to th e manner in which the Committee had developed 
guidelines for the answering of questions posed to  Members under subsidy notifications. Moreover, 
his delegation proposed that Article 25.8 questions that remained unanswered continue on the agenda 
of every subsequent Committee meeting until they were answered, in writing and in full. This was 
consistent with the explicit obligation in Article  25.9.  His delegation saw its proposal as entirely 
consistent with the request from the Chairman of  the Trade Policy Review Body to discuss ways to 
improve the timeliness and completeness of notif ications and other information flows on trade 
measures.  His delegation welcomed comments on its  paper, and intended to  propose more concrete 
proposals at the next meeting of the Committee. 
151. The delegate of the European Union thanked th e United States for its paper.  The European 
Union was very supportive of any initiative aime d at improving timeliness and completeness of 
notifications and other information flows on trade measures under the SCM Agreement. Her 
delegation was looking forward to discussing any conc rete proposal to address the issue identified by 
the United States. 
152. The delegate of Turkey stated that his dele gation attached importance to improving timeliness 
and completeness of subsidy notifications.  His dele gation saw merit in the United States' proposal in 
terms of establishing clear procedures for future Ar ticle 25.8 questions before the Committee. Turkey 
was fully supportive of this proposal and was l ooking forward to the United States making concrete 
proposals in this respect and to working with ot her Members to move this proposal forward. 
153. The delegate of Canada stated that his delega tion was fully supportive of measures to improve 
transparency, was open to exploring mechanisms to address Article 25.8 requests and looked forward 
to seeing more detailed proposals. 
154. The delegate of Japan thanked the United Stat es for its contribution to activate Articles 25.8 
and 25.9, which played important roles in the no tification and surveillance mechanism contained in 
Part VII of the SCM Agreement.  Japan ha d been supportive of improving timeliness and 
completeness of notification obligations. Japan consid ered it desirable to have more predictability in 
the Article 25.8 and 25.9 process.  Japan was read y to work on this issue together with other 
Members.    
155. The delegate of New Zealand stated that he r delegation had not yet had the time to fully 
consider the details of the United States' proposal.  But New Zealand highly valued transparency, and 
could see how procedures for Articles 25.8 and 25.9 c ould help to support this broader objective.   
156. The delegate of Australia stated that her dele gation considered that the United States' proposal 
would constitute a useful clarification of the provisi ons of Articles 25.8 and 25.9.  Her delegation also 
agreed with the US' suggestion that unanswered que stions should remain on the agenda of subsequent 
Committee meetings. In addition, it was desirable to  clarify the meaning of the term "as quickly as 
possible" under Article 25.9. This term could in an y event not mean "never". She noted that when a G/SCM/M/79 
Page 28  
 
  Member put a question under Article 25.8, it was because that Member had a trade interest in the 
subsidy programme or in the good subsidized under the programme. She noted that the Chairman had 
referred, in his introductory comments, to Secr etariat document G/SCM/W/ 546/Rev.2 and recalled the 
discussion the Committee had had with respect to the reporting of sub-central programmes.  Her 
delegation considered that there was an omission in this Secretariat document and that it should 
include a reference to Article 25.2. Inclusion of such a reference would remind Members that had sub-
central subsidy programmes of the source of the obligation to notify them.  
157. The delegate of India stated that he would only give preliminary comments on the US paper 
at this stage. His delegation agreed with the Un ited States that transpar ency was an important 
component of the SCM Agreement and was vital to the smooth functioning of the multilateral trading 
system. At the same time, however, measures to e nhance transparency imposed a cost, which might 
be difficult to meet by many developing Members.  Already, developing countries were finding it 
difficult to meet the existing notification obligations  under the Agreement.  In fact, at times, even 
developed countries were not able to meet these obligations. This was evident from the Special 
Meeting of the Committee held earlier in the day, wh en many Members had not been able to meet the 
deadlines prescribed for the submission of written repli es.  This included replies to questions asked by 
India as early as in March, May and June 2011. This was not to blame those Members but to make the 
point that at times it was impossible to meet the already established obligations even for the most 
developed Members. The problem was even more acute in the case of developing Members.  Therefore, while his delegation supported increased tr ansparency in general, it was sceptical of the 
practicability of imposing further obligations in this regard.  
158. The delegate of Chile noted that his delegati on was still reviewing the United States' proposal. 
Speaking on a preliminary basis, he could say that it was an interesting document, going in the right 
direction to enforce transparency in the Comm ittee. His delegation welcomed initiatives in this 
direction.  
159.  The delegate of China stated that her delega tion had not yet had the opportunity to study the 
United States' submission in detail.  She would th erefore limit herself to making general comments on 
the US proposal.  She recalled that under SCM Agreement, Members - whether developed or 
developing - assumed the same level of notificatio n obligations, even though Members' capacity in 
this regard varied dramatically. All Members had be en working very hard to fulfil their obligations 
and had thus helped the Committee to arrive at where it was. Although some Members wanted to push 
the Committee to go further in this regard, before the Committee started working on this, the different 
capacities of Members needed to be  taken into account and the feasibility of this proposal had to be 
given serious consideration. 
160. The delegate of Colombia stated that her de legation welcomed any effort to ensure that 
notifications were made in a more complete and timely fashion. Her delegation stood ready to work 
further on the United States' submission and would anal yse it.  She added that given the large number 
of countries named by the Chair as not having complied with their notification obligation, it might be 
desirable for the Secretariat to hold a workshop on notifications in general, covering not only  
subsidies, but also countervailing duties, anti-dumping, and safeguards.   
161. The delegate of Argentina stated, as a prel iminary view, that his delegation supported the 
rationale behind the US proposal.  His delegation supported any proposal intended to strengthen the 
institutional mechanisms availabl e to Members, including Articles 25.8 and 25.9. He noted the 
United States' reference to efforts made as pa rt of the TPRM to improve surveillance and 
notifications. It was important, however, to avoi d duplication of efforts and procedures by different 
Committees. Hence, his delegation considered that caution was needed in order to avoid turning the 
application of Article 25.9 into a quasi-contradi ctory process, duplicating the dispute settlement 
system.  Finally, he noted that Article 25.9 was categorical and clear in providing the obligation for  G/SCM/M/79 
 Page 29 
 
 
  concerned Members to submit answers in the most co mplete fashion possible to any concern raised by 
requesting Members.  
162. The Committee took note of the statements made.  
163. The Chairman noted the United States' indica tion that it would submit a more concrete 
proposal, as well the willingness of other delegations to look into the United States proposal in more 
detail.  This being the case, he envisioned that th e Committee would revert b ack to the United States' 
proposal at future meetings. 
K. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING  
164. The Chairman proposed that the next meeti ng of the Committee take place in the week of 
23 April 2012. It was so decided. 
L. OTHER BUSINESS  
1. Export competitiveness of India's textile and apparel sector  
165. The delegate of the United States recalled that in February 2010, his delegation had requested 
the Secretariat to calculate the export competitiven ess of textile and appare l products from India, 
pursuant to Article 27.6 of the SCM Agreement. As Members were aware, developing country 
Members listed in Annex VII to the SCM Agreemen t were allowed to provide export subsidies only 
until a product of that Member reached export co mpetitiveness, i.e. when it had a 3.25% share in 
world trade. At that point, Article 27.5 required that the developing country Member phase out export subsidies for the product over an eight year peri od. In March 2010, the Secretariat had released its 
calculations on the export competitiveness of Indian textile and apparel products  and shortly thereafter 
a revision. These calculations indicated that regardless of how a product was defined under 
Article 27.6, India had reached export competitiven ess no later than 2007. India therefore had an 
obligation since at least 2007 to phase out its export subs idies provided to products in this sector.  Yet 
India had taken no concrete action towards implem enting this obligation. The delegate expressed 
concerns regarding press reports a nd various legal measures taken by India indicating that it had gone 
in the opposite direction of compliance and implem ented new or extended existing export incentives. 
Well after India's phase-out obligation was triggered,  these actions were particularly disturbing. His 
delegation would welcome further di alogue with India on the issue in the context of the two Members' 
continued bilateral engagement so as to ma ke progress towards resolving this issue. 
166. The delegate of India stated that this same  issue had been discussed at prior Committee 
meetings.  India was committed to meeting its oblig ations under the Agreement but wanted to first 
have clarity and a common understanding on two i ssues, namely, the definition of "product" and the 
question of when the eight-year phase out period began. The issue of clarity in the relevant article was 
a systemic issue, not one which was specific to India or the United States. There was therefore a need to reach a common understanding on these issues and I ndia was prepared to work constructively with 
other Members to reach this goal. He further noted that Articles 27.5 and 27.6 did not have specific provisions dealing with standstill. In any case, India c onsidered that clarity first had to be achieved on 
the relevant provisions before addressing the issues of standstill and of the phasing out of subsidies. 
The United States had expressed the view that regard less of the way in which these legal issues were 
resolved, India would be export competitive.  India w as of the view that this simplification would not 
help at the implementation level because its oblig ations would differ depending on whether "product" 
was defined at the section or the heading level. Indi a could not respond specifically at this stage to the 
increase in the schemes alleged by the United States , but past experience had shown that many of the 
schemes cited earlier in this context were in the natu re of remission or refund of duties on inputs used G/SCM/M/79 
Page 30  
 
  in exported goods, rather than subsidies. Even th en, one of the major schemes which covered the 
sector, the DEPB scheme, had recently been discontinued.  
167. The delegate of Turkey stated that his dele gation considered that the phase out period should 
begin as soon as export competitiveness was achieved , in this case 2007.  He noted that India had 
taken no steps to phase out these export subsidies si nce the Secretariat had performed its calculations. 
He further noted the United States' indication th at India had implemented a new export incentives 
package since the Secretariat had released its cal culations. Both of these courses of action were 
contrary to the SCM Agreement. Turkish textile a nd apparel producers were competing with Indian 
producers in domestic and export markets.  Thus, India's failure to phase out the existing export 
subsidies and its putting in force of new export subsidies schemes was causing unfair competition to 
Turkish exporters. His delegation considered that a world market share of 3.25% was very significant. 
He also noted that these subsidies, being export subsidies, had significant distortive effects. The 
delegate invited India to identify the full range of export subsidy programmes that benefited its textile 
and apparel sector and to inform the Committee of the steps taken since March 2010 to phase out such 
subsidies. 
168. The Committee took note of the statements made. 
2. Timing and textual quality of notifications 
169. The Chairman recalled that after each meeti ng, the Secretariat circulated a document 
indicating the deadlines for the submission of certa in documents, such as questions and answers on 
legislative notifications and on new and full subs idy notifications, the annual updating notifications 
under Article 27.4 of the Agreement, the semi-a nnual reports of countervailing actions etc.  
Unfortunately, it often happened that many of thes e documents were sent to the Secretariat well past 
the relevant deadline and sometimes in a format which was far from ideal and which required significant improvement before the document could be circulated.  Such late notifications or 
notifications sent in a format which require d significant textual improvement and further 
communications between the Secretariat and the no tifying Members slowed down the process of the 
circulation of documents, particularly in the week s and days before Committee meetings. He therefore 
invited Members to pay utmost attention to the timin g and textual quality of their notifications in the 
future so that Members could make best use of  the services of the Secretariat and prepare for 
Committee meetings sufficiently ahead of time. 
170. The Committee took note of the Chairman's statement. 
M. ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS  
171. The Chairman stated that pursuant to Article  32.7 of the SCM Agreement, the Committee was 
required to review annually the implementation a nd operation of the Agreement, taking into account 
the objectives thereof, and to inform annually the Co uncil for Trade in Goods of developments during 
the period covered by the review. A first draft of the annual report for 2011 prepared by the 
Secretariat had been faxed to all delegations in  the week preceding th e Committee meeting. The 
Chairman proposed to discuss the draft report chapter by  chapter and to then let the Secretariat reflect 
these changes as well as the actions taken at the me eting and come back with  an updated version of 
the report.  He proposed to do this in the informal mode. Following these discussions and amendments to the draft report, the Committee adopted the annual report for 2011.
1 
172. The Chairman adjourned the regular meeting of the Committee. 
                                                      
1 The annual report (2011) was circulated in document G/L/970 dated 27 October 2011.  G/SCM/M/79 
 Page 31 
 
 
  ANNEX 
 
CONTINUATION FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2012 OF EXTENSION UNDER SCM 
ARTICLE 27.4 OF THE TRANSITION PERIOD FOR THE ELIMINATION 
OF EXPORT SUBSIDIES PURSUANT TO THE GENERAL COUNCIL 
DECISION OF 27 JULY 2007 (WT/L/691) 
 
Decisions Adopted by the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures 
on 26 October 2011 
 
 
Member Programme Document 
Antigua & 
Barbuda Fiscal Incentives Act Cap 172 G/SCM/50/Add.9 and 
Corr.1 
Free Trade and Processing Zone Act No. 12 of 1994 G/SCM/51/Add.9 and 
Corr.1 
Barbados Fiscal Incentive Programme G/SCM/52/Add.9 and 
Corr.1 
Export Allowance G/SCM/53/Add.9 and 
Corr.1 
Research and Development Allowance G/SCM/54/Add.9 and 
Corr.1 
International Business Incentives G/SCM/55/Add.9 and 
Corr.1 
Societies With Restricted Liability G/SCM/56/Add.9 and 
Corr.1 
Belize Fiscal Incentives Act G/SCM/57/Add.9 and 
Corr.1 
Export Processing Zone Act G/SCM/58/Add.9 and 
Corr.1 
Commercial Free Zone Act G/SCM/59/Add.9 and 
Corr.1 
Costa Rica Free Zone Regime G/SCM/61/Add.9 and 
Corr.1 
Inward Processing Regime G/SCM/62/Add.9 and 
Corr.1 
Dominica Fiscal Incentives Programme G/SCM/63/Add.9 and 
Corr.1 
Dominican Republic Law No. 8-90 to "Promote the Establishment of New Free 
Zones and Expand Existing Ones" G/SCM/64/Add.9 and 
Corr.1 
El Salvador Export Processing Zones and Marketing Act, as amended G/SCM/65/Add.9 and 
Corr.1 G/SCM/M/79 
Page 32  
 
  Member Programme Document 
Fiji Short-Term Export Profit Deduction G/SCM/66/Add.9 and 
Corr.1 
Export Processing Factories/Export Processing Zones Scheme G/SCM/67/Add.9 and 
Corr.1 
Grenada Fiscal Incentive Act No. 41 of 1974 G/SCM/69/Add.9 and 
Corr.1 
Statutory Rules and Orders No. 37 of 1999 G/SCM/70/Add.9 and 
Corr.1 
Qualified Enterprises Act No. 18 of 1978 G/SCM/71/Add.9 and 
Corr.1 
Guatemala Exemption from Company Tax, Customs Duties and Other 
Import Taxes for Companies under Special Customs 
Regimes G/SCM/72/Add.9 and 
Corr.1 
Exemption from Company Tax, Customs Duties and Other 
Import Taxes for the Production Process Relating to 
Activities of Managers and Users of Free Zones G/SCM/73/Add.9 and 
Corr.1 
Exemption from Company Tax, Customs Duties and Other Import Taxes for the Production Process of Commercial and Industrial Enterprises Operating in the Industrial and 
Free Trade Zone G/SCM/74/Add.9 and 
Corr.1 
Jamaica Export Industry Encouragement Act G/SCM/75/Add.9 and 
Corr.1 
Jamaica Export Free Zone Act G/SCM/76/Add.9 and 
Corr.1 
Foreign Sales Corporation Act G/SCM/77/Add.9 and 
Corr.1 
Industrial Incentives (Factory Construction) Act G/SCM/78/Add.9 and 
Corr.1 
Jordan Partial or Total Exemption from Income Tax of Profits 
Generated from Exports under Law No. 57 of 1985, as amended G/SCM/79/Add.9 and 
Corr.1 
Mauritius Freeport Scheme – Corporate Ta x Exemption G/SCM/83/Add.9 and 
Corr.1 
Panama Official Industry Register G/SCM/84/Add.9 and 
Corr.1 
Export Processing Zones G/SCM/85/Add.9 and 
Corr.1 
Papua New 
Guinea Section 45 of the Income Tax G/SCM/86/Add.9 and 
Corr.1  G/SCM/M/79 
 Page 33 
 
 
  Member Programme Document 
Saint Lucia Fiscal Incentives Act, No. 15 of 1974 G/SCM/87/Add.9 and 
Corr.1 
Free Zone Act, No. 10 of 1999 G/SCM/88/Add.9 and 
Corr.1 
Micro and Small Scale Business Enterprises Act, No. 19 of 1998 G/SCM/89/Add.9 and 
Corr.1 
Saint Kitts and Nevis Fiscal Incentives Act, No. 17 of 1974 G/SCM/90/Add.9 and 
Corr.1 
St. Vincent 
and the 
Grenadines Fiscal Incentives Act No. 5 of 1982, as amended G/SCM/91/Add.9 and 
Corr.1 
Uruguay Automotive Industry Export Promotion Regime G/SCM/92/Add.9 and 
Corr.1 
  
__________