WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
G/SCM/M/77 
4 July 2011 
 (11-3265) 
Committee on Subsidies 
and Countervailing Measures  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING 
HELD ON 3 MAY 2011 
 
Chairman:  Mr. Robert Jui-song Fang (Chinese Taipei) 
  1. The Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures ("the Committee") held a special 
meeting on 3 May 2011. 
2. The Chairman recalled that the agenda proposed  for this meeting had been circulated in 
WTO/AIR/3741 dated 21 April 2011.  The delegate of the European Union indicated that her 
delegation intended to make a statement under ot her business concerning export credit financing. 
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.  Gabon ......................................................................................................................... ................ 2  
3.  Oman .......................................................................................................................... ................ 2  
B.  SEMI -ANNUAL REPORTS OF COUNTERVAILING DUTY ACTIONS  ................................................... 3  
1.  Australia ..................................................................................................................... ............... 3  
2.  Canada ........................................................................................................................ ............... 3  
3.  China ......................................................................................................................... ................. 4  
4.  European Union ................................................................................................................ ........ 6 
5.  Peru .......................................................................................................................... .................. 6  
6.  United States ................................................................................................................. ............. 6  
C.  NOTIFICATIONS OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL COUNTERVAILING DUTY ACTIONS  ....................... 7  
D.  CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSIONS "ON WAYS TO IMPROVE THE TIMELINESS AND 
COMPLETENESS OF NOTIFICATIONS AND OTHER INFORMATION FLOWS ON TRADE 
MEASURES " UNDER THE SCM AGREEMENT  .................................................................................. 7  
E.  CONSTANT DOLLAR METHODOLOGY FO R GRADUATION FROM SCM ANNEX VII (B) ................... 11  
F.  PERMANENT GROUP OF EXPERTS  ............................................................................................... 11  
G.  ANNUAL UPDATING NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PROCEDURES FOR THE 
CONTINUATION OF EXTENSIONS OF THE TRANSITION PERIOD FOR THE ELIMINATION 
OF EXPORT SUBSIDIES SET OUT UNDER ARTICLE 27.4  OF THE SCM AGREEMENT  ...................... 12  G/SCM/M/77 
Page 2  
 
  H. 
ELIMINATION OF EXPORT SUBSIDIES FOR TEX TILES AND APPAREL BY INDIA PURSUANT 
TO ARTICLE 27.5  OF THE AGREEMENT ON SUBSIDIES AND COUNTERVAILING 
MEASURES  .............................................................................................................................. ... 12 
I.  OTHER BUSINESS  ....................................................................................................................... 15  
J.  DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING ............................................................................................ 15  
K.  ELECTION OF OFFICERS  ............................................................................................................. 15  
 
 
A. NATIONAL LEGISLATION – REVIEW OF NOTIFICATIONS OF NEW OR AMENDED LEGISLATION OR 
REGULATIONS NOT PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE  
4. The Chairman noted that Item A of the agenda  dealt with the review of notifications of 
countervailing duty legislation and/ or regulations in accordance with the procedures adopted by the 
Committee at its special meeting in April 1996 (document G/SCM/W/293).   
5. These procedures provided inter alia  that at each regular meeting the Committee would 
consider notifications of new or amended legisla tions not previously reviewed by the Committee if 
such notifications had been circul ated to Members in all three wo rking languages at least six weeks 
prior to the scheduled date of the meeting.   
6. In accordance with this provision, the Co mmittee had before it at this meeting new 
notifications of countervailing duty legislation fro m Brazil, Gabon and Oman.  The Chairman recalled 
that the primary review of these notifications would be held in the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices and the SCM Committee would only discuss i ssues that related specifically to countervailing 
measures. 
1. Brazil 
7. The notification of Brazil had been circulated in document G/SCM/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.4 of 
26 October 2010.  This supplemental notificati on contained a resolution concerning procedures 
against the circumvention of trade remedy measures.  The delegate of Brazil indicated that there was 
no need to provide further explanations about the notification. 
8. The Committee took note of the statement made. 
2. Gabon 
9. The Chairman noted that the Committee had before  it a notification from Gabon, circulated in 
document G/SCM/N/1/GAB/2 dated 3 March 2011, indi cating that Gabon had no laws or regulations 
on countervailing duty investigations .  No delegation took the floor to comment or ask questions on 
this notification. 
3. Oman 
10. The Committee had received a notification from Oman, circulated in document  
G/SCM/N/1/OMN/2 dated 6 October 2010 indicating th at Oman had a law and a regulation of the 
Gulf Cooperation Council concerni ng countervailing duty investiga tions, dated 22 December 2003 
and 11 October 2004, respectively, that the mentione d law and regulation were being reviewed with a 
view to eliminating potential inc onsistencies with the SCM Agreem ent, and that they would be 
notified to the Committee as soon as this review a nd translation into English were completed.  G/SCM/M/77 
 Page 3 
 
 
  11. The delegate of Oman stated that she wished  to update Members on the status of the GCC 
common law on anti-dumping, countervailing measures and safeguards.  The relevant amendments 
had been approved by the GCC leaders.  Her dele gation was awaiting the rules of implementation to 
be translated into English and for the royal decree to be issued in order to notify the amended law. 
12. The Committee took note of the statement made.  
B. SEMI -ANNUAL REPORTS OF COUNTERVAILING DUTY ACTIONS  
13. The Chairman recalled that a request to subm it semi-annual reports for the period 1 July – 
31 December 2010, to be submitted not later than 11 March 2011, had been circulated in document 
G/SCM/N/219, dated 5 January 2011.  
14. Australia, Canada, China, the European Union, Peru and the United States had submitted 
semi-annual reports on countervailing dut y actions taken during this period. 
15. Members which had notified that they had not taken any countervailing duty action during the 
period July-December 2010 were listed in paragra ph 2 of document G/SCM/N/219/Add.1, which had 
been circulated on 26 April 2011.  As reflected in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the same document, there 
remained a large number of Members that had not submitted a semi-annual report and that thus failed 
to comply with this important notification requi rement.  The Chairman noted, however, that China 
and Peru had submitted their semi-annual reports  after the circulation of this document. 
16. The Chairman recalled that the Committee, at its regular meeting on 20 October 2009, had 
adopted a one-time notification format for Members th at did not have countervailing duty 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 found in paragraph 5 of document G/SCM/N/219/Add.1 as well as in Annex F of the 
revised compendium (G/SCM/W/546/Rev.2). 
17. The Chairman stated that one-time notifications  served an important transparency purpose in 
the sense that they allowed to see a clearer picture of the level of compliance with the notification 
obligation pertaining to semi-annual reports of countervailing actions.  Further, they facilitated 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 reports of countervailing 
actions until such time as circumstances changed.  He therefore urged Members that qualified for one-
time notifications to submit such a notification in due  course.  He noted that the Secretariat was ready 
to assist them if they were in doubt as to whet her they qualified to make such a notification. 
1. Australia 
18. The Chairman noted that the semi-annual repor t of Australia on countervailing duty actions 
taken in the second half of 2010 was c ontained in document G/SCM/N/219/AUS dated 
28 March 2011.  No delegation took the floor to comment or ask questions on this notification. 
2. Canada 
19. The semi-annual report of Canada on countervaili ng duty actions taken in the second half of 
2010 was contained in document G/SCM/N/219/CAN dated 18 March 2011.  No delegation took the 
floor to comment or ask questions on this notification. G/SCM/M/77 
Page 4  
 
  3. China 
20. The semi-annual report of China on countervailing duty actions taken in the second half of 
2010 was contained in document G/ SCM/N/219/CHN dated 29 April 2011. 
21. The delegate of the United States noted that on numerous prior occasions, the United States 
had raised serious concerns about China's conduct of trade remedy investigations.  Unfortunately, 
China's actions in recent countervailing duty inves tigations involving US products had only increased 
those concerns.  In particular, the United Stat es was concerned with the numerous and recurring 
transparency and due process issues that had ari sen in the several trade remedy cases China had 
conducted against US products.  In addition, the Unite d States had continued to observe, in the recent 
trade remedy investigations against US exports, affi rmative injury findings based on what appeared to 
be an extremely weak factual basis in the records of those investigations.  
22. With respect to transparency and due process issues, a principa l objective of the procedural 
requirements of the Subsidies Agreement was to ensu re the transparency of proceedings and provide a 
full opportunity for the parties involved to defe nd their interests.  In China's trade remedy 
investigations against US exports, the United States ha d experienced a lack of procedural consistency, 
and frequently opaque decision-making by the investiga ting authority.  This left interested parties 
unable to defend their interests or even to understand  the basis for the decisions made.  For example, 
China's notices to interested parties and the public of ten failed to provide sufficient detail to allow for 
an understanding of the basis for the underlying deci sions.  China's investigating authority did not 
release, even to the parties involved, the specifi c methodology and calculations used to determine the 
countervailing duty rates.  By not providing part icipating companies with full disclosure of the 
calculation methodologies used in an investigati on, the respondent companies were not able to 
understand and effectively comment on the authority's fi ndings in order to defend their interests.  In 
many instances, the respondent companies simply could not confirm whether the calculations were 
mathematically accurate.  
23. The US delegation was also observing serious pr oblems with respect to the "all others" rate 
set by China's investigating author ities for those companies not selected  for participation.  There was 
often no explanation as to how this rate was dete rmined.  In several inst ances, the investigating 
authority has assigned rates to US companies not select ed for participation that far exceeded the rate 
assigned to any participating US company, without any explanation or justification for the use of 
adverse inferences. 
24. The United States was also deeply troubled by the lack of pro cedural due process afforded to 
respondent companies and responding foreign government s.  The latest examples in this respect were 
China's anti-dumping and countervailing duty investig ations on autos from the United States.  The 
delegate first noted that at no time during these i nvestigations had China's investigating authorities 
provided even a simple schedule for the major steps in the investigations.  After the initial questionnaire responses had been su bmitted, there had been a year-l ong period of complete inactivity 
in the cases. Then without warning China had issued a supplemental  questionnaire with a required 
response deadline of four days. An extension request  had been denied.  Three days after the response 
was filed, another questionnaire was issued - with  a response due two days later.  An extension 
request had been made and four additional days given.   Within days of the last questionnaire response, 
China's investigating authority had announced its preliminary determinati ons.  A mere two weeks 
after these preliminary determinations, China had i ssued its final disclosures in the proceeding.  No 
verification had been conducted.  Moreover, it was on ly at the time of the preliminary determinations 
- with one month remaining in an 18-month investig ation - that the US respondent companies and the 
US government were made aware that the product scope had been changed, apparently based on a 
request by the petitioner, without any notice or opport unity to comment by the US exporters.  Finally, 
repeated US government requests for oral hearings  among all the parties had been summarily denied  G/SCM/M/77 
 Page 5 
 
 
  without any explanation.  In sum, China's sudden ru sh to complete these investigations, after a year-
long period of complete inactivity, coupled with a last minute change in the product scope of the 
investigations without any notice that such a ch ange was even being considered, had effectively 
prevented interested parties from being able to defe nd their interests and to respond to the findings of 
the investigating authorities. 
25. The delegate next turned to the issue of injury  determinations made in certain trade remedy 
investigations.  He stated that the basic requireme nt for a determination of injury was an objective 
examination based on positive evidence of the volum e and price effects of dumped and subsidized 
imports on the domestic industry.  In many of Chin a's recent trade remedy determinations involving 
US products, China's injury determinations were in adequately explained and did not appear to be 
sufficiently supported by positive evidence on the reco rds of those investigations.  Trade remedies 
were intended to provide relief from the injurious e ffects of unfairly traded imports.  However, it 
appeared that China had applied trade remedies in instances where there was no reasonable basis to 
conclude that unfairly traded imports caused materi al injury to a Chinese domestic industry.  Taking 
again the example of China's anti-dumping and counte rvailing duty investigations of US automobile 
exports, China's investigating authority had found th at subject imports had ha d adverse price effects 
on the domestic like product despite the fact that s ubject imports had consiste ntly sold at prices 
considerably higher than the domestic like product.   Given these facts, it was unclear what evidence 
had been relied upon on to reach this decision.  Mo reover, in his delegation's view, it was clear that 
the increase in the market share of subject imports had been at the expense of market participants 
other than the domestic industry as defined by the investigating authorities. 
26. In conclusion, the delegate indicated that th e United States recognized that, since its accession 
to the WTO, China had made some progress in de veloping its procedures and practices for conducting 
trade remedy investigations; however, very serious issues remained, particularly in the areas of 
transparency and procedural due process and determinations of injury. 
27. The delegate of China indicated that the c ountervailing duty investigation on automobiles 
from the United States had been initiated in Nove mber 2009 and that the preliminary determination 
had been made in April 2011.  As this case was not covered by the semi-annual report for the period 
July- December 2010, she did not have detailed in formation regarding the investigation conducted. 
However, she wished to emphasize that China att ached great importance to this case and understood 
that this case was also very sen sitive for the United States; theref ore the Chinese authority had been 
prudent in every step and every decision in this  case.  In the decision-making process carried out 
during the initiation and the preliminary determinat ion, the Chinese authority had fully considered 
many factors and had respected the rights of interested  parties in order to make sure that the decision 
was made on an objective, fair, and transparent b asis.  The delegate indicated that that if the 
delegation of the United States would provide ques tions in writing, her delegation would transmit 
them to the authorities in Beijing.  They could then  reply to these questions in a timely and detailed 
manner.   
28. The delegate of Japan noted that Japan had a strong interest in ensuring due process and 
transparency in anti-dumping and countervailing duty investigations.  Due process and transparency 
played very important roles in avoiding the unwa rranted and unnecessary use of trade remedies.   
Japan urged Members with competent authorities to be mindful of due process and transparency in their investigation procedures. 
29. The delegate of Canada indicated that her delegation supported the interventions of the 
United States and Japan regarding the importance of  transparency and due process in the context of 
trade remedy investigations.  She encouraged Memb ers to provide all parties with the information 
they required to ensure that determinations were  consistent with WTO rights and obligations.    G/SCM/M/77 
Page 6  
 
  30. The Committee took note of the statements made. 
4. European Union 
31. The Chairman noted that the semi-annual repor t of the European Union on countervailing 
duty actions taken in the second half of 2010 had been circulated in document G/SCM/N/219/EEC 
dated 11 April 2011.  No delegation took the floor to comment or ask questions on this notification. 
5. Peru 
32. The semi-annual report of Peru on counterva iling duty actions taken in the second half of 
2010 was contained in document G/SCM/N/219/PER dated 29 April 2011.  No delegation took the 
floor to comment or ask questions on this notification. 
6. United States  
33. The semi-annual report of the United States on countervailing duty actions taken in the 
second half of 2010 had been circulated in document G/SCM/N/219/USA dated 28 March 2011.  
34. The delegate of China expressed China's c oncerns with one case included in the US 
notification. On 21 April 2010, the United States had launched concurrent investigations against 
aluminum extrusions from China.  In September 2010, the United States had made a preliminary 
determination and, on 29 March 2011, had made a final decision in the case.  China's concern was 
about the "all others" rate.  For the counterva iling duty investigation, the USDOC had used a non-
cooperation compulsory rate, calculated on the basis of adverse facts available, for those companies 
not included in the sample.  China believed that this was unreasonable.  Article 9.4 of the AD 
Agreement prescribed that any zero and de mi nimis margins and margins for non-cooperating 
companies were to be disregarded in determin ing the "all others" rate.  Also, while the SCM 
Agreement did not contain a similar article, the rati onale was the same for both agreements in this 
regard.  China's second concern related to double remedies.  The USDOC's application of an NME 
methodology in the anti-dumping investigation, a nd the concurrent imposition of countervailing 
duties in the countervailing duty investigation on the same subject imports constituted a double 
remedy, which was contrary to Articles 19.3, 10, and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement.  Moreover, the 
DSB in its ruling in the DS379 dispute had indicated that this kind of double remedy was not allowed 
under WTO rules.  China's third concern was a bout "public body".  In this case, the USDOC 
determined, as it always did, that state owned enterprises were public bodies, merely because they 
were majority government-owned.  The delegate st ated that the Appellate Body had clearly pointed 
out in DS379 that evidence of government ownership in itself was not evidence of meaningful control of an entity by the government and could not, with out more, serve as the basis for establishing that the 
entity was vested with authority to perform a governmental function.  China regretted that after 
DS379, the USDOC still conducted investigations  in the wrong manner.  China urged the 
United States to review the rulings in this case according to WTO rules as soon as possible and to 
conduct investigations in future cases consiste nt with WTO rules and relevant DSB rulings. 
35. The delegate of the United States indicated, regarding the use of subsidy rates based on 
adverse facts available in the aluminum extrusions  investigation, that the approach of the US 
authorities was fully consistent with the Subsid ies Agreement.  In the aluminium extrusions 
investigation, all of the mandatory respondents select ed to be individually investigated had chosen not 
to participate in the proceeding, which resulted in  the Commerce Department applying facts available 
to these companies.  Pursuant to  Commerce Department Regulations , if the countervailable subsidy 
rates established for all individually-investigated exporters and producers were determined entirely on 
the basis of facts available, th e Commerce Department could use any reasonable method to establish 
an "all others" rate for exporters and producers not individually investigated.  The only other  G/SCM/M/77 
 Page 7 
 
 
  companies for which the Commerce Department ha d calculated individual subsidy rates were 
voluntary respondents.  However, Commerce Departme nt Regulations required that the "all others" 
rate exclude subsidy rates calculated from voluntary respondents.  Because of the legitimate concern 
for the potential of voluntary respondents' net subsi dy rates to distort the "all others" rate; these rates 
were not included in the "all others " rate.  Therefore, because the only subsidy rates reflecting rates of 
individually-investigated companies were those based on adverse facts available, the Commerce 
Department had been left with no alternative basis to determine the "all others" rate other than by 
using the adverse facts available rates from non-cooper ating companies.  With respect to China's point 
on the Commerce Department's determinations  on double remedy and "public bodies" in the 
aluminum extrusions investigation,  the delegate first wished to note that this investigation had not 
been part of the challenged measures in the DS379 dispute.  Further, the Commerce Department had 
only reached its final determination in the alumin ium extrusions case in late March 2011, about two 
weeks after the Appellate Body had released its fi ndings in DS379.  The United States had serious 
concerns with the Appellate Body's decisions on double remedy and public bodies, and was still 
carefully studying the findings.  Going forward, th e United States was still considering how to comply 
with its WTO obligations, whic h it fully intended to do.  
36. The Committee took note of the statements made. 
C. NOTIFICATIONS OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL COUNTERVAILING DUTY ACTIONS  
37. The Chairman stated that Article 25.11 of the SCM Agreement required Members to submit 
reports of any preliminary and/or fina l countervailing duty actions taken.    
38. Since the last regular meeting of the Committee,  Canada, the European Union, Mexico, Peru 
and the United States had submitted notifications  under Article 25.11 of the SCM Agreement of 
preliminary and/or final actions taken.  Lists of th e notifications of preliminary and final anti-dumping 
actions received by the Committee had been circul ated in documents G/SCM/N/217-218, 221-224.  
The Chairman noted that subsequent to the ci rculation of document G/SCM/N/224, the European 
Union, the United States and China had notified th e Secretariat of countervailing duty actions they 
had taken.  These would be included in the next mont hly report to be circulated by the Secretariat. 
39. The delegate of the United States stated that  many Members did not submit notifications of 
their preliminary and final countervailing duty actions .  His delegation urged all Members to do so.  
His delegation had noticed that there often we re more semi-annual reports than there were 
notifications of preliminary and final countervailing duty actions.  In the US view, the semi-annuals 
and the notices of preliminary and final decisions  were equally important.  He therefore urged 
Members to adhere to their obligatio ns under the Subsidies Agreement.  
40. The Committee took note of the statement made. 
D. CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSIONS "ON WAYS TO IMPROVE THE TIMELINESS AND 
COMPLETENESS OF NOTIFICATIONS AND OTHE R INFORMATION FLOWS ON TRADE MEASURES " 
UNDER THE SCM AGREEMENT  
41. 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, 
the Committee had discussed this issu e at various informal meetings as well as at its regular meetings 
held in the course of 2009 and 2010.   
42. The Chairman also recalled that as a result of  these discussions, several steps had been taken 
which contributed to the objective identified in th e request from the Chairman of the Trade Policy G/SCM/M/77 
Page 8  
 
  Review Body.  First, in April 2009, the Committee 's Chairman had sent reminder letters to those 
Members that had not made their 2007 new and full subsidy notifications as of the end of 
March 2009.  The previous Chairman had done the sa me in April 2010 with respect to Members 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 2009 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 in Spring 2010 and circulated in document G/SCM/W/546/Rev.1 dated 16 April 2010.  Third, at the October 2009 regular meeting, the Committee had a dopted new standard formats for the semi-annual 
reports of countervailing actions as well as the mi nimum information 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 report whic h showed the time periods covered by the most 
recent subsidy notification made by each Member.  Fourth, at the October 2010 regular meeting, the Chairman had invited Members that had not yet ma de their 2009 new and full subsidy notifications as 
of then to explain the reasons for their lateness.  Fi nally, in preparation for this meeting, the Chairman 
had the Secretariat update the compendium of notifi cation obligations, which had been circulated in 
document G/SCM/W/546/Rev.2 dated 21 April 2011. 
43. The Chairman stated that the notification of  subsidies was by far the most important 
notification obligation found in the SCM Agreement.   Unfortunately, 75 Members had not yet made 
their 2009 new and full subsidy notifications, whic h had been due almost two years earlier.  The 
Chairman noted that a number of these Members ha d not observed their previous subsidy notification 
obligations either.  At the October 2010 regular meet ing, some Members had stated that they wanted 
the Committee to continue its discussions on this matt er.   The Chairman offered the floor to Members 
wishing to present their views about further steps th at the Committee could take to improve timeliness 
and completeness of notification oblig ations under the SCM Agreement.  
44. The delegate of the United States stated that the Committee had discussed the subsidy 
notification obligations and rela ted obligations in the SCM Agre ement in numerous informal and 
formal meetings since receiving the request from th e Chairman of the Trade Policy Review Body, but 
that little progress had been made. One large exporting Member had not submitted a subsidy 
notification in over five years.  Despite repeated st atements that the next notification was in the final 
stages of internal clearance, nothing had yet to be  submitted to the Committee.  In addition to being 
late, the Committee had also been informed that the next notification from this Member would not 
include a single sub-central subsidy programme.  Th e next notification would therefore be both late 
and incomplete.  While other large exporting Memb ers that were years behind in submitting their 
notifications had now submitted something, the s ubmissions were so deficient that a legitimate 
question could be raised as to whether the obliga tion to notify had been satisfied.  His delegation 
urged these Members to provide a complete subsidy notification covering subsidies at all levels of 
government, for all of the years in question.  As  the United States and other Members with similar 
concerns had pointed on many occasions, transparen cy was a key principle underpinning the rules-
based trading system.  This system was seriously undermined when Members - particularly those who 
so clearly benefited - failed to adhere to key tran sparency provisions.  This concern was not merely 
academic.  The requirement to notify subsidies was arguably the most important transparency 
obligations under the Subsidies Ag reement. Adhering to this obliga tion was thus critically important 
to the successful functioning of this Agreement and to  help maintain and build trust in the rules-based 
trading system.   The United States recognized the resource and capacity constraints many Members faced in compiling a detailed subsidy notification.  These were problems the United States had itself 
faced as a developed country in compiling informa tion from over fifty sub-central governments.  The 
continued reliance by a number of Members on th is explanation, however, was now difficult to 
accept.  This was especially the case where the dela y was over a very lengthy period of time, and the 
notifications that were eventually submitted did not cover the entire outstanding period and contained 
only a handful of programmes administered at the central government level and none at the sub- G/SCM/M/77 
 Page 9 
 
 
  central level.  The lack of sub-central programmes w as particularly troubling.  In its last notification, 
the United States had notified over 500 sub-central  programmes compared to less than 100 central 
government programmes, a five-to-one ratio.  The Unite d States had reason to believe that the ratio of 
sub-central to central government programmes was similar, if not greater, for certain other large 
exporting Members.  For these Members, therefore,  a subsidy notification that did not cover sub-
central measures was arguably an incomplete notification that did not fulfil that Member's 
transparency obligations.  As the United States and other Members had previously noted, the failure to 
notify subsidies administered by sub-central government authorities prevented WTO Members from 
obtaining a full picture of the subsidy regime in the territory of another Member.  Going forward, the United States intended to devote additional time and a ttention to this question of the inclusion of sub-
central programmes when examining submitted no tifications.  To highlight this important 
requirement, his delegation asked, again, that  the Chairman amend Annex B of document 
G/SCM/W/546/Rev.2 to reflect whether Members had notified sub-central subsidies. 
45. The delegate next turned to the issue of Ar ticle 25.8.  Under this provision, any Member 
could make a written request for information on the na ture and extent of a s ubsidy granted by another 
Member, or for an explanation as to why a speci fic measure was not considered subject to the 
requirement of notification.  Under Article 25.9, Me mbers that received such a request had to provide 
such information "as quickly as possible and in a comprehensive manner".  Despite this explicit 
requirement, many questions under Article 25.8 rema ined unanswered or were only answered many 
years after they were first submitted.  In order to  clarify Members' obligations in this area, his 
delegation proposed that the Committee develop guidelines for the answering of Article 25.8 
questions, including deadlines for the submission of written answers under Article 25.9, similar to the 
manner in which the Committee had developed guidelines for the answering of questions posed to 
Members on their subsidy notifications.  Moreove r, his delegation proposed that Article 25.8 
questions that remained unanswere d continue on the agenda of every subsequent Committee meeting 
until they were answered in writing, in full.  This  was a practice the Committee now had with respect 
to unanswered questions on a Member's subsidy no tification, and there was no reason why the same 
practice should not be applicable to Article 25.8 qu estions, especially given the explicit obligation in 
Article 25.9.  Finally, his delegation wished to re turn again to Annex C of the Secretariat document 
contained in G/SCM/W/546/Rev.2 and again raise the i ssue of the format of this Annex.  The Annex 
contained a column indicating the Member asking the question under Article 25.8, but there was no column listing the Member to whom the question was directed.  This, in his delegation's view, created 
an odd situation, as the Annex seemed to highli ght, as Members somehow not in compliance with 
their obligations, the Members asking the questions , as opposed to the Members that had not yet 
provided answers that were explicitly  required under Article 25.9.   
46.  The delegate of Canada supported the interv ention by the United States with regard to 
notification and transparency, including the United States' comments related to notification of sub-
central programmes.   Her delegation understood th e difficulties experienced by some Members in 
this regard, but encouraged all Members to make ever y effort to provide a full notification in a timely 
manner.   
47. The delegate of Australia stated that the updated background note circulated in document 
G/SCM/W/546/Rev.2 was a very useful document in  terms of highlighting Members' notification 
obligations and also pointing out compliance with those obligations.  He noted that some actual 
progress had been made as part of the consultati ons undertaken by the Committee under its mandate 
from the General Council.  Notification obligations  were obviously a very important part of the 
Subsidies Agreement.  His delegation was disappointed  with the compliance record with some of the 
obligations.  For instance, the Chairman had point ed out that 75 Members out of 153 had not yet 
provided their 2009 new and full subsidy notifica tions, and this included some major trading 
Members.  Also, some of the notifications which ha d been submitted were incomplete and as previous 
speakers had noted, this was particularly noticeable for programmes at the sub-central level.  Some G/SCM/M/77 
Page 10  
 
  Members had not provided any notification of prog rammes at the sub-central level. His delegation 
could support changes to this document to have more transparency on which Members had and had 
not provided a notification of sub-central progra mmes. With respect to the issue of Article 25.8 
questions, the delegate noted that  his delegation had received these questions in the past and had 
answered these questions within a matter of weeks.   His delegation had also asked questions under 
Article 25.8.  He stated that the question asked by his delegation was still outstanding, a few years 
later.  His delegation would certainly support means to  improve the record of Members with respect to 
their obligation under Article 25.8 and Article 25.9.  One of the suggestions which the United States 
had made was making a change to Annex C to highli ght which Member the question was directed to.  
His delegation considered that it could also be u seful to include when the question was originally 
asked, and could support a proposal to this effect. 
48. The delegate of New Zealand agreed that transparency was an essential element to the 
functioning of the international trading system and was particularly impor tant for small economies 
such as New Zealand to understand how the trading system was working and what measures were in 
place in some of their trading partners.  The Un ited States had raised some very valid questions, 
particularly with respect to Annex C of docum ent G/SCM/W/546/Rev.2.  Her delegation supported 
further discussion of the concerns  raised by the United States. 
49. The delegate of Japan stated that Japan att ached great importance to the notification and 
surveillance mechanism under Part VII of the SCM Agreement.  This mechanism provided 
transparency and gave some assurances that Member s stayed faithful to their commitments.  Japan 
urged those Members that had not yet submitted their notification to take immediate action to fulfil 
their obligations.  Her delegation had listened to the statement of the United States and was of the 
view that the Committee needed to seriously think a bout the improvement of th is notification system.  
The US proposal provided a very good basis for discussion and Japan supported further discussion on this issue. 
50. The delegate of Turkey stated that the concer ns expressed by the United States were shared 
by most of the Members in the room.  The United States had made a very important suggestion, which 
needed further work among Members.   Timelines s and completeness of notifications and other 
information flows were very important for all WTO Members, and transparency was a key principle underpinning the rules-based multilateral trading system and was very important for the well-
functioning of this system.  Some of the majo r trading partners had not made their subsidy 
notifications.  His delegation urged these Members to  make their notifications in due course. His 
delegation understood the difficulties associated with  the notification of sub-central programmes, yet 
it had to be taken into account that such sub- central programmes were not exempted from the 
notification obligation.  The notification of all programmes was important for other Members to be 
informed of the existence of subsidy programmes, whether at the central or sub-central level.   
51. The delegate of China stated that his delegati on, like other delegations, also attached great 
importance to this agenda item.  China had taken ve ry seriously its transparency obligations under the 
SCM Agreement.  Subsidies represented one of th e most difficult areas because China was a large 
developing country and faced enormous capacity cons traints.  Despite that fact, since becoming a 
WTO Member, China had made great efforts in this  respect.  In April 2006, China had submitted its 
first notification, covering the pe riod 2001-2004.  Now he wished to inform the Committee that a new 
notification covering the years 2005-2008 was being finalized and might be submitted after going 
through some final administrative procedures and once proofreading of the translation was completed.  
This new notification would cover both the 2007 an d 2009 new and full notifications as required by 
the Committee.  He also took note of the comments made by other Members regarding programmes at the sub-central level.  This was a very difficult ar ea for China.  However, bearing in mind China's 
commitment that it would progressively work towa rds a full notification of subsidies as noted in 
China's Working Party Report and based on the expe rience gained by China in the work of the  G/SCM/M/77 
 Page 11 
 
 
  notifications submitted and to be submitted, hi s delegation had confidence that sub-central 
programmes would be incorporated in China's future notifications.  The delegate stated that he also 
wished to make a number of comments with respect  to document G/SCM/W/546/Rev.2.  First, with 
respect to the format of Annex C, and the comments by the US delegation in this respect, he noted that the Committee had discussed the format of Annex C in prior meetings, and that the position of his 
delegation remained the same, which was that it c ould go along with the current format.  Also, he 
noted that the column with regard to China on page  17 in Annex B of the document should reflect the 
fact that China's previous notification covere d the period 2001-2004.  Therefore, the corresponding 
column should indicate that China had fulfilled its  obligation in respect of the 2003 new and full 
subsidy notifications.  
52. The delegate of India stated that his delegation also attached great importance to its 
notification obligations.  As previously indicated in the meeting, his delegation was consulting with 
state governments to list the sub-central subsidy pr ograms. In addition, his delegation would need 
time to consult with its authorities in the capital with  respect to the changes to  the format suggested by 
the United States. 
53. The Committee took note of the statements made.   
E. CONSTANT DOLLAR METHODOLOGY FO R GRADUATION FROM SCM ANNEX VII (B) 
54. The Chairman recalled that pursuant to the Doha Ministerial Decision on Implementation-
Related Issues and Concerns (doc ument WT/MIN(01)/17, para. 10.1) -- in which Ministers agreed 
that Annex VII(b) to the Agreement on Subsidi es and Countervailing Measures included the Members 
that were listed therein until their GNP per capita reached US $1,000 in constant 1990 dollars for 
three consecutive years -- as of 1 January 2003, th e methodology set forth in G/SCM/38, Appendix 2 
applied.  In 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 the Secretariat had circulated Notes 
updating GNP per capita for Members listed in Anne x VII(b).  Those Notes were contained in 
documents G/SCM/110 & /Add.1, 2 and 3 and Corr.1, Add.4, Add.5, Add.6 and Add.7.  At this 
meeting, the Chairman informed Members that  the Secretariat would circulate new updated 
calculations when the necessary World Bank data became available.  
55. The Committee took note of the Chairman's statement. 
F. PERMANENT GROUP OF EXPERTS  
56. 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.  Through 
document G/SCM/137 dated 10 February 2011, the Ch airman had invited Members to submit names 
of candidates to fill Dr. Ahmad's position by Tuesd ay, 15 March 2011.  No names had been submitted 
by this deadline.  The Chairman had then circulated another document, G/SCM/138 dated 23 March 2011, and re-invited Members to submit na mes of candidates by Friday, 1 April 2011.  In 
response to this second invitation, Australia ha d proposed Mr. Robert John Arnott; Members were 
informed of this through document G/SCM/139 dated 4 April 2011.  In a fax sent to all Members on 
the same date, the Chairman had conveyed his inte ntion to conduct informal consultations on the 
candidate proposed by Australia and had invited Me mbers to share their comments with him on this 
candidate by 14 April 2011. These consultations, howe ver, had not resulted in consensus on this 
proposal.  The Chairman had therefore decided not to  propose a name for election at this meeting.  
The Chairman trusted that the new Chairman would continue informal consu ltations on this matter 
and would find a name that woul d be agreeable to all Members. 
57. The delegate of Australia stated that the rul es in the Subsidies Agreement on this issue were 
relatively clear: Article 24.3 stated that the PGE would have five i ndependent persons, highly G/SCM/M/77 
Page 12  
 
  qualified in the fields of subsidies and trade relations.  It was very clear that Mr. Arnott satisfied these 
requirements of the Subsidies Agreement, as he was an expert on subsidies and countervailing 
measures and on WTO and trade relations with 25 year s of experience.  He had also been a panellist 
on three occasions.  He had served in Geneva from 1 996-1999, where he had c overed a wide range of 
issues, including the subsidies negotiations, and the Subsidies Committee, and had also been the 
Chairman of the Anti-Dumping Committee.  He ha d also covered all these issues from Canberra for 
an extended period of time.  He had been retired since 2001 and was therefore independent.  This was 
the second year in a row that Mr. Arnott had been nominated for this position.  In the previous year, all Members had agreed that he was qualified, ev en though another candidate who was also qualified 
took the position.  This year, Australia's understandi ng was there was also a wide range of support for 
Mr. Arnott and possibly that all Members also agreed  that he was qualified.  His delegation strongly 
believed that Mr. Arnott met the criteria set fort h in the Subsidies Agreement and could make a 
valuable contribution as a member of the Permanen t Group of Experts.  The delegate noted that 
Members of the PGE acted in a personal capacity.  His delegation would not want any factors which 
were not included in the Subsidies Agreement to  be taken into account when a PGE member was 
selected.  All Members in the room had a systemic  interest in ensuring that the PGE functioned 
effectively and in accordance with the Subsidies Agreement.  Members had seen some recent and 
unfortunate examples of what happened when th e PGE did not function in accordance with the 
Agreement.  Australia looked forward to resolving this issue quickly and as a matter of priority and 
hoped that the new Chairperson would take up this issue. 
58. The delegate of the United States stated that his delegation fully and completely echoed the 
comments made by Australia.  Mr. Arnott was a highly qualified independent person, and was the 
only candidate that had been nominated.   The delega te noted that he had worked with Mr Arnott, who 
had been a member of the Informal Group of Experts and had worked on the question of the valuation of subsidies in accordance with the cost to government methodology.  He could vouch for his 
extensive experience and very high intellectual ab ility.  He urged the Committee to fully look at 
Mr. Arnott's qualifications against the requi rements in the Subsidies Agreement.  
59. The Committee took note of the statements made. 
G. ANNUAL UPDATING NOTIFICATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PROCEDURES FOR THE 
CONTINUATION OF EXTENSIONS OF THE TRANS ITION PERIOD FOR THE ELIMINATION OF 
EXPORT SUBSIDIES SET OUT UNDER ARTICLE 27.4  OF THE SCM AGREEMENT  
60. The Chairman recalled that, at its meeti ng on 28 October 2010, the Committee had conducted 
the mid-period assessment of the programmes with re spect to which certain Members benefit from an 
extension of the period for the elimination of cer tain export subsidies under Article 27.4 of the SCM 
Agreement.  On the basis of th is assessment, the Committee had grante d extensions for calendar year 
2011 for the programmes with respect to which th e relevant Member had made a request.  The 
Chairman noted that, as had been decided at the October 2010 meeting, and as indicated in document 
G/ADP/W/483-G/SCM/W/553-G/SG/W/215, the annua l updating notifications  covering calendar 
year 2010 had to be submitted by the beneficiary Members by 30 June 2011.  The Chairman also 
noted that, as provided in paragraph 2(a) of the General Council Decision circulated in document 
WT/L/691, notifying Members also had to provide in formation regarding the actions they had taken 
pursuant to paragraphs 1(e) and 1(f) of the Gene ral Council decision, concerning the notification of 
beneficiaries and the action plan for the elim ination of export subsidies under the programme. 
H. ELIMINATION OF EXPORT SUBSIDIES FOR TEXTI LES AND APPAREL BY INDIA PURSUANT TO 
ARTICLE 27.5  OF THE AGREEMENT ON SUBSIDIES AND COUNTERVAILING MEASURES  
61. The delegate of the United States recalled th at in February 2010, the United States had 
requested the Secretariat to calculate the export competitiveness of textile and apparel products from  G/SCM/M/77 
 Page 13 
 
 
  India pursuant to Article 27.6 of the Subsidies Ag reement.  As Members were aware, developing 
country Members listed in Annex VII to the Subs idies Agreement were a llowed to provide export 
subsidies, despite the general prohibition contained in Article 3.1(a) of the Agreement.  However, 
once a product of an Annex VII country reached export competitiveness, Articles 27.5 required that 
export subsidies on that product be gradually ph ased out over a period of eight years.  Under 
Article 27.6, a product was defined as export comp etitive if it reached a share of 3.25 per cent in 
world trade for two consecutive years.  In March of  the preceding year, the Secretariat had released its 
calculations and shortly thereafter, a revision.  Th ese calculations indicated that regardless of how a 
"product" was defined under Article 27.6, India w as export competitive with respect to textile and 
apparel products.  In light of the calculations by the Secretariat, it was unfortunate that India had 
stated at the last meeting that it would not begin to phase out its export subsidies to its textile and 
apparel producers until this Committee resolved tw o technical/legal questions.  The delegate noted 
that India had not questioned, however, the accuracy of the calculations themselves or the methodologies employed.  It appeared that the onl y two questions remaining were how a "product" 
was defined and when should the phase out of export subsidies begin.  As to the product definition, 
Article 27.6 used the phrase "section heading".  In terms of HTS terminology, the word "section" had 
a meaning and the word "heading" also had a meaning but the phrase "section heading" had no 
meaning.  The United States had argued in the past - before the Doha Ministerial Conference - that the 
four digit level was the most appropriate interpre tation, and was supported by the French and Spanish 
versions of the Agreement.  India in the past ha d argued for a broader interpretation.  At the last 
meeting of the Committee, India had expressed some  uncertainty as to what would be the most 
favourable interpretation from its perspective.  This seemed to be because while a broader 
interpretation would make it more difficult to reach  the export competitiveness threshold, a broader 
interpretation would also mean that a wider range  of products could no lo nger benefit from export 
subsidies.  His delegation was interested to hear  India's current thinking on this issue. The second 
issue was the question of when the phase out period should begin.  His delega tion had argued that the 
phase out period should begin as soon as export comp etitiveness was reached, which seemed to be 
clear from Article 27.5.  India had argued that the obligation to start the ph ase out period began only 
after the Secretariat performed the necessary calculation.  This would mean that export 
competitiveness could have been reached, say in 2002 , but if the Secretariat did not perform the 
calculation until 2010, the obligation to begin the ph ase out would begin no earlier than 2010.  This 
interpretation seemed counterintuitive and would see mingly frustrate the intent of the language in 
Article 27.5.   
62. Regardless of the two interpretations as to wh en the phase out would technically begin, his 
delegation was of the view that after the Secr etariat had performed the export competitiveness 
calculations, and the calculations clearly showed th at a product had become export competitive, at a 
minimum, the relevant Member should refrain from implementing new programmes or extending 
existing programmes.  In this context, his dele gation was deeply concerned about press reports and 
various legal measures taken by India, which i ndicated that India had implemented a new export 
incentive package that included benefits under the Duty Entitlement Passbook Scheme, the Focus 
Product Scheme, and the Export Promo tion Capital Goods Scheme.  More over, it appeared that all of 
these programmes specifically benefited or could benefit the textiles and apparel sector.  The 
implementation of new export subsidies programmes or the extension of existing programmes after 
export competitiveness had been demonstrated was contra ry to the spirit, if not the actual language of 
Article 27.5.  His delegation was interested in know ing if India had identified the full range of export 
subsidy programmes that benefited its  textile and apparel sector and if so, whether it could share that 
information with the Committee.  His delegation's strong preference going forward was to discuss a structured phase-out of these programmes. 
63. The delegate of India stated that India had car efully studied the calculations undertaken by the 
Secretariat and the Secretariat's report.  India had also requested the Secretariat for details of the 
calculations, i.e. the excel sheets of export data  of individual Member countries used for the G/SCM/M/77 
Page 14  
 
  compilation. Although there might be some minor discrepancies, India did not have any issues with 
the Secretariat's computations.  India was committe d to meeting its obliga tions under the Agreement 
but wanted to have clarity and a common understa nding on certain issues so that it could implement 
its obligations.  While the United States had expressed  the view that regardless of the way in which 
the legal issues of definition of product or the beginning of the phase out period were resolved, India 
would be export competitive.  India considered that this simplification would not help at the 
implementation level because the results would be diffe rent in terms of coverage of tariff lines where 
export competitiveness was reached and of when it was reached if the sh are in world trade were to be 
computed, in respect of section or heading level.   This was also evident from the Secretariat's 
computations.  Clarity on the definition of product was, therefore, the starting point for phasing out 
any subsidies.  The delegate added that the issue of  clarity in the relevant Articles was not an issue 
which was specific to India or the United States, nor was it an issue of adopting the interpretation 
most favourable to India.  India was not the only country in Annex VII.  This issue concerned all 
Members. Therefore it would not be proper to discuss this definitional issue from the prism of export competitiveness of textile exports from India alone -- Members could not arrive at a definition of 
"product" that was favourable to India, but not fa vourable to some other country, for instance Egypt, 
or some other Annex VII country.  It would be pr eferable to have a discussion on this issue under a 
separate item where all Members, including India and the United States, participated and evolved a 
common understanding.  Therefore his delegation was of  the view that the matter be discussed in the 
Committee first separately to develop an agreed interpretation of the relevant provisions. His 
delegation was prepared to work constructively wi th other Members in the Committee to evolve a 
common understanding in this regard.  Regarding sta nd still, the delegate noted that Articles 27.5 and 
27.6 did not have specific provisions dealing with stand still.  In any case, India considered that clarity 
should first be achieved on the re levant provisions before addressing the issues of standstill or phasing 
out of subsidies.  
64. The delegate of Australia stat ed that export subsidies were among the most trade distortive 
subsidies, which was why they had been prohibited in the Uruguay Round.  While some special and 
differential treatment had been given on export subsid ies, a balance had been struck and this balance 
included transparency obligations on subsidy progr ammes, and a phasing out of these programmes in 
accordance with the rules.  Many developing countr ies had already phased out their export subsidies, 
and many other developing countries - those referre d to under agenda item J of the meeting - were 
well under way of phasing out their export subsidy programmes and would do so within a few years. 
3.25 per cent was a significant share of world trade,  and export subsidies from a Member with such a 
share of world trade in a given product could seriously  affect global markets.  In the case of textile 
and apparel products, these subsidies could affect  many Members, and many developing country 
Members.   
65. The delegate of Japan indicated that Japan had a systemic interest in this issue and that her 
delegation needed to reflect on India's proposal.  Export subsidies were one of the most trade 
distortive subsidies and were prohibited under the SCM Agreement.  If a developing country Member gained export competitiveness in any given product, it had, pursuant to Article 27.5, to phase out its 
export subsidies.  Japan urged Members to recall the importance of this provision.  
66. The delegate of Turkey indicated that Turkey  had a systemic interest in the issue being 
discussed.  His delegation believed that 3.25 per cent  was a very important share of world trade.  
Moreover, account had to be taken of the fact th at export subsidies had the most trade distortive 
effects.  Turkey believed that there was a need to cl arify the provisions at issue.   Article 25.6 used the 
term "section heading", and the United States had poi nted out that this term was unclear.  Turkey 
welcomed the proposal made by India and was r eady to work on this issue to provide more 
clarification and transparency.  In addition, hi s delegation believed that the calculation of export 
competitiveness should not be dependent on the request  of a Member, but should rather be conducted  G/SCM/M/77 
 Page 15 
 
 
  on an annual basis.  Turkey attached utmost importa nce to this issue and reiterated its readiness to 
work on it. 
67. The delegate of Canada stated that her de legation supported the intervention by the United 
States, Australia, and Japan on the issue of e xport competitiveness and echoed Japan in reminding 
Members of the obligations under Article 25 of the SCM Agreement. 
68. The Committee took note of the statements made. 
I. OTHER BUSINESS  
69. The delegate of the European Union indicated  that the European Commission had taken note 
of increasing concerns from Member States and industries referring to unfair competition with 
Chinese competitors benefiting from export credit financi ng.  Within the European Union, trade issues 
lied within the competence of the European Commission and the Commission took these allegations 
very seriously.  There were both economic as well as legal concerns.  Export credits and guarantees 
constituted prohibited subsidies if they were not granted in accordance with the WTO Agreement on 
Subsidies and Countervailing Measure, including the Arrangement for Officially Supported Export 
Credits.   Therefore her delegation urged China to fo llow international disciplines in export credits to 
secure the level playing field in export credit and guarantee terms offered, which in turn would be 
beneficial for all parties concerned.  
70. The delegate of the United States expressed agr eement with some of the concerns identified 
by the European Union.  
71. The Committee took note of the statements made. 
J. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING  
72. The Chairman recalled that the Committee had agreed in 1995 that regular meetings normally 
would be held in the last week of April and the last  week of October.  It was proposed that the next 
regular meeting of the Committee be held in the week  of 24 October 2011, with the exact date to be 
confirmed in due course. 
K. ELECTION OF OFFICERS  
73. The Chairman stated that, as Members were awar e, the Chairman of the Council for Trade in 
Goods had completed informal c onsultations on the nomination of Chairpersons for the different 
bodies operating under the auspices of the Council for Tr ade in Goods.  As concerned this Committee, 
the Chairman of the Goods Council had proposed  the nomination of Mr. Andreas Krallmann of 
Germany.   
74. The Committee elected Mr. Krallmann as Chairman, by acclamation. 
75. The Chairman also indicated that he had ha d informal consultations with Members on the 
election of a Vice Chairperson.  As a result of th ese consultations, he proposed Ms Hilda Ali Rashid 
AL-HINAI of Oman as Vice Chair.  
76. The Committee elected Ms AL-HINAI as Vice Chair, by acclamation. 
77. The Chairman adjourned the regular meeting of the Committee.  
__________