WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
G/SCM/M/76 
4 July 2011 
 (11-3262) 
Committee on Subsidies 
and Countervailing Measures  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL 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 was contained in 
WTO/AIR/3740 dated 21 April 2011.  As indicated in that proposed agenda, the purpose of this 
meeting was to continue to discuss new and full subsidy notifications of Members.  The Committee 
adopted the agenda as proposed: 
A.  DISCUSSION OF 2009  NEW AND FULL SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS NOT YET REVIEWED  ................. 2  
1.  Albania ....................................................................................................................... ................ 2  
2.  Brazil ........................................................................................................................ .................. 2  
3.  Croatia ....................................................................................................................... ................ 3  
4.  Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia .............................................................................. 3  
5.  Gabon ......................................................................................................................... ................ 3  
6.  Honduras ...................................................................................................................... ............. 3  
7.  India ......................................................................................................................... .................. 4  
8.  Lesotho ....................................................................................................................... ................ 6  
9.  Madagascar .................................................................................................................... ........... 6 
10.  United States ................................................................................................................. ............. 6  
B.  DISCUSSION OF 2009  NEW AND FULL SUBSIDY NOTIF ICATIONS ALREADY REVIEWED  ................ 7  
1.  Namibia ....................................................................................................................... ............... 7  
2.  Korea ......................................................................................................................... ................. 8  
3.  Kyrgyz Republic ............................................................................................................... ........ 8 
4.  Turkey ........................................................................................................................ ................ 8  
C.  DISCUSSION OF 2007  NEW AND FULL SUBSIDY NOTIF ICATIONS ALREADY REVIEWED  ................ 9  
1.  United States ................................................................................................................. ............. 9  
D.  PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW OF 2011  NEW AND FULL SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS  ........................... 9  
 
 G/SCM/M/76 
Page 2  
 
  A. DISCUSSION OF 2009  NEW AND FULL SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS NOT YET REVIEWED  
3. The Chairman stated that th e Committee's review of new and full subsidy notifications 
followed the procedures that had been adopted by the Committee in 2005, referred to in G/SCM/117.  
In accordance with these procedures, the notifications that were on the agenda of the special meeting 
were notifications that had been circulated to Me mbers in all three WTO working languages not later 
than 3 January 2011. 
1. Albania 
4. The 2009 new and full subsidy notification of Albania was contained in document 
G/SCM/N/186/ALB.  Questions asked by the United St ates with respect to Albania's notification had 
been circulated in document G/SCM/Q2/ALB/3 dated 10 February 2011. 
5. The delegate of the United States stated that his delegation looked forward to Albania's 
written replies. 
6. The Committee took note of the statement made. 
2. Brazil 
7. The Chairman noted that the 2009 new and full subsidy notification of Brazil was contained 
in document G/SCM/N/186/BRA.  Questions asked by  Canada, Australia, the United States, Turkey 
and Japan with respect to Brazil's notification had been circulated in documents G/SCM/Q2/BRA/23, 
G/SCM/Q2/BRA/24, G/SCM/Q2/BRA/25, G/SCM/Q2/BRA/26 and G/SCM/Q2/BRA/27, 
respectively.  Brazil's replies to the questions by Canada, Australia , the United States and Turkey had 
been received the day before the Committee mee ting and were being circulated in documents 
G/SCM/Q2/BRA/28, G/SCM/Q2/BRA/29, G/SCM/Q2/BRA/30 and G/SCM/Q2/BRA/31, respectively.  Advance copies of these documents were available at the back of the room for 
Members' information. 
8. The delegate of Brazil stated that her delega tion had submitted answers to the questions by 
Canada, Australia, the United States and Turkey.  Br azil's answers had been informally transmitted to 
these delegations the week before the Committee m eeting.  Brazil's answers to some of Japan's 
questions had already been submitted to the Japanes e delegation informally while answers to some 
other questions we re still pending. 
9. The delegate of Japan stated that she woul d forward Brazil's preliminary answers to the 
capital and that her delegation was looking forward to Brazil's written answers to the rest of Japan's 
questions. 
10. The delegate of Canada stated that her de legation would communicate in writing any further 
questions that it might have. 
11. The delegate of the United States stated that  his delegation was studying the answers and 
might come back with additional questions.  The US  delegation left open the possibility of returning 
to this issue at the next Committee meeting. 
12. The delegate of Turkey stated that his capital was still reviewing Brazil's replies to Turkey's 
questions.  He asked follow-up questions with respect  to subsidies contingent on the use of domestic 
over imported goods.  The delegate stated that these types of subsidies were prohibited under Article 3 
of the SCM Agreement.  He asked how the progr ammes were compatible with Article 3 which  G/SCM/M/76 
 Page 3 
 
 
  disallowed the granting of subsidies favouring the use of domestic over imported goods.  He invited 
the Brazilian delegation to clarify th is at the next Committee meeting. 
13. The delegate of Australia stated that his delegation was studying Brazil's replies and might 
come back with further questions. 
14. The delegate of Brazil stated that her delega tion was ready to discuss bilaterally with the 
Turkish delegation what information Turkey wish ed to see about the Brazilian Development Bank.  
The delegate would then forward Tu rkey's questions to her capital. 
15. The Committee took note of the statements made. 
3. Croatia 
16. The Chairman noted that the 2009 new and full subsidy notification of Croatia had been 
circulated in document G/SCM/N/186/HRV.  Questi ons asked by the United States with respect to 
Croatia's notification had been circulated in do cument G/SCM/Q2/HRV/3 dated 10 February 2011.  
Croatia's replies to these questions had been circulated in document G/SCM/Q2/HRV/4 dated 
24 March 2011.  No delegation took the floor to ma ke comments or ask questions on this notification. 
4. Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 
17. The 2009 new and full subsidy notification of  the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 
was contained in document G/SCM/N/186/MKD.  Qu estions asked by the United States with respect 
to the notification of the Former Yugoslav Republic  of Macedonia had been circulated in document 
G/SCM/Q2/MKD/1 dated 11 February 2011. 
18. The delegate of the United States stated that his delegation had not received answers to its 
questions and that it looked forward to the wr itten replies of the Former Yugoslav Republic of 
Macedonia. 
19. The Committee took note of the statement made. 
5. Gabon 
20. The Chairman stated that the 2009 new and full subsidy notification of Gabon was contained 
in document G/SCM/N/186/GAB.  Questions asked by the United States and Turkey with respect to 
Gabon's notification had been circulated in doc uments G/SCM/Q2/GAB/1 and G/SCM/Q2/GAB/2, 
respectively. 
21. The delegate of the United States stated th at his delegation looked forward to receiving 
Gabon's written answers. 
22. The delegate of the Turkey stated that hi s delegation looked forward to receiving Gabon's 
replies to Turkey's questions. 
23. The Committee took note of the statements made. 
6. Honduras 
24. The Chairman noted that the 2009 new and full subsidy notification of Honduras had been 
reviewed at the Committee's special meeting held on 27 April 2010.  Honduras had subsequently 
submitted a supplement to its original notifica tion which had been circulated in document G/SCM/M/76 
Page 4  
 
  G/SCM/N/186/HND/Suppl.1 dated 1 November 2010.  No questions had been received with respect 
to this notification.  No delegation took the floor  to make comments or ask questions about Honduras' 
notification. 
7. India 
25. The 2009 new and full subsidy notificati on of India was contained in document 
G/SCM/N/186/IND.  The Chairman noted that India had submitted the same te xt as its 2005 and 2007 
new and full subsidy notifications which had b een circulated in document G/SCM/N/155/IND - 
G/SCM/N/123/IND, dated 29 October 2010.  Questions asked by Australia, the United States and Japan with respect to India's notification had been circulated in documents G/SCM/Q2/IND/14, 
G/SCM/Q2/IND/15 and G/SCM/Q2/IND/18, respectivel y.  India's replies to the questions from 
Australia and the United States had been circ ulated in documents G/SCM/Q2/IND/17 and 
G/SCM/Q2/IND/16, respectively. 
26. The delegate of India stated that his delega tion had received questions from the United States, 
Australia and Japan and had provided replies to the questions by the United States and Australia 
which had been circulated.  Japan's questions had only been received on 29 April and the authorities 
in the capital were still working on them.  The Indi an delegation would come back on these questions 
later. 
27. The delegate of Japan stated that her dele gation had submitted written questions on India's 
new and full subsidy notification on 28 April.  Jap an had asked questions about the project called 
Jawaharlal Nehru National Solar Mission, a project promoting the use of solar energy in India.  The delegate stated her delegation shared the view th at promoting the use of renewable energy sources 
was a legitimate policy objective.  But the Japanese delegation had strong concerns as the project also 
promoted domestic manufacturing through the means of a domestic content requirement. Domestic 
content requirements were not essential elements to achieve the goal of increasing the use of solar 
energy.  The delegate of Japan urged India to c onduct the project in a WTO-consistent manner and 
stated that her delegation looked forward to r eceiving India's replies to Japan's questions. 
28. The delegate of India stated that his delega tion would come back on these questions and the 
specific issues as it received th e replies back from the capital. 
29. The delegate of the United States underlined his delegation's previous concerns with respect 
to India's subsidy notification in terms of its co mpleteness.  The US delegation was aware of other 
programmes that India operated at the federal level and which had not  been notified.  The delegate 
urged India to notify those programmes.  He noted that  in its answers, India indicated that it was in the 
process of consultations with other ministries a nd departments to identify other programmes which 
might require to be notified.  The US delegation had also expressed concern with respect to the lack of 
any sub-central government measures being notified by the government of India.  There essentially were 3-4 central government programmes that had been notified, and no sub-central programmes.  
The US delegation was aware of numerous programmes that  appeared as if they needed to be notified.  
The delegate noted that in it's replies to the US  questions, the India indicated that the central 
government was consulting with the state government s to obtain details of their programmes which 
might qualify as subsidies within the meaning of the SCM Agreement.  The US delegation looked 
forward to the results of those consultations and hoped that India would notify its sub-central 
programmes in the future.  With respect to th e programmes themselves, the delegate of the 
United States had two follow-up questions. With re spect to the export-oriented unit programme and 
the special economic zones scheme, the delegate  asked how the export-oriented units scheme 
interacted with the special economic zones scheme.  Specifically, he asked wh ether an enterprise that 
benefitted from one of these programmes could also benefit from all aspects of the other, and any 
other interactions that existed between the two pr ogrammes.  Secondly, with  respect to the special  G/SCM/M/76 
 Page 5 
 
 
  economic zones scheme, the delegate of the Unite d States asked what a functional special economic 
zone was.  Finally, he echoed the c oncerns that had been raised by Japan with respect to India's solar 
programme. 
30. The delegate of Australia stated that some of  the follow-up questions that his delegation had 
were similar to the questions that the United States  had raised.  At the last session, the Australian 
delegation had asked India a few questions relating to the completeness of India's notification.  It was 
also the impression of the Australian delegation that India had not notified all of its programmes.  It 
appeared that it had not notified any programmes at the sub-central level.  It also did not appear to cover all the time periods for which it had not subm itted a notification in the past.  Therefore, the 
programmes which had been notified did not seem to pr ovide all of the necessary information, such as 
the amount, duration and trade effects of the subsid ies.  The Australian delegation had submitted some 
written questions to India to which the latter had provided responses.  In the responses, India had 
noted that the Indian authorities were still in consu ltation with various minist ries and departments and 
also with the state governments.  The delegate of Australia asked whether there had been any 
additional responses from the other ministries or state governments since the written answers had 
been provided to Australia and whether India c ould advise when it was likely to have further 
information from these other ministries and state governments. 
31. The delegate of India provided some responses based on his knowledge.  With respect to the 
US question on the interaction between the export -oriented units ("EOU") scheme and the special 
economic zones ("SEZ") scheme, the delegate st ated that these two schemes were independent 
because they were based on geographical jurisdicti on.  If an area was notified as an SEZ, any unit 
coming within that SEZ would be subject to the SEZ rules.  A company could be either an SEZ or an 
EOU, not both.  With respect to the second qu estion on what constituted a functional SEZ, the 
delegate stated that the completion of the lega l conditions for the creation of an SEZ would not 
necessarily lead to a functional SEZ on the gro und because of issues of economic viability or 
insufficient demand or because things changed on th e ground.  Certain SEZs actually remained on the 
paper and never became operational.  A functiona l SEZ referred to an SEZ where units were actually 
set up and export operations had begun.  In case th e US delegation had more specific questions, the 
delegate of India requested that these be sent by  email so that he coul d provide more detailed 
information.  Regarding the questions with respect  to the incompleteness of  the notification and the 
information on sub-central programmes, the delegate stated that, as explained in India's replies, the 
recent notification made by India covered income  tax exemption for certain enterprises as per 
available information.  Capital officials were cons ulting various ministries to obtain details of more 
programmes.  They were also consulting state gov ernments to identify programmes at sub-central 
level which would qualify as subsidies within the definition of the SCM Agreement, including the 
specificity requirement.  The delegate also not ed that some of the programmes which were 
countervailed as subsidies by some Members were ac tually in the nature of remission of duties and 
were not really subsidies.  Regarding the progr ess of consultations w ith various governmental 
agencies, the delegate stated that  capital officials were working at it.  Though it was not possible to 
specify a time-frame at this stage, the delegate st ated that India was definitely committed to meeting 
its obligations under the Agreement and that, as a part  of that, it had provided its recent notifications. 
32. The delegate of the United States stated that  his delegation might follow up with written 
questions.  
33. The delegate of Australia stated that hi s delegation looked forward to receiving some 
additional information on these programmes as the se consultations continued with ministries and 
other state governments. 
34. The Committee took note of the statements made.  G/SCM/M/76 
Page 6  
 
  8. Lesotho 
35. The Chairman noted that the 2009 new and full subsidy notification of Lesotho was contained 
in document G/SCM/N/186/LSO.  No questions had been  received with respect to this notification. 
No delegation took the floor to make comment s or ask questions on this notification. 
9. Madagascar 
36. The Chairman noted that the 2009 new and full subsidy notification of Madagascar was 
contained in document G/SCM/N/186/MDG.  No ques tions had been received with respect to this 
notification.  No delegation took the floor to make  comments or ask questions on this notification. 
10. United States 
37. The Chairman noted that the 2009 new and full subsidy notification of the United States was 
contained in document G/SCM/N/186/USA.  Questions  asked by Canada, Australia, India and Japan 
on the notification of the United States had been circulated in documents G/SCM/Q2/USA/41, G/SCM/Q2/USA/42, G/SCM/Q2/USA/43 and G/SCM/Q2 /USA/44, respectively.  The replies of the 
United States to the questions from Australia and Canada had been received and circulated the day 
before the meeting in documents G/SCM/Q2/U SA/46 and G/SCM/Q2/USA/47, respectively.  
Advance copies of these documents were available at the back of the room. 
38. The delegate of the United States stated that the questions that his delegation had received 
from India and Japan had been submitted relatively late.  Therefore, the US delegation was not 
prepared to answer these questions at the meeting but would provide written answers in due course.  
The delegate noted that his delegation had recently  submitted answers to Canada's and Australia's 
questions.  The delegate presented summaries of some of the answers to these questions.  The 
delegate started with the answers to Canada's quest ions.  The first question had to do with the US 
research and development programme for renewable and fossil fuel energy.  The question concerned 
the eligibility criteria for the applicants of each pr ogramme and the related process.  The United States 
had essentially answered this question in its subsid y notification.  There were statements in the 
notification as to who was eligible and the delegate st ated that often anyone was eligible.  In terms of 
who were the companies most likely to qualify or to receive assistance, the delegate stated that, as a 
general matter, it was important to note that these were essentially research and development 
programmes.  The Department of Energy ("DOE") would put out a solicitation, request for bids on a 
particular project and anyone c ould bid on that project.  Naturally, however, there were going to be 
some companies that would be more qualified due  to their knowledge and experience than other 
companies.  But as a general matter, the gene ral competitive procedures used to determine 
participation in DOE programmes were set forth in the Regulations and the US  replies cited to those 
Regulations.  The DOE was required to solicit applica tions for financial assistance in a manner which 
provided the maximum amount of competition feasi ble.  Specific awards under the reference 
programmes were based on a review of the applicat ions received and the funding available.  The 
second set of questions had to do with the Sulto n Stall Kennedy Grant Programme, a fisheries 
research and development programme.  In its questi on, Canada noted that this programme was funded 
by duties on fishery imports and asked whether ther e had been changes to this programme resulting 
from varying levels of fishery imports into the Unite d States.  The delegate of the United States stated 
that there had not been changes to the goals and objectives of th e programme in accordance with the 
level of fishery imports in a given year.  The second question with respect to the same programme 
concerned the duration of this programme which was indicated as indefinite.  The question was 
whether this programme was active.  The answer to this question was yes.  The third set of questions 
had to do with empowerment zones.  The first ques tion in this context concerned the location of these 
empowerment zones.  The delegate stated that  there was a listing of the location of the 40 
empowerment zones.  In the answers provided by th e United States, there were also maps that could  G/SCM/M/76 
 Page 7 
 
 
  be accessed via the internet that would pinpoint each  and every one of the zones.  The second question 
was whether the number of empowerment zones had in creased or decreased.  The delegate stated that 
over time the number had increased.  The listing would go through how those zones were increased.  The third question was whether the programme, which had been slated to end in 2009, was extended.  
The delegate stated that the tax benefits for th ese zones had been extended through the end of 2011.  
The delegate then turned to the qu estion posed by Australia.  In this  question, Australia asked whether 
the assistance provided to ThyssenKrupp, a steel compan y, was subject to any particular conditions or 
requirements to use local over imported goods or to e xport at certain levels.  The delegate stated that 
there were no requirements which mandated the company to use local over imported goods or to 
export at certain levels.  With respect to the trad e effects of this assistance, the information on the 
company's exports from this particular plant was of proprietary nature.  The delegate of the 
United States reiterated that his delegation might ge t back to India and Japan with further questions. 
39. The delegate of Japan stated that her delega tion had submitted questions both with respect to 
the 2007 new and full subsidy notification (G/SCM /N/155/USA) and the 2009 new and full subsidy 
notification (G/SCM/N/186/USA) of the United States.   Japan had received replies to its questions 
concerning the 2007 notification.  These replies w ould be forwarded to capital and the delegation of 
Japan might come back in case there were furthe r questions.  With respect to questions on the 2009 
notification of the United States, the delegation of Japan looked forward to receiving the US replies. 
40. The delegate of India stated that his delegati on looked forward to receiving the US replies to 
its questions. 
41. The delegate of Australia stated that since hi s delegation had received the US replies recently, 
it had not had a chance to study them and that it might come back with follow-up questions. 
42. The delegate of Canada stated that since he r delegation had received the US replies very 
recently, it continued to study them and w ould respond with any further questions. 
43. The delegate of Brazil stated that her delegati on had not had time to circulate questions with 
respect to the US notification before the meeting.  Her delegation had some qu estions with regard to 
federal and sub-federal programmes that would in clude the energy and fuel sector, technology and 
R&D programmes, fisheries, some sub-federal aerospace programmes and the ethanol programme.  
The delegate refrained from reading out these questions  at the meeting and stated that her delegation 
would circulate those questions so that it would be possible to refer to them at the next Committee 
meeting. 
44. The Committee took note of the statements made. 
B. DISCUSSION OF 2009  NEW AND FULL SUBSIDY NOTIF ICATIONS ALREADY REVIEWED  
1. Namibia 
45. The Chairman stated that the 2009 new and full subsidy notification of Namibia had been 
circulated in document G/SCM/N/186/NAM and review ed at the Committee's special meeting held on 
28 October 2010.  Questions posed by Thailand with r espect to this notification had been circulated in 
G/SCM/Q2/NAM/3 dated 5 November 2010. 
46. The delegate of Thailand stated that her de legation looked forward to Namibia's replies. 
47. The Committee took note of the statement made. G/SCM/M/76 
Page 8  
 
  2. Korea 
48. The Chairman stated that the 2009 new and fu ll subsidy notification of Korea had been 
circulated in documents G/SCM/N/186/KOR and Co rr.1, and reviewed at the Committee's special 
meeting held on 28 October 2010.  Questions present ed by Japan regarding Korea's notification had 
been circulated in document G/SCM/Q2/KOR /38 dated 25 October 2010 and discussed at the 
Committee's special meeting held on 28 October 2010.  Korea's replies to Japan's questions had been 
circulated in document G/SCM/Q2/KOR/39 dated 13 April 2011.  In addition, India had posed 
questions regarding Korea's notification, which ha d been circulated in document G/SCM/Q2/KOR/40 
dated 28 April 2011. 
49. The delegate of Korea stated that her delega tion's replies to Japan's questions had been 
submitted and circulated.  She stated that India's qu estions had been sent to her capital and that the 
latter was still working on these questions.  As soon as the capital's replies were ready, they would be 
sent to the Indian delegation and to the Secretariat. 
50. The delegate of Japan stated that her capital was studying Korea's replies to Japan's questions 
and that her delegation would contact the Korean delegation and the Secretariat in case it had further 
questions. 
51. The delegate of India stated that his delegati on looked forward to receiving Korea's replies to 
India's questions. 
52. The Committee took note of the statements made. 
3. Kyrgyz Republic 
53. The Chairman noted that the 2009 new and full subsidy notification of the Kyrgyz Republic 
had been circulated in document G/SCM/N/186/ KGZ and reviewed at the Committee's special 
meeting held on 28 October 2010.  The questions posed by the United States and circulated in 
document G/SCM/Q2/KGZ/1 with respect to the no tification of the Kyrgyz Republic had not been 
answered at that meeting.   
54. The delegate of the United States stated th at his delegation looked forward to receiving 
written responses from the Kyrgyz Republic. 
55.  The Committee took note of the statement made. 
4. Turkey 
56. The Chairman noted that the 2009 new and full subsidy notification of Turkey had been 
circulated in document G/SCM/N/186/TUR and review ed at the Committee's special meeting held on 
28 October 2010.  The question posed by Australia  and circulated in document G/SCM/Q2/TUR/23 
with respect to Turkey's notification had not been answered at that meeting.  
57. The delegate of Turkey stated that his delega tion had no response to Australia's question.  His 
capital was still working on this question and needed  more time to respond.  When the response 
would be ready, it would be circulated without further delay. 
58. The delegate of Australia stated that his delega tion had circulated this question in July 2010 
and looked forward to receiving the response once the Turkish capital had had a chance to provide 
some further information.  G/SCM/M/76 
 Page 9 
 
 
  59. The Committee took note of the statements made. 
C. DISCUSSION OF 2007  NEW AND FULL SUBSIDY NOTIF ICATIONS ALREADY REVIEWED  
1. United States 
60. The Chairman stated that at the special meeting held on 28 Oc tober 2010, the delegate of the 
United States had stated that his delegation woul d submit replies to the questions posed by Japan 
(G/SCM/Q2/USA/40) regarding the 2007 new and full s ubsidy notification of the United States.  The 
US replies to these questions had been received th e day before the Committee meeting and circulated 
in document G/SCM/Q2/USA/45.  Copies of this document were available at the back of the room for Members' information. 
61. The delegate of Japan stated that her delegati on would get back to the Committee if it had any 
further questions with respect to the US notification. 
62. The delegate of the United States stated that his delegation looked forward to any follow-up 
question that Japan might have. 
63. The Committee took note of the statements made. 
D. PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW OF 2011  NEW AND FULL SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS  
64. The Chairman stated that on 5 January 2011,  the Secretariat had circulated a document 
inviting Members to submit their new and full subs idy notifications due in 2011 by 30 June 2011.  
This invitation was contained in document G/SCM/N/ 220.  The invitation drew attention to the agreed 
format for subsidy notifications, which coul d be found in document in G/SCM/6/Rev.1. 
65. The Chairman noted that in connection with the 2005 new and full subsidy notifications the 
Committee had adopted special procedures for the review of these notifications, which were in 
document G/SCM/117 of 26 April 2005.  The key elem ents of these procedures were the following: 
 First, the procedures provided for special meeti ngs to carry out the review of the subsidy 
notifications, to be held in conjunction w ith the regular meetings of the Committee; 
 Second, the procedures provided that only notifications circulated in all three working 
languages not less than seventeen weeks before a meeting might be reviewed at that meeting; 
 Third, the procedures provided th at the review of subsidy notif ications was to be based on 
written questions and written answers to be provi ded before the meeting.  Specifically, written 
questions had to be submitted not less than thir teen weeks before the date of the meeting and 
written responses had to be submitted not less than fo ur weeks before the date of the meeting.   
66. In the past, the Committee had decided to a pply these procedures also to the review of 
Members' 2007 and 2009 new and full subsidy notifi cations.  The Chairman stated that these 
procedures could also apply to the review of th e 2011 new and full notifications that were due by 
30 June 2011.  The Chairman asked whether th e Committee would agree that the procedures in 
document G/SCM/117 for the review of the 2005 notifica tions would also apply to the review of the 
2011 new and full subsidy notifications. 
67. The Committee so agreed. G/SCM/M/76 
Page 10  
 
  68. The Chairman reminded Members that, as indicated in document G/SCM/N/220 dated 
5 January 2011, the 2011 new and full subsidy notifications were due on 30 June 2011.  The 
Committee would start reviewing these notifications at  its special meeting to be held in conjunction 
with the regular meeting in October 2011.  In acco rdance with the agreed procedures, the Committee 
would review, at that meeting, notifications that had been circulated in all three working languages 
not later than 17 weeks before the date of the meeting. 
69. The Chairman stated that the next special meeting of the Committee to review subsidy 
notifications would take place in  the week of 24 October 2011. 
70. The Chairman adjourned the speci al meeting of the Committee. 
 
__________