RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SCM/M/69 
22 September 2009 
 (09-4438) 
Committee on Subsidies  
and Countervailing Measures  
 
 
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING 
HELD ON 7 MAY 2009 
 
Chairman:  Mr. Jun Kazeki (Japan ) 
 
1. The Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures ("the Committee") held a regular 
meeting on 7 May 2009. 
2. The Committee adopted  the agenda: 
A. NATIONAL LEGISLATION – REVIEW OF NOTIFICATIO NS OF NEW OR AMENDED 
LEGISLATION OR REGULATIONS NOT PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE ...................2  
1. Argentina ...................................................................................................................... .............2  
2. Brazil......................................................................................................................... .................4  
3. Dominican Republic............................................................................................................. .....5 
4. Honduras ....................................................................................................................... ............5  
5. Panama ......................................................................................................................... .............5  
6. Saudi Arabia................................................................................................................... ...........5  
B. NATIONAL LEGISLATION – CONTINUED REVIEW OF PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED 
NOTIFICATIONS OF LEGISLATION OR REGULATIONS ...................................................................5  
1. Albania........................................................................................................................ ...............6  
2. El Salvador .................................................................................................................... ............6  
3. Panama ......................................................................................................................... .............6  
4. Ukraine ........................................................................................................................ ..............7  
C. SEMI -ANNUAL REPORTS OF COUNTERVAILING DUTY ACTIONS ...................................................7  
D. NOTIFICATIONS OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL COUNTERVAILING DUTY ACTIONS .......................7  
E. CHAIRMAN 'S PROPOSALS REGARDING THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR SEMI -ANNUAL 
REPORTS OF COUNTERVAILING MEASURES , AND THE MINIMUM INFORMATION TO BE 
PROVIDED IN CONNECTION WITH THE NOTIF ICATION OF ALL PRELIMINARY OR FINAL 
COUNTERVAILING MEASURES AS  REQUIRED UNDER ARTICLE 25.11  OF THE SCM 
AGREEMENT ..............................................................................................................................1 0 
F. CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSIONS "ON WAYS TO IMPROVE THE TIMELINESS AND 
COMPLETENESS OF NOTIFICATIONS AND OTHER INFORMATION FLOWS ON TRADE 
MEASURES " UNDER THE SCM AGREEMENT ................................................................................12  
G. CONSTANT DOLLAR METHODOLOGY FOR GRADUATION FROM SCM ANNEX VII(B) .................15  
H. PERMANENT GROUP OF EXPERTS ...............................................................................................15  G/SCM/M/69 
Page 2  
 
  I.
 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 ......................16  
J. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING ............................................................................................16  
K. ELECTION OF OFFICERS .............................................................................................................17  
A. NATIONAL LEGISLATION – REVIEW OF NOTIFICATIONS OF NEW OR AMENDED LEGISLATION OR 
REGULATIONS NOT PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE  
3. The Chairman  stated that item A of the agenda of this meeting 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). 
4. 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. 
5. In accordance with this provision, the Co mmittee had before it at this meeting new 
notifications of countervailing duty legislati on from Argentina, Brazil, Dominican Republic, 
Honduras, Panama and Saudi Arabia. 
6. Parts of these notifications that related to an ti-dumping investigations would be reviewed in 
the meeting of the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practi ces the following day.  The Chairman stated 
that, as stated in the draft annotated agenda con cerning this meeting, the primary review of these 
notifications would be held in the Committe e on Anti-Dumping Practices and the Committee on 
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures would only discuss issues that relate specifically to 
countervailing measures. 
1. Argentina 
7. The Chairman stated that the notification of  Argentina had been circulated in document 
G/SCM/N/1/ARG/1/Suppl.8 of 22 September 2008.  This  notification contained the text of a Decree 
on the implementation of Argentina's Law No. 24.425.   
8. The Committee had received questions on this Decree from the European Communities, the 
United States and Turkey.  These questions appear ed in documents G/SCM/Q1/ARG/19, 20 and 21, 
respectively. 
9. The delegate of Argentina  stated that his delegation's r esponses to these questions would be 
provided in writing within the required time limit.  Bu t he stated that he woul d provide some replies at 
the meeting for the information of delegations.  Th e delegate of Argentina stated that while the 
questions they had received concerned common characteristics of both anti-dumping and countervailing duty investigations , Argentina would offer explan ations regarding only the CVD-
related portions of its legislation. 
10. With regard to questions posed by the Eur opean Communities, the delegate of Argentina 
stated that Questions 1 and 3 concerned anti-dumping investigations.  With regard to Question 2, the 
delegate stated that the resolution at issue coul d be found on two websit es and provided the addresses 
of such sites.   G/SCM/M/69 
 Page 3 
 
 
  11. With regard to the questions raised by the United States, the delegate of Argentina stated that:  
(a) Question 1:  The Decree at issue esta blished the procedures for the effective 
application of Agreements in domestic le gislation 24-425.  The existence of this 
decree would not have been justified if Argentina had not adopted the Law 24-425.  
Argentina considered the D ecree of Article 29 para. 2 in  the national constitution, 
which provided to the Executive the power to expedite and implement the laws and 
could not alter the spirit of the provision in  question.  With regard to implementing 
the AD and CVD Agreements, treaties adopted by the Congress had precedence over the laws. 
(b) Question 2:  The definitions of dumping, s ubsidies and like products were contained 
in the respective Agreements, regulated by Decree 1393 of 2008 and other 
regulations.  In Decree 1088 of 2001, th e definitions were extracted from the 
Agreements but this Decree ha d never entered into force.  
(c) Question 3:  In its determination of inju ry and causality, Argentina considered that 
the definitions and provisions provided by the Agreements were sufficient.  Argentina 
considered the precedents of WTO panels a nd the decisions of the Appellate Body in 
these determinations.   
(d) Question 4:  Argentina calculated minimum f.o.b. export values given the domestic 
manufacturing price in its injury analy ses.  This practice was established with 
Article 9.1 of law 24-425. 
(e) Question 5:  Argentina, through the law 24-425, internalized the Uruguay Round 
Agreements, which formed the legal fram ework and definitions of the Agreement 
used this as a reference. 
(f) Question 6:  (a)  Argentina included public summaries of documents so that all 
parties could have an idea of the content in order to exercise their rights of defence.  
(b)  The nature of confidential informa tion meant it had to be provided in public 
summaries.  These were included in the case file, which was available to all parties.  
(c)  In Annex 7 of the Decree of 2003, a ll public information in the file could be 
consulted in person by all interested par ties in accordance with that decree.  More 
information was available on a website whic h Argentina would provide in writing in 
its reply to the United States' questions.   
(g) Question 7:  In the previous stage, Arge ntina defined "product under investigation" 
and "like product" according to the AD a nd SCM Agreements.  Argentina reviewed 
the domestic industry to provide sufficient proof of injury and causality.  However, once the investigation began, all interest ed parties could make comments on the 
definition of "like product" and it could be adjusted later in the investigation.   
(h) Question 8:  This question would be answ ered in the meeting of the Committee on 
Anti-Dumping Practices. 
(i) Question 9:  This question also would be answered in the meeting of the Committee 
on Anti-Dumping Practices.  With regard to the SCM Agreement, Article 12 stated that parties were supposed to hold cons ultations, which meant that parties and 
interested Members could present informa tion orally and later provide the same 
information in writing.  Article 20 of Decree 1393 of 2008 proposed what was G/SCM/M/69 
Page 4  
 
  established in the SCM Agreement and provide d that the investigating authority on its 
own initiative could convene a meeting of the parties. 
(j) Question 10:  The decree of administrative procedures 1759 of 1992 enabled the 
investigating authority to bring together the parties to ask for judicial review of the dispute.  This law on administrative procedures had been notified in a timely manner 
to the WTO.   
(k) Question 11:  The delegate from Argentina st ated that the resolutions published in the 
official journal could be consulted on the website of the government of Argentina. 
12. Regarding Question 1 posed by Turkey, the delega te of Argentina stated that the initiation of 
the investigation depended on the date of the initia tion, which was the date that was included in the 
official bulletin.  Regarding Question 2, he stated th at the investigation had to be completed within 10 
months of initiation, but in exceptional circumstanc es, this could be extended to 18 months.  This 
maximum period was in accordance with Article 5.10  of the AD Agreement.  Regarding Question 3 
on provisional measures, he stated that, in accord ance with the AD Agreement, the period for which 
provisional measures would apply was the shortest possible period but not to exceed 4 months, or 
depending on the decision of the investigating auth ority and upon request of the exporters, not to 
exceed 6 months.  On Question 4, he stated that the definitions of dumping, in jury and subsidies could 
be found in the Decree of 2008, making it unnecessary to repeat this in the regulations. 
13. The delegate of the European Communities
 thanked the delegate of Argentina for his 
explanations.  The delegate of the European Commun ities also stated that the explanation provided by 
the delegation of Argentina with regard to Ques tion 2 indicated that the guidelines mentioned in 
Argentina's Decree had been adopt ed and asked whether it was so. 
14. The delegate of Argentina  stated that such guidelines had been adopted. 
15. The delegates of Turkey  and the United States  expressed appreciation for the explanations 
presented by Argentina. 
16. The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
2. Brazil 
17. The Chairman  stated that the Committee had before it a notification from Brazil of two 
circulars with regard to treating certain Memb ers as market economy countries for purposes of anti-
dumping and countervailing duty investigations.  This notification appeared in document 
G/SCM/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.2 of 27 February 2009. 
18. The delegate of Brazil  stated that their legislation aimed at providing transparency on how the 
countries with a centrally-planned economy would be  treated in countervailing duty investigations 
and that Brazil was ready to answer other Members' questions. 
19. The delegate of the European Communities  expressed appreciation for the fact that Brazil 
recognized some Eastern European countries as mark et economies.  But he raised a concern regarding 
other Eastern European countries that were not incl uded in Brazil's legislation and stated that his 
delegation would continue bilateral cons ultations with Brazil on this matter. 
20. The delegate of Brazil  took note of the statements made by the delegate of the European 
Communities and stated that he would pass them on to his capital.  G/SCM/M/69 
 Page 5 
 
 
  21. The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
3. Dominican Republic 
22. The Chairman  stated that the Committee had received a notification from the Dominican 
Republic which concerned the Implementing Regulations  for Law No. 1-02 on Unfair Trade Practices 
and Safeguard Measures.  This notifica tion had been circulated in document 
G/SCM/N/1/DOM/2/Suppl.1 dated 4 March 2009. 
23. The delegate of the Dominican Republic  stated that this was the notification of the 
Implementing Regulations for Law No. 1-02 on Unfa ir Trade Practices and Safeguard Measures for 
transparency purposes and that its delegation was re ady to answer any questions that Members might 
have. 
24. The Committee took note  of the statement made. 
4. Honduras 
25. The Chairman  stated that through document G/SCM/N/1/HND/3, dated 16 March 2009, 
Honduras had notified the Central American Re gulations on Unfair Business Practices.  
5. Panama 
26. The Chairman stated that Panama had notified its Executive Decree No. 1 of 8 January 2009 
"Regulating Decree Law No. 7 of 15 February 2006 , which established rules for the protection and 
safeguarding of national production and enacti ng other provisions" circulated in document 
G/SCM/N/1/PAN/2/Suppl.1 dated 28 January 2009. 
27. The delegate of Panama  stated that his delegation had no special comments to make and that 
it would be happy to take any questions from Memb ers regarding the Regulating Decree Law No. 7 of 
2006. 
28. The Committee took note  of the statement made. 
6. Saudi Arabia 
29. The Chairman  stated that document G/SCM/N/1/ SAU/1 dated 11 March 2009 contained 
Saudi Arabia's notification to the effect that it did not have any legisla tion on countervailing duty 
investigations. 
30. The delegate of Saudi Arabia  stated that the latter had no law or regulation on countervailing 
duties but the GCC had such laws which were under re view.  The delegate of Saudi Arabia added that 
the GCC legislation would be notified to th e WTO as soon as the revision was completed. 
31. The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
B. NATIONAL LEGISLATION – CONTINUED REVIEW OF PREVIOUS LY REVIEWED NOTIFICATIONS OF 
LEGISLATION OR REGULATIONS  
32. The Chairman  stated that the procedures contained in G/SCM/W/293 for the review of 
countervailing duty legislation also provided that  the Committee would revert to a previously 
reviewed legislative notification if written questions  were submitted on such notification not later than 
six weeks in advance of the meeting.   G/SCM/M/69 
Page 6  
 
  33. Pursuant to this provision, and in light of written questions posed by the delegation of the 
United States and the European Communities, the Committee had before it at this meeting notifications of countervailing duty legislation from Albania, El Salvador, Panama and Ukraine. 
1. Albania 
34. The Chairman drew the Committee's attention to  the answers of Albania, circulated in 
document G/SCM/Q1/ALB/7 & Suppl.1, to questions  posed by the United States, the European 
Communities and the Separate Customs Territory of  Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu, circulated 
in documents G/SCM/Q1/ALB/4, G/SCM/Q1/A LB/5 and G/SCM/Q1/ALB/6, respectively. 
35. Subsequently, the United States had submitted questions to Albania, circulated in document 
G/SCM/Q1/ALB/8 to which Albania had su bmitted responses, circulated in document 
G/SCM/Q1/ALB/9.  The European Communities had also submitted further questions to Albania, 
circulated in document G/SCM/Q1/ALB/10 to which Albania had submitted responses, circulated in document G/SCM/Q1/ALB/11. 
36. The delegate of the European Communities
 thanked Albania for its written replies.  The 
European Communities had no follow-up questions.  
37. The delegate of the United States  thanked Albania for its replies and stated that his delegation 
had no follow-up questions. 
38. The delegate of the Separate Customs Terr itory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu  stated 
that his delegation's question to Albania concerned similar products and that the reply provided by 
Albania was very useful.  He thanked th e delegation of Albania for their reply. 
39. The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
2. El Salvador 
40. The Chairman  stated that the Committee had before it replies submitted by El Salvador, 
circulated in document G/SCM/Q1/SLV/5 to questi ons posed by the United States, circulated in 
document G/SCM/Q1/SLV/4.   
41. The United States had submitted further questio ns regarding El Salvador's legislative 
notification, circulated in document G/SCM/Q1/SLV /6.  El Salvador had re plied to these questions 
shortly before this meeting.  El Salvador's repli es had been circulated in document G/SCM/Q1/SLV/7.  
Copies of this document were available at the back  of the room for the information of delegations. 
42. The delegate of the United States  stated that his delegation had not yet looked at El Salvador's 
latest replies and that it would inform the Committee of further questions that it might have. 
43. The Committee took note  of the statement made. 
3. Panama  
44. The Chairman  stated that Panama had submitted written replies, circulated in document 
G/SCM/Q1/PAN/7, to the questions posed by th e United States which had been circulated in 
document G/SCM/Q1/PAN/5.  Subsequently, the Un ited States had submitted further questions to 
Panama, circulated in document G/SCM/Q1/PAN /8, to which Panama had submitted responses, 
circulated in document G/SCM/Q1/PAN/9.    G/SCM/M/69 
 Page 7 
 
 
  45. The delegate of the United States  thanked the delegation of Panama for its replies and stated 
that his delegation did not have further questions. 
46. The Committee took note  of the statement made. 
4. Ukraine 
47. The Chairman  stated that the Committee had before  it Ukraine's replies, circulated in 
documents G/SCM/Q1/UKR/5 and G/SCM/Q1/UKR/6, to questions submitted by the United States 
and the European Communities, ci rculated in documents G/SCM/Q1/UKR/3 and G/SCM/Q1/UKR/2 
and Addendum 1, respectively. 
48. Subsequently, the United States had submitte d further questions regarding Ukraine's 
notification of its countervailing duty legisla tion which had been circulated in document 
G/SCM/Q1/UKR/7.  Ukraine had submitted its repli es to these questions, circulated in document 
G/SCM/Q1/UKR/8.   
49. The delegate of the United States  thanked the delegation of Ukraine for its replies and stated 
that his delegation did not have further questions. 
50. The delegate of the European Communities  thanked the delegation of Ukraine for its replies 
and stated that his delegation did not have further questions. 
51. The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
C. SEMI -ANNUAL REPORTS OF COUNTERVAILING DUTY ACTIONS  
52. The Chairman  stated that a request to submit se mi-annual reports for the period 1 July – 
31 December 2008, to be submitted not later than 9 March 2009, had been circulated in document 
G/SCM/N/185, dated  13 January 2009.  Australia, Brazil, Canada, the European Communities, Japan, 
New Zealand, South Africa, Turkey and the Un ited States had submitted semi-annual reports on 
countervailing duty actions taken durin g this period.  These semi-annual reports were contained in the 
addendum to G/SCM/N/185.  Members which ha d notified that they have not taken any 
countervailing duty action during th e period July-December 2008 were listed in paragraph 2 of 
document G/SCM/N/185/Add.1, which had been circ ulated on 27 April 2009.  The Secretariat had 
informed the Chairman that Surinam and Oman should be added to this list.  
53. The Chairman stated that, as reflected in paragr aph 3 of the same document, there remained a 
large number of Members that had not submitted a se mi-annual report and that thus failed to comply 
with this important notification requirement.   
54. There were no comments or questions on any of the semi-annual reports.  
55. The Committee took note  of the Chairman's statement. 
D. NOTIFICATIONS OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL COUNTERVAILING DUTY ACTIONS  
56. The Chairman  stated that Article 25.11 of the SCM Agreement required Members to submit 
reports of any preliminary and/or final countervaili ng duty actions taken.  Since the last regular 
meeting, the Committee had received such reports  from Canada, Japan, the European Communities 
and the United States.  These notifications had been listed in documents G/SCM/N/187-190.  G/SCM/M/69 
Page 8  
 
  57. The delegate of China
 made a brief comment with respect to the notifications of the 
United States under item D of the meeting.  The dele gation of China was particularly concerned with 
the increasing information requirement of the USDOC  concerning the ownership information of the 
input suppliers of the respondents in the notified c ountervailing duty investigati ons with respect to the 
imports from China, and the lack of ample opportunity for the interested Member to provide evidence.  
For instance, in the circular welded carbon quality steel line pipe case, the Chinese Government had 
provided the ownership information based on the business registration forms of 250 hot-rolled steel 
suppliers, which had already been deemed by the USDOC as sufficient for purposes of establishing 
the ownership of the companies under investigation in previous cases.  However, in that case, the 
USDOC had rejected this information provided and resorted to adverse facts available, simply 
because China had not provided the capital verifica tion reports and articles of association of those 
suppliers at verification at such short notice by the USDOC. 
58. The delegate of China stated that this was not consistent with Article 12.7 of the SCM 
Agreement which stated that only when the in terested Members did not provide the necessary 
information within a reasonable period or significan tly impedes the investigation, the determination 
may be made on the basis of the facts available.  China had not been given a reasonable period of time 
to provide the additional information requested by the USDOC, however this had not significantly impeded the investigation. 
59. Another example was the countervailing duty investigation concerning certain kitchen 
appliance shelving, where the USDOC requested th e Government of China to provide a complete 
English translation for capital verification reports and annual financial reports of  all input suppliers of 
the respondents, instead of providing partial tran slation for the areas which were relevant and 
necessary to this investigation. 
60. The delegate of China stated that her delega tion would appreciate it if the United States 
provided an initial response on this. 
61. The delegate of the United States
 thanked the delegate of China for her questions.  He stated 
that the questions were very deta iled and technical.  The delegate of  the United States invited China to 
submit these questions in writing whereupon the Unite d States would respond in writing.  However, 
as a general matter, the delegate of the United Stat es stated that the USDOC's  request for information 
was a reasonable one.  The USDOC had provided an extension to China when this was requested.  
The delegate of the United States stated that the question of ownership in China was a difficult one, 
particularly when one dealt with hundreds of input suppliers.  Thus, there would be a large amount of 
information to be provided so that a determination could be made. 
62. The delegate of China  thanked the delegation of the United States for its response.  She stated 
that her delegation hoped that the USDOC could k eep in mind the rationality and validity in its 
information collection in countervailing duty investiga tions, make sure interested Members or parties 
were given a reasonable period or  ample opportunity to provide the evidence relevant to the 
investigation, and avoid bringing an unnecessar y administration burden to the government of 
exporting countries.  The delegate of China also st ated that his delegation w ould provide its questions 
in writing later. 
63. The delegate of China also expressed concern with regard to the c ountervailing duty action 
notified by Canada under item D, concerning the carbon steel welded pipe from China. 
64. First, she stated that her delegation could not agree with the Canada Bo rder Service Agency's 
conclusion that the provision of hot-rolled steel by  state-owned enterprises was specific because SOEs 
were providing hot-rolled steel to a limited number of  enterprises, i.e., enterprises that used hot-rolled 
steel.  According to the SCM Agreement, the concept of specificity and a limited number of  G/SCM/M/69 
 Page 9 
 
 
  enterprises is meant to be substantial and must be limited.  In China's view, a financial contribution 
available to all purchasers of hot-rolled steel in China did not meet this legal test, bearing in mind that 
a product could not be used by all industrial sectors. 
65. Second, the delegate of China stated that they had found that there had been double counting 
of subsidies in this anti-dumping and countervailin g duty combined investigation.  On the dumping 
side, CBSA had calculated the normal value by using surrogate value, which had already covered any 
subsidy that had reduced the product cost of the r espondents.  At the same time, a subsidy on inputs 
had also been calculated in the countervailing dut y investigation, which had resulted in a double 
counting of subsidies and was inconsistent with the SCM Agreement and the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement.  The delegate of China stated that her delegation would appreciate it if Canada could 
provide some clarification on this. 
66. The delegate of Canada  thanked the delegation of China fo r its questions.  She stated that 
these questions were technical in nature and case-s pecific.  She stated that on specificity the 
determination was explained in the public statement of reasons for the carbon steel welded pipe case.  
On the allegation of double counting, the dete rmination was consistent  with Canada's WTO 
obligations.  However, because there was an ongoi ng case on this matter, the delegate of Canada 
refrained from making further comments. 
67. The delegate of China  stated that the Chinese officials ha d read the CBSA's determination in 
that case and were not satisfied with them because the reasons were too simple.  On the issue of 
double counting, China had some follow-up comments.  China had repeatedly expressed its concerns 
over the effect of double counting.  It could be not ed that Article VI paragraph 5 of GATT 1994 stated 
that no product "shall be subject to both anti-dumpi ng and countervailing duties to compensate for the 
same situation of dumping or export subsidization" .  Therefore, it was universally recognized that 
investigating authorities had an obligation to en sure that no double-counting of export subsidies 
occurred.  However, it was not clearly regulated if a domestic subsidy could be double counted and 
this new legal issue needed to be clarified.  The delegate of China stated that this would not be a 
problem in a market economy context.  However,  in a non-market economy situation, when the 
normal value was calculated based on non-subsidized surrogate value, which would be higher than the 
producers' actual cost of production and would therefor e offset the effect of any domestic subsidy, the 
investigating authorities had to make the necessary adjustments to the anti-dumping duties in order to 
avoid the double counting of domestic subsidies.  Fa ilure to do so would be inconsistent with the 
requirement of Article 9.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 19. 3 of the SCM Agreement 
that the duties be collected "in the appropriate am ounts".  Therefore, the delegation of China believed 
that both the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the SCM Agreement clearly presumed that there had to 
be no double counting of a ny subsidy, and that it was the burden of the investigating authorities to 
ensure that excessive duties were not levied agai nst exports from NME countries as a result of double 
counting.  The delegate of China also stated that  her delegation would submit its questions in writing 
later. 
68. The delegate of Canada  thanked the delegation of China fo r agreeing to submit its questions 
in writing and stated that Canada would al so respond to these questions in writing. 
69. The Committee took note  of the statements made. G/SCM/M/69 
Page 10  
 
  E. 
CHAIRMAN 'S PROPOSALS REGARDING THE STANDARD FORMAT FOR SEMI -ANNUAL REPORTS 
OF COUNTERVAILING MEASURES , AND THE MINIMUM INFORMATION TO BE PROVIDED IN 
CONNECTION WITH THE NOTIFICATION OF ALL PRELIMINARY OR FINAL COUNTERVAILING MEASURES AS REQUIRED UNDER ARTICLE 
25.11  OF THE SCM AGREEMENT  
70. The Chairman  stated that Article 25.11 of the SC M Agreement provided for notification 
obligations regarding the countervailing measures take n by WTO Members.  It stipulated: "Members 
shall report without delay to the Committee all prel iminary or final actions taken with respect to 
countervailing duties.  Such reports shall be ava ilable in the Secretariat for inspection by other 
Members.  Members shall also submit, on a semi -annual basis, reports on  any countervailing duty 
actions taken within the preceding six months.  The semi-annual reports shall be submitted on an 
agreed standard form." 
71. Article 25.11 thus provided for two types of no tifications: (1) Ad hoc notification of all 
preliminary or final actions taken with regard to  countervailing measures, and (2) Submission of semi-
annual reports showing all counter vailing duty actions taken within the preceding six month period. 
72. The Chairman stated that, on 13 June 1995, the Committee had agreed on a standard format 
(G/SCM/2) for semi-annual reports and the minimum information to be provided in reports under 
Article 25.11 of the SCM Agreemen t on all preliminary or final c ountervailing actions (G/SCM/3).  
As of the date of the meeting, Members were maki ng their notifications under Article 25.11 using the 
mentioned formats. 
73. The Chairman stated that the Anti-Dumping Agreement also prov ided for similar notification 
obligations regarding anti-dumpi ng actions.  The Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices had recently 
decided to change the formats used  for such notifications.  On  25 October 2006, that Committee had 
agreed on a new format regarding the minimum inform ation to be provided in notifications pertaining 
to preliminary or definitive anti-dumping actions (G/ADP/2/Rev.1).  On 27 October 2008, it had 
agreed on a new standard format (G/ADP/1/Rev.1 ) for semi-annual reports of anti-dumping actions 
that replaced the old format (G/ADP/1).   
74. As agreed at the regular meeting held in Oc tober 2008, the Chairman had informed Members 
in December 2008 of his intention to initiate in formal consultations to discuss whether the SCM 
Committee should follow the initiative taken in th e Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices and make 
corresponding modifications to the standard fo rmat for semi-annual reports of countervailing 
measures, and the minimum information to be prov ided in connection with the notification of all 
preliminary or final countervailing measures as re quired under Article 25.11 of the SCM Agreement. 
75. Subsequently, on 29 January 2009, the Chairm an had submitted, for the consideration of 
delegations, proposals for a revision of the standard  format for semi-annual reports and regarding the 
minimum information to be provided in connection w ith ad hoc notifications, circulated as JOB(09)/3.  
The proposed format aimed at am ending the existing standard form at for semi-annual reports and the 
minimum information to be provided in connection w ith the notification of all preliminary or final 
countervailing actions in a manner as far as possible c onsistent with the new formats adopted by the 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices. 
76. The Chairman stated that he had invited Members to submit their comments on these two 
proposals by 23 February 2009.  Australia, Cana da and Hong Kong, China had submitted written 
comments.   
77. At the meeting of the Committee on 23 March 2009 where informal consultations were held 
on "ways to improve the timeliness and completeness of notifications and other information flows on 
trade measures" in the context of the SCM Agreem ent, Members had also discussed the Chairman's  G/SCM/M/69 
 Page 11 
 
 
  proposals circulated in document JOB(09)/3.  In  light of these discussions, the Chairman had 
circulated, in document JOB(09)/3.Rev.1 and Corr.1 , dated 6 April 2009, a revised version of his 
proposals.  He had given Members until 23 April 2009 to make comments on these revised proposals.  
No written comments had been received by this dead line.  Several Members had orally expressed that 
they had no comments. 
78. The Chairman opened the floor for delegations wishing to make comments on the Chair's 
revised proposals for a revision of the standard format for semi-annual reports and regarding the 
minimum information to be provided in connection with ad hoc notifications. 
79. The delegate of Canada  stated that her delegation supported the proposed revisions to the 
notification formats.  Canada had some questions  and had raised them with respect to how to 
complete the reports in the new format.  The delega te of Canada proposed to change the term "amount 
of subsidization" in the proposed new formats to "am ount of subsidy" in order to conform to the text 
of Article 14 of the SCM Agreement. 
80. The delegate of Turkey  expressed agreement with Canada's suggestion.  In addition, with 
regard to the table on original investigations, he re ferred to the expression "all original investigations 
initiated or opened" and asked the differen ce was between "initiated" and "opened". 
81. The delegate of Japan  stated that Japan attached importance to this issue with a view to 
enhancing the transparency of countervailing measu res.  She expressed appreciation for the Chair's 
efforts for conducting serious and effective consulta tions since the Committee's meeting in October 
2008, and stated that her delegation supported th e draft semi-annual format on CVD actions as 
contained in (JOB(09)/3/Rev.1). 
82. The delegate of the European Communities  thanked the Chair for his efforts and proposed to 
adopt the changes to the notification formats at th e meeting, taking into c onsideration Canada's and 
Turkey's comments so that the anti-dumping and co untervail changes would be applied at the same 
time. 
83. The delegate of the Separate Customs Terr itory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu  
agreed with the European Communities' proposal to adopt the draft new formats so that changes in the 
anti-dumping and countervail contexts would become effective at the same time. 
84. The delegate of Korea  expressed support for the proposed new formats and the comments 
made by Canada and Turkey. 
85. The Chairman  stated that Canada's comment regardi ng "amount of subsidy" would be taken 
into consideration but that Turkey's would not b ecause it would have legal implications.  He then 
proposed adoption of the proposed new notification formats. 
86. The delegate of the United States  stated that his delegation was still considering these 
proposed new formats in light of the changes made in  the anti-dumping context.  He stated that there 
was no officially-circulated document for adoption be fore the Committee.  He therefore proposed not 
to proceed to adoption.  He stated that his de legation believed that the Committee was close to the 
adoption of the proposed new formats.  He sugg ested the Secretariat prepare the formats for 
circulation and let the new Chair proceed to adoption without waiting for the Committee's next regular meeting. 
87. The delegate of Chile
 expressed support for the proposed new notification formats.  He stated 
that the proposed formats would enhance transpar ency.  He expressed agreement with the concerns G/SCM/M/69 
Page 12  
 
  raised by the United States and suggested the Comm ittee wait and see the implementation of the new 
notification formats in the anti-dumping context befo re adopting the new formats in this Committee. 
88. The Chairman
 stated that some Members such as Chile preferred to wait until after the 
implementation of the new notification formats in the anti-dumping context.  He stated that a new formal document would be circulated shortly afte r the meeting and the new Chair would think about 
the date of adoption.  He stated that there were  two options concerning timing: One would be to wait 
for the implementation of the new notification formats in the anti-dumping context and the second 
would be to proceed to adoption shortly after the circulation of an official document containing the 
proposed new formats.  He did not prejudge the timing of this issue. 
89. The delegate of the United States
 stated that it was not his delegation's proposal to circulate 
an official document and that its delegation just noted that there was no such document for adoption 
as yet.  In this regard, the delegate of the United States mentioned that the Committee had to take into 
account the next agenda item where the General Council Chair had requested improvements to the 
timeliness and completeness of notifications and in that context the Committee might also want to 
consider the draft format the Chairman had sugg ested, before adopting or circulating a document. 
90. The delegate of the European Communities  proposed to adopt the proposed new formats 
quickly before the next regular meeting so that they  could be used for the reporting period of the first 
half of 2009. 
91. The delegate of Canada  expressed agreement with the Eur opean Communities' approach and 
stated that her delegation wished to adopt the pr oposed new formats as soon as possible, taking into 
consideration the concerns raised. 
92. The delegate of the United States  stated that his delegation did not have specific issues about 
the proposed new formats.  It just wanted to wa it and see the experience on the anti-dumping side.  He 
stated that his delegation would have problems with  delegations using the ne w format before adoption 
by the Committee.  He stated if some Members di d that, his delegation would ask such Members to 
also submit their notifications using the old format. 
93. The Chairman  took note of the comments made.  He stat ed that he did not prejudge the timing 
of adoption and the type of official document to be  circulated.  He stated that the new Chair would 
take care of such matters. 
94. The delegate of Turkey  stated that Members should not be encouraged to use both formats for 
their notifications because this would be burdensome. 
95. The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
F. 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  
96. The Chairman  stated that on 23 March 2009, the Co mmittee had held an informal meeting, 
pursuant to a request of the Chairman of the Trad e 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.  At that mee ting, the Committee had had before it a background 
Note, circulated as JOB(09)/28, prepared by the S ecretariat on notification provisions contained in the 
SCM Agreement.  The Committee had requested the S ecretariat to prepare a revised version of its 
background Note which would explain all types of  notification obligations contained in the SCM 
Agreement and show the status of compliance with regard to each such obligation since 1995.  The  G/SCM/M/69 
 Page 13 
 
 
  revised Note prepared in response to that requ est had been circulated in document G/SCM/W/546 
dated 28 April 2009.  This note offere d a snapshot of the level of co mpliance with various notification 
obligations under the SCM Agreement since 1995. 
97. The Chairman stated that after the informal consultations held on 23 March 2009, he had sent 
a note to the Chairman of the TPRB on the progress made.  He mentioned that copies of this note 
were available at the back of the room for Members' information.  As he had explained in that note, at 
the 23 March meeting, the Committee had first di scussed proposals regarding the format for semi-
annual reports under Article 25.11 and minimum in formation in reports under Article 25.11 on all 
preliminary or final countervailing actions. 
98. With respect to the notification of counterva iling actions, some Members had suggested that 
some of the solutions highlighted in the Comm ittee on Anti-Dumping Practices, such as allowing 
Members that have no competent authorities to make  a one-off notification to that effect, could be 
transposed into the SCM Committee. 
99. The Committee had also discussed subsidy notifications. A number of Members had 
expressed concern about the poor implementation reco rd of subsidy notifications, both in terms of 
timeliness and completeness (including incomplete notification of sub-national programmes).  They 
had pointed out that the failure of many Member s, including major traders, to submit complete 
subsidy notifications on time was especially impor tant in the current global economic climate. 
100. The Chairman stated that, in response to a suggestion by many Members, on 31 March 2009, 
he had sent reminder letters to the 87 Members th at had not yet submitted their 2007 new and full 
subsidy notifications. 
101. He reported at the close of the 23 March meeting that he would give the Members the 
opportunity to make further comments on this ma tter in the Committee's regular meeting in May. 
102. The delegate of Korea  stated that Korea had submitted its 2007 new and full subsidy 
notification and asked that Annex B in do cument G/SCM/W/546 be amended accordingly. 
103. The Chairman  stated that Korea's notification had been received after the circulation of this 
document. 
104. The delegate of Japan  stated that her delegation welcomed the initiative of the General 
Council Chair and the TPRB Chair to improve notif ications and other information flows on trade 
measures, given the recent rise in protectionist measures under the current economic crisis in the 
world.  She thanked the Secretariat for preparing a revised version of the background note.  She stated that Japan thought that it was necessary to ensure Members' obligation of notifications, notably on 
subsidies given the poor record seen in the backgro und note.  She stated that Japan was prepared to 
discuss with other Members how the SCM Committee w ould be able to work on the improvement of 
notifications. 
105. The delegate of the European Communities
 thanked the Chairman for the preparation of 
document G/SCM/W/546.  He stated that poor compliance with notification obligations was a 
problem.  He drew attention to increased safeguard  measures against the European Communities.  He 
proposed amending Annex A to the annual report of th e Committee in order to indicate the last time a 
Member made a subsidy notification.  He also propo sed to have an agenda item in the next special 
meeting of the Committee to analyze the effect of subsidy notifications with respect to each Member. 
106. The delegate of the United States  expressed appreciation to th e Secretariat for its background 
note entitled "Notification Requirements Under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing G/SCM/M/69 
Page 14  
 
  Measures."  He stated that the United States recognized that the pr eparation of this document was 
labour intensive, but it would prove useful as a revi ew mechanism to examine the various formats in 
place.  He stated that it was useful to have a comp endium of notification-rela ted obligations before the 
Committee as Members looked at ways to respond to  the request from the General Council Chair to 
enhance the timeliness and completeness of notifi cations.  The compendium helped all Members 
better identify where notifications and compliance could be improved. 
107. He stated that because the compendium had onl y recently been circulated, his delegation was 
still in the process of reviewing it.  However, even a cursory reading of the document indicated that 
the record of Members meeting their notification obl igations was a rather di smal one.  He recognized 
that the United States' record in th is regard was less than perfect.  However, as noted by the Chair, the 
United States had filed its subsidy notification fo r 2005 and 2006 the day before the meeting, which 
brought the United States up to date in meeting its notification obligations.  This notification 
contained information on dozens of federal progr ammes and, over 600 sub-federal programmes.   
108. After giving the various federal government agencies, as well as its fifty states that had 
contributed to this latest notification, a brief r est, the United States would turn its attention to the 
notification for 2007 and 2008.  While the United Stat es' record was less than  perfect, many other 
Members had a record that was quite disturbing, and indeed, raised very serious systemic concerns.  
The delegate of the United States stated that many Members that had not  notified were least 
developed countries with very significant resource constraints and with relatively small shares of 
world trade.  However, numerous large exporters had not submitted a single notification in over a 
decade, some even longer.  One such large exporter had only submitted a single notification, fourteen 
years ago, in 1995.  This is a situation which simply  must be improved by the Membership.  He stated 
that those that benefited the most from a rules-b ased trading system had to recognize that along with 
rights came obligations.  More specifically, he stated  that in its preliminary reading of the Chair's 
document, his delegation had noted in Annex C that there had been a considerable number of requests 
for information under Article 25.8.  The delegate  of the United States made two suggestions for 
improvement: (1) including a list of the countries to  whom requests had been made; and (2) indicating 
the requests that remained outstanding.  He asked that the Secretariat improve Annex C by providing 
this additional information, consis tent with the approach taken by the Chair in identifying countries 
that had not been timely in submitting new and full subs idy notifications.  In this regard, he also stated 
that as part of the notification review exercise it  would be useful to consider how to make the 
Article 25.8 mechanism more effective.  The United States also believed that the Chair's report should 
contain information with respect to those Members that had, and had not notified subsidies provided 
at the sub-federal level.  Often significant progr ammes were developed and implemented at the sub-
federal level and yet went unreported. 
109. Additionally, the delegate of the United States expressed appreciation for the Chair’s work in 
developing a draft format for semi-annual CVD notif ications.  The United States realized that the 
work on the CVD semi-annual format in many ways had derived from a desire to maintain a certain 
consistency with the new format for the antidum ping semi-annual notifications.  The United States 
strongly supported that objective, but also felt th at the Committee needed to reconsider the draft 
format in light of the General Council Chair’s re quest for enhanced timeliness and completeness.  
While the draft format clearly had elements that  would make important c ontributions to improve 
transparency, the United States believe d that there could be room to do even more.  The delegate of 
the United States stated, for instance, that in th e anti-dumping semi-annual report template, there was 
a column to indicate how the "normal value" was calculated.  Yet in the proposed template for 
countervailing duty cases, investigating Members we re not even required to notify the subsidy 
programmes that had led to the countervailing duty or der, even though this information was regularly 
included in determinations.  Provision of this in formation would supplement the ability of Members to 
identify potential subsidy progra mmes and determine whether the programmes had been notified, 
which would potentially head-off unnecessary requests for information under Article 25.8.  He stated  G/SCM/M/69 
 Page 15 
 
 
  that his delegation looked forward to continuing in formal consultations on the semi-annual format and 
on improving the other notifications to this Comm ittee in the coming months.  The delegate of the 
United States also supported the European Commun ities' proposal to include listing in the annual 
report of all Members behind in their notifications and the last year in which they notified.   
110. The delegate of India  stated that his delegation supported all steps taken on this matter.  He 
mentioned that adoption of the new notification fo rmats for countervailing measures would also be a 
good idea.  However, he stated th at there was a discord between wh at Members were saying and what 
was happening in real world.  He stated that the bailout programmes recently initiated by some 
Members also had to be notified to the Committe e.  He stated that these programmes concerned 
billions of dollars.  He also stated that a lot of the programmes maintained by India were being 
countervailed although they did not co nstitute subsidies.  He stated that India had not conducted many 
countervailing duty cases.  Noting that the delega te of the European Communities referred to 
safeguards, the delegate of India drew attention to  the relationship between tariffs and subsidies and 
stated that India did not have money to give subsidi es.  He stated that India could use trade remedies 
but added that such measures should not be misused.  He stated that his delegation would try to meet 
the deadline for their subsidy notification. 
111. The delegate of the European Communities  stated that there was no doubt that subsidies were 
increasing and therefore Article 25.8 would play a more important role in the coming years.  He expressed support for the United States' proposal and al so suggested to maintain on the agenda of the 
regular meeting the requests for information made pursuant to Article 25.8 until the Member receiving 
such request responds to it. 
112. The Chairman
 thanked the delegations that took the floor and offered their views on "ways to 
improve the timeliness and completeness of notif ications and other information flows on trade 
measures" in the context of the SCM Agreement.  He  stated that he would forward the updated report 
to the Chairman of the TPRB and thanked the Unite d States and Korea for their recent notifications. 
113. The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
G. CONSTANT DOLLAR METHODOLOGY FOR GRADUATION FROM SCM ANNEX VII(B)   
114. The Chairman  stated 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 had 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 re ached US$1,000 in constant 1990 dollars for three 
consecutive years - as of 1 January 2003, the methodology set forth in G/SCM/38, Appendix 2 
applied.  In 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 th e Secretariat had circulated Notes updating 
GNP per capita for Members listed in Annex VII(b ).  Those notes were contained in documents 
G/SCM/110 & /Add.1, 2 and 3 and Corr.1, Add.4 and Add. 5.  The Chairman informed Members that the Secretariat would circulate new updated calcula tions when the necessary World Bank data became 
available.  
115. The Committee took note
 of the Chairman's statement. 
H. PERMANENT GROUP OF EXPERTS  
116. The Chairman  stated that the term of Mr. Petersen  as member of the Permanent Group of 
Experts would expire in the Spring of 2009 and that  his position needed to be filled.  He drew 
Members' attention to document G/SCM/128, ci rculated on 27 April 2009, which explained the 
process he had followed on this matter.  As indicated in that document, he had held informal G/SCM/M/69 
Page 16  
 
  consultations with Members on the two names pr oposed by the European Communities and Singapore 
to replace Mr. Petersen, with a view to deciding on the one name to be proposed to the Committee. 
117. He stated that, as indicated in document G/SCM/ 128, as a result of his informal consultations, 
he had decided to propose Mr. Gérard Depayre to fill Mr. Peterson's position.  He stated that most of 
the Members he had contacted on this issue expressed the view that both candidates were perfectly 
qualified for the job.  He tha nked both delegations for putting forward these two names, and all 
delegations with which he had conducted informal c onsultations on this matter for their constructive 
cooperation. 
118. Based on his informal consultations and cons iderations, the Chairman proposed that the 
Committee select Mr. Gérard Depayre to replace Mr. Peterson as a member of the Permanent Group 
of Experts. 
119. The Committee selected Mr. Gérard Depayre as a member of the Permanent Group of 
Experts. 
120. On behalf of all Members, the Chairman congr atulated Mr. Depayre and wished him the best 
of success as a member of the Permanent Group of Experts. 
I. 
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  
121. The Chairman stated that the General Counc il Decision adopted on 27 July 2007 regarding 
procedures for the continuation of extensions of the transition period for the elimination of export 
subsidies by certain developing country Memb ers (WT/L/691) required that the Committee conduct 
an annual review, based on annual updating notifica tions submitted by the Members concerned, to 
verify that the requirements of paragraphs 2 and 3 of that Decision were being fulfilled.  He 
mentioned that, at its meeting of 29 October 2008,  the Committee had agreed to request the Members 
concerned to provide such updating notifications for calendar year 2008 not later than 30 June 2009.  
At that meeting, the Chairman of the Committee ha d drawn Members' attentio n to paragraph 2(a) of 
the General Council Decision, which provided that  "[b]eginning with the updating notifications 
covering calendar year 2008, notifying Members also shall provide information regarding the actions 
they have taken pursuant to 1(e) and 1(f)." 
122. The Chairman reminded those Members which we re benefiting from continued extensions of 
the transition period for the elimination of expor t subsidies on the basis of the General Council 
Decision that their updating notifications due on 30 June 2009 should contain information regarding 
actions taken pursuant to paragra phs 1(e) and 1(f) of that Decision.  He also stated that, on 
4 May 2009, he had had a very useful informal discu ssion on this issue with the delegates of some of 
the Members that were benefiting fro m extensions under Article 27.4. 
123. The delegate of El Salvador  stated that Members benefiting from these extensions were aware 
of their obligations in connection with the forthcoming notifications this year. 
124. The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
J. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING  
125. The Chairman  proposed that the next regular meet ing of the Committee take place in the 
week of 2 November 2009.  It was so agreed .  G/SCM/M/69 
 Page 17 
 
 
  K. ELECTION OF OFFICERS  
126. The Chairman  stated that, as Members were aware, th e 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 fo r Trade in Goods.  With regard to this 
Committee, the Chairman of the Goods Council had proposed the nomination of 
Mr. Raimondas Alisauskas of Lithuania. 
127. The Committee elected Mr. Alisauskas as Chair, by acclamation. 
128. The Chairman stated that he had conducted informal consultations with Members on the 
election of a Vice Chairperson.  As a result of such consultations, he proposed Mr. Adrian Daniel 
Serra of Argentina as Vice-Chair. 
129. The Committee elected Mr. Serra as Vice-Chair, by acclamation. 
130.  The Chairman expressed appreciation for the ha rmonious and constructive dealings that he 
had had with the Members of the Committee duri ng his term.  He thanked Mr. Johann Human, 
Director of the Rules Division, for his support and cooperation.  He stated that the Director General also acknowledged the importance of the work done in this Committee. 
131. The delegate of Singapore
 thanked the Chairman for circulating document G/SCM/128 and 
for the consultations he had held regarding the election of the member of the Permanent Group of 
Experts.  He stated that the Chairman had done hi s best on this important matter.  He stated that 
during the term of the Chairman, many positions in the Permanent Group of Experts had been filled.  
He also thanked other Members for their considera tion of Singapore's candidate.  He congratulated 
Mr. Depayre and stated that he would be an asset to the Permanent Group of Experts..  He also 
congratulated the delegation of the European Communities. 
132. The delegate of the United States  welcomed the new Chair and Vice-Chair of the Committee.  
He expressed appreciation for the work done by th e Chair over the previous year.  He stated that 
several Chairs had failed to fill even one position in the Permanent Group of Experts and that the 
Chairman had selected five in a single term.  This was remarkable.  He expressed gratitude to Mark 
Koulen for the job he had done and stated that his good spirit would always be remembered. 
133. The delegate of Turkey  thanked the Chair for the job he  had done and welcomed the new 
Chair and Vice-Chair. 
134. The Chairman  adjourned the regular meeting of the Committee. 
 
__________