 
 RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SCM/M/49 
9 July 2004 
 
 (04-2973) 
Committee on Subsidies 
and Countervailing Measures  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING 
HELD ON 29 APRIL 2004 
 
Chairperson:  Ms. Olga Lozano (Colombia) 
 
 
1. The Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures ("the Committee") held a special 
meeting on 29 April 2004. 
2. The purpose of the meeting, as set forth in  airgrams WTO/AIR/2231 and WTO/AIR/2299, 
was to review the 2003 new and full subsidy not ifications of Antigua and Barbuda;  Armenia; 
Australia;  Barbados;  Belize;  Brazil;  Bulgaria;  Colombia;  Costa Rica;  Cuba;  Dominica; Dominican Republic;  El Salvador;  European Comm unities;  Fiji;  Granada;  Guatemala;  Honduras; 
Hong Kong, China;  Iceland;  Japan;  Jordan;  Li echtenstein;  Madagascar;  Mauritius;  Morocco; 
Myanmar;  Norway;  New Zealand;  Panama;  Papua New Guinea;  St Kitts and Nevis;  Saint Vincent 
and the Grenadines;  Saint Lucia;  Singapore;  Sl ovenia;  South Africa;  Suriname;  Thailand;  
United States and Uruguay.  The airgrams in que stion specified that Members wishing to pose 
questions regarding the notifications listed were to  do so no later than 15 January 2004 and that the 
responses to those questions were to be submitted no later than 15 March 2004. 
3. The Chairperson
 recalled that, in accordance with the procedures for review of 2003 new and 
full subsidy notifications, as contained in docum ent G/SCM/W/524 adopted at the Committee meeting 
in May 2003, those subsidy notifications were to be  reviewed in three special meetings to be held 
back-to-back with the Committee's regular meetings  in autumn 2003 and in spring and autumn 2004.  
The meeting of 29 April 2004 was the second of that series of meetings.  Pursuant to the above procedures, only notifications distributed in all thr ee working languages not less than 19 weeks before 
the meeting could be reviewed at that meeti ng.  Accordingly, the Committee had before it 
41 notifications that had been distributed before that  date.  The review of s ubsidy notifications was to 
be conducted on the basis of written questions and answers provided before the meeting.  Available 
questions and answers were included in the docum ent package.  As indicated in the airgram, 
delegations had been asked to bring their own copies  of the relevant documents because of the volume 
of material involved.  The Chairperson recalled th at, in conformity with the rules of procedure 
established by the Committee, any Member that failed to submit written responses within the 
prescribed deadline of 15 March 2004 was required to  present its answers in full, orally, at the 
meeting.  Members were not required to do so when questions had been received after the deadline, in 
the present case after 15 January 2004.  In any even t, the Chairperson intended to urge the Member 
concerned to respond orally at the meeting to quest ions received after the deadline, insofar as it was 
able to do so.  
4. Turning to the notification of Australia
, as contained in document G/SCM/N/95/AUS, the 
European Communities and the United States ha d submitted written questions concerning that 
notification in documents G/SCM/Q2/AUS/23 and /24.   Australia had responded to the questions of 
the European Communities and the United States.   The responses were contained in document 
G/SCM/Q2/AUS/25.  No additional questions or comments were raised at the Committee meeting. G/SCM/M/49 
Page 2  
 
 5. The notification of Brazil
 was contained in document G/SCM/N/95/BRA.  The United States 
had submitted written questions re garding that notification in document G/SCM/Q2/BRA/11.  No 
written responses to the questions posed by th e United States have been received to date . 
6. The delegate of the United States  indicated that two aspects were of particular interest to the 
US delegation.  First, in connection with  the BNDES programme, it was his delegation's 
understanding that the programme was limited to exporte rs despite the fact that, in its oral response, 
the delegation of Brazil had affirmed that the pr ogramme was non-specific.  The delegate of the 
United States pointed out that, according to Article 2 of the Agreement, the programme appeared to 
be specific in that it was contingent upon expor t performance.  Concerning the FINAME programme, 
the US delegation was interested to know whethe r the programme provided be nefits contingent upon 
the use of domestic products in preference to importe d products.  The delegate of the United States 
asked Brazil to address those points in its answer s to the questions posed by his delegation. 
7. The delegate of Brazil  invited the delegation of the United States to submit its questions in 
writing. 
8. The next notification on the Committee's agenda was that of Bulgaria , as contained in 
document G/SCM/N/95/BGR.  The United States had posed written questions concerning that 
notification in document G/SCM/Q2/BGR/4.  Bulgaria  had responded to the questions in document 
G/SCM/Q2/BGR/5.  No further questions or comme nts were raised during the Committee meeting.  
9. The notification of the European Communities  was to be found in documents 
G/SCM/N/95/EEC and /Add. 1-15.  Japan and the United States had posed written questions 
concerning that notification in documents G/ SCM/Q2/EEC/42, /43, and /43/Suppl. 1.  No written 
responses to the questions posed by Japan and the United States have been received to date . 
10. The notification of the United States  was to be found in document G/SCM/N/95/USA.  
Canada and the European Communities had posed wr itten questions concerning that notification in 
documents G/SCM/Q2/USA/28, /28/Suppl.1 and /2 9.  The United States had responded to certain 
questions raised in documents G/SCM/Q2/USA/28 and /29, which could be  consulted in document 
G/SCM/Q2/USA/30.  No written responses to the questions  posed by Canada in document 
G/SCM/Q2/USA/28/Suppl.1 or to certain questio ns posed by the European Communities in 
G/SCM/Q2/USA/29 have been received to date . 
11. The following notification on the Committee's agenda was that of Fiji , which could be 
consulted in document G/SCM/N/95/FJI.  The European Communities and the United States had 
posed written questions concerning that notification in documents G/SCM/Q2/FJI/6-7 and /10.  Fiji 
had responded to the questions raised by the European Communities and the United States in 
documents G/SCM/Q2/FJI/8-9 and /11.  No furthe r questions or comments were raised during the 
Committee meeting. 
12. The Committee examined the notification by Grenada , which could be consulted in document 
G/SCM/N/95/GRD.  In the context of examination of  the request for extension of the transition period 
for the phasing out of export subsidies submitted by Grenada, the European Communities had posed 
questions that were to be found in document G/SCM/Q3/GRD/8.  Grenada had responded to those 
questions in double-symbol document G/SCM/Q3/GRD/9 and G/SCM/Q2/GRD/1.  No further questions or comments were raised during the Committee meeting. 
13. The next notification on the Committe e's agenda was that of Honduras
.  The notification was 
contained in a document bearing the symbols G/SCM/N/38/HND-G/SCM/N/48/HND-
G/SCM/N/60/HND-G/SCM/N/71/HND-G/SCM/N/95/HND.  The Chairperson reiterated her 
proposal, as set out in the annotated draft age nda for the Committee's spring meeting, that  G/SCM/M/49 
 Page 3 
 
 
 examination of the notifications of Honduras co rresponding to previous periods (1998-2001) should 
be conducted simultaneously with th at of the 2003 new and full notification, since all the notifications 
were contained in the aforementioned document.  In the absence of any objection on the part of 
Members, the examination was conducted as proposed.  The United States had posed written questions in document G/SCM/Q2/HND/3.  The responses had been circulated in document 
G/SCM/Q2/HND/4. 
14. The Committee examined the notification of Iceland
, which could be consulted in document 
G/SCM/N/95/ISL.  The United States had posed a written question concerning that notification in document G/SCM/Q2/ISL/9.  Iceland had responded to  the question in document  G/SCM/Q2/ISL/10.  
No further questions or comments were  raised during the Committee meeting. 
15. The following notification on the Co mmittee's agenda was that of Japan
, as contained in 
document G/SCM/N/95/JPN.  The European Communities and the United States had posed written questions concerning that notification in documents  G/SCM/Q2/JPN/35 and /36, to which Japan had 
responded in documents /37 and /38, respectively.  No further questions or comments were raised 
during the Committee meeting. 
16. The Committee examined the notification of Jordan
, as contained in documents 
G/SCM/N/95/JOR and /Suppl.1.  The United States  had posed a written question concerning that 
notification in document G/SCM/Q2/JOR/1.  Jordan  had responded to the question in document  
G/SCM/Q2/JOR/2.  No further questions or comme nts were raised during the Committee meeting. 
17. The Committee examined the notification of Morocco , which could be consulted in document 
G/SCM/N/95/MAR.  The European Communities had posed written questions concerning that 
notification in document G/SCM/Q2/MAR/1.  Mo rocco's responses were contained in document 
G/SCM/Q2/MAR/2.  The European Communities ha d posed additional questions in document 
G/SCM/Q2/MAR/3.  No written responses to the additional  questions posed by the European 
Communities have been received to date.   
18. The following notification on the Committe e's agenda was that of Mauritius , which could be 
consulted in document G/SCM/N/95/MUS.  The European Communities and the United States had 
posed written questions concerning that notifica tion in documents G/SCM/Q2/MUS/3 and /4.  
Mauritius had responded to the questions posed by the European Communities and the United States 
in document G/SCM/Q2/MUS/5.  No further questions or comments were raised during the Committee meeting. 
19. The Committee examined th e notification of Norway
, which could be consulted in document 
G/SCM/N/95/NOR.  The United States had posed written questions concerning that notification in 
document G/SCM/Q2/NOR/17.  Norway had responded to the questions in document 
G/SCM/Q2/NOR/18.  No further questions or co mments were raised during the Committee meeting. 
20. The following notification on the Committe e's agenda was that of New Zealand , which could 
be consulted in document G/SCM/N/95/NZL.  The United States had posed written questions 
concerning that notification in document G/SCM/ Q2/NZL/12.  New Zealand had responded to the 
questions in document G/SCM/Q2/NZL/13.  No furt her questions or comments were raised during the 
Committee meeting. 
21. The Committee examined the notification of Papua New Guinea .  The Chairperson recalled 
that the notification was to be found in document G/SCM/N/95/PNG and /Suppl.1.  In document G/SCM/Q2/PNG/1, the United States had requested th at the authorities of Papua New Guinea provide 
a notification consistent with the agreed format for subsidy notifications under Article 25 of the 
Agreement, so that the notification could be ex amined by the Committee in conformity with the G/SCM/M/49 
Page 4  
 
 procedures in document G/SCM/39.  Papua New Guinea had responded to the request from the 
United States by re-submitting its notification acco rding to the format established in document 
G/SCM/6.  The notification was included in double-symbolled document G/SCM/N/95/PNG/Suppl.1-G/SCM/Q2/PNG/2.  No further questions or comme nts were raised during the Committee meeting. 
22. The following notification on the Committe e's agenda was that of South Africa
, which could 
be consulted in document G/SCM/N/95/ZAF.  The Ch airperson recalled that Australia, the European 
Communities and the United States had posed writte n questions regarding that notification in 
documents G/SCM/Q2/ZAF/7-9.  No written responses to those questions have been received to 
date. 
23. According to the delegate of South Africa, his delegation had discussed the matter with the 
delegations of Australia, the European Communities and the United States.  On the basis of those 
discussions, the delegation of South Africa had deci ded to handle the matter as follows:  first, 
South Africa would respond as rapidly as possible to the questions posed by various delegations, and 
second, it would submit an additional notification in the interests of transparency vis-à-vis  other 
Members.   
24. The delegate of the European Communities  welcomed the fact that the delegation of South 
Africa intended to submit an additional notification, which in his view constituted a step in the right 
direction.   
25. The delegate of Australia  thanked the delegate of South Afri ca for his statement, in particular 
for indicating that South Africa was to submit a ne w and full notification.  The Committee would deal 
with the matter at its regular spring session. 
26. The delegate of the United States  thanked South Africa for its statement.  His delegation was 
eagerly awaiting the additional notification. 
27. The Committee examined the notification of Uruguay , which could be consulted in document 
G/SCM/N/95/URY.  The Chairperson recalled that the European Communities had submitted written questions concerning that notification in docum ent G/SCM/Q2/URY/6.  Uruguay had responded to 
the questions in document G/SCM/Q2/URY/7.  No fu rther questions or comments were raised during 
the Committee meeting. 
28. The Committee also examined the notifications of Antigua and Barbuda
 
(G/SCM/N/95/ATG);  Armenia  (G/SCM/N/95/ARM);  Barbados  (G/SCM/N/95/BRB);  Belize  
(G/SCM/N/95/BLZ);  Colombia  (G/SCM/N/95/COL);  Costa Rica  (G/SCM/N/95/CRI);  Cuba  
(G/SCM/N/95/CUB);  Dominica  (G/SCM/N/95/DMA);  Dominican Republic  (G/SCM/N/95/DOM); 
El Salvador  (G/SCM/N/95/SLV);  Guatemala  (G/SCM/N/95/GTM);  Hong Kong, China  
(G/SCM/N/95/HKG);  Liechtenstein  (G/SCM/N/95/LIE);  Madagascar  (G/SCM/N/95/MDG); 
Myanmar  (G/SCM/N/95/MMR);  Panama  (G/SCM/N/95/PAN);  St Kitts and Nevis  
(G/SCM/N/95/KNA);  Saint Vincent and the Grenadines  (G/SCM/N/95/VCT);  Saint Lucia  
(G/SCM/N/95/LCA);  Singapore  (G/SCM/N/95/SGP);  Slovenia  (G/SCM/N/95/SVN);  Suriname  
(G/SCM/N/95/SUR);  and Thailand  (G/SCM/N/95/THA and G/SCM/N/95/THA/Corr.1).  No written 
questions or comments were raised during th e Committee's review.  The Committee therefore 
concluded its review of the notifications in question. 
29. The Chairperson  asked whether any delegation wished to make any comments. 
30. According to the delegate of Bolivia , her delegation had submi tted questions concerning 
notification G/SCM/N/95/CHL of Chile  in document G/SCM/Q2/CHL/15.  Chile had responded to 
those questions in document G/SCM/Q2/CHL/16.    G/SCM/M/49 
 Page 5 
 
 
 31. The Chairperson  stated that some questions posed by Members and responses to questions 
raised by other Members had not arrived within the timeframe set by the Committee.  She recalled 
that such timeframes were designed to be respected a nd urged all Members to make an effort in future 
to abide by the agreed deadlines. 
32. The Chairperson recalled that delegations that  wished to receive responses in writing to 
additional questions posed orally should address t hose questions to the notifying Member and the 
Secretariat within a period of two weeks, i.e. by 14 May 2004 at the latest.  The written responses to additional questions were to be submitted no later than 11 June 2004.  The Chai rperson recalled that 
the special meeting was the second of those sch eduled to examine 2003 new and full subsidy 
notifications.  She urged all Members that had not submitted their 2003 no tifications to do their 
utmost to meet that obligation as soon as possible.   
33. The Chairperson recalled the agreed proce dures for reviewing the remaining 2003 new and 
full notifications, i.e. those that had been received to o late to be included in the agenda for the present 
meeting and any that would arrive in the future.  For the Committee's autu mn 2004 special meeting, 
2003 new and full notifications circulated in all thre e languages at least 19 weeks before that meeting 
would be placed on the agenda.  Since the meeting would take place in the week starting 
1 November 2004, the agenda would include notifica tions circulated in all three languages before 
21 June 2004.  An airgram listing those notificatio ns would be circulated shortly after 21 June.  
Written questions on notifications to be reviewed in the autumn would be due no later than 15 weeks 
before the meeting, i.e. by 19 July 2004 and wr itten answers no later than six weeks before the 
meeting, i.e. by 20 September 2004.   
34. The Committee took note
 of the statements made and concluded its review of the 2003 new 
and full subsidy notifications listed in airgrams WTO/AIR/2231 and /2299.   
35. The meeting was adjourned . 
__________ 
 