RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/SCM/M/5
26January 1996
ORGANIZATION(96-0272)
Committee onSubsidies andCountervailing Measures
MINUTES OFTHE MEETING
HELD ON31OCTOBER 1995
Chairman: Mr.O.Lundby (Norway)
1. TheCommittee onSubsidies andCountervailing Measures ("the Committee") heldaregular
meeting on31October 1995.
2. TheCommittee adopted thefollowing agenda:
Page
A. Rules ofprocedure 1
B. Notifications bycountries intransformation (Article 29.2and29.3) 2
C. Preliminary andfinalcountervailing dutyactions (G/SCM/N/8, 10and11) 2
D. Subsidy notifications (G/SCM/N/3 andAddenda) 2
E. Permanent Group ofExperts (Article 24.3) 7
F. Understanding regarding subsidies calculations under Annex IV 8
G. Semi-annual reports ofcountervailing dutyactions (G/SCM/N/7 8
andAddenda)
H. Other business 9
I. Annual Report totheCouncil forTrade inGoods 9
A. Rules ofprocedure
3. TheChairman stated thatdraftRules ofProcedure fortheCommittee werecirculated tothe
Committee indocument G/SCM/W/143. TheDraft Rules wereessentially therules adopted bythe
General Council incorporating changes made bytheCouncil forTrade inGoods initsownruleswith
relevant changes tomake therulesapplicable totheCommittee. Thesubstance ofthese rules hadin
almost allrespects beenpreviously adopted ineither theGeneral Council ortheCouncil forTrade
inGoods. Those fewchanges totherulesoftheCouncil forTrade inGoods wereidentical tothose
proposed fortheCommittee onAnti-Dumping Practices. Inlightofdevelopments intheCommittee
onAnti-Dumping Practices, heproposed thattheCommittee authorize himtoundertake informal
consultations regarding Rules ofProcedure andrevert tothismatter atafuture meeting.
4. TheCommittee sodecided.G/SCM/M/5
Page2
B. Notifications bycountries intransformation
5. TheChairman recalled thatcountries intransformation toamarket economy thatsought a
transitional period forsubsidy programmes covered byArticle 3wererequired tonotify thesubsidies
totheCommittee by"theearliest practicable dateafterthedateofentry intoforce oftheWTO
Agreement." TheCommittee hadestablished anindicative dateof30June1995forsuchnotifications.
TodateonlytheCzech Republic hadsonotified. Heassumed thatthismeant thatnoother country
intransformation intoamarket economy maintained anysubsidy programme falling within thescope
ofArticle 3forwhich itsought thebenefit ofthetransition rules provided inArticle 29.2.
6. TheCommittee tooknoteoftheChairman 'sstatement.
C. Preliminary andfinalcountervailing dutyactions notifications (G/SCM/N/8, 10and11)
7. TheChairman noted thatlistsofthese notifications were circulated totheCommittee in
documents G/SCM/N/8, 10and11.Since thelastregular meeting, Australia, Canada, Mexico and
theUnited States hadnotified actions. TheChairman considered thatcompliance withthisnotification
requirement hadnotbeenadequate. Members were required byArticle 25.11 oftheAgreement to
report suchactions "without delay" totheCommittee. These notifications wereanessential element
inpermitting theCommittee toperform itstaskofsurveillance oftheimplementation oftheAgreement.
Thus thefailure ofsome Members tonotify theiractions wasamatter ofgrave concern.
8. Therepresentative ofthePhilippines asked thedelegation ofBrazil ifithadnotified
countervailing measures taken against thePhilippines withrespect todesiccated coconut products.
Aprovisional countervailing dutywasimposed lastMarch andadefinitive dutyinAugust.
9. Therepresentative ofBrazil indicated thatBrazil wasworking notonlyontheminimum
information requirement butwastranslating thepublic notices andwould provide themtotheCommittee
verysoon.
10. TheCommittee tooknoteofthestatements made.
D. Subsidy notifications
11. TheChairmannotedthatannualnotificationsunderArticleXVI:1ofGATT1994andArticle25
oftheAgreement hadbeenreceived onlyfromAustralia, Canada (agriculture only), Colombia, Costa
Rica,theEC,HongKong,India,Indonesia,Japan(Article25only),Malaysia,Mauritius,NewZealand,
Nicaragua, Norway, Suriname, Switzerland (except agriculture), Thailand, Turkey andVenezuela.
However, theoverwhelming majority ofMembers hadmade nonotification. There werealsoserious
questions about thecompleteness ofsomeofthenotifications thathadbeenreceived. Article 25required
notification ofallspecific subsidies. Itimposed nolimitations bysector nordiditrelate onlytosubsidies
directly related totradeobjectives. Inthisrespect, Switzerland hadnotified thatagricultural subsidies
would benotified onlytotheCommittee onAgriculture. There hadbeensubstantial discussion in
theWorking Group onNotification Obligations andProcedures regarding whether therewasanoverlap
between subsidy notifications tothisCommittee andtotheCommittee onAgriculture, andthere was
room forreasonable differences ofviewonthisissue. However, theAgreement atpresent wasclear:
thenotification obligation related toallspecific subsidies without sectoral limitation. Pending adecision
tothecontrary bytheMembers, theChairman sawnobasisunder which aMember ofthisCommittee
could unilaterally modify itsnotification obligations.G/SCM/M/5
Page3
12. Therepresentative ofCanada indicated thathisGovernment would submit afullnotification
ofindustrial andagricultural programmes assoonaspossible andinadvance ofthenextregular meeting
oftheCommittee.
13. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland stated thatherGovernment hadnotnotified agricultural
subsidies buthadstated initsnotification thatinformation onagricultural subsidies would benotified
totheCommittee onAgriculture under thepertinent provisions oftheAgriculture Agreement.
Switzerland didnotintend inanywaytogobackonitsobligations fortransparency totheWTO.
Thenotification totheAgricultural Committee would beavailable toallWTO Members whocould
examine thecompatibility ofSwiss measures withtherelevant provisions oftheWTO Agreements.
14. Switzerland understood thattheformat fornotifications tothisCommittee differed from the
format fornotifications totheCommittee onAgriculture. Nevertheless, thenotification format ofthe
Committee onAgriculture wasmore detailed andcovered theessential information which hadtobe
submitted tothisCommittee. Theobjective ofnotifications totheWTO wastoguarantee transparency
ofthemeasures taken, sothatMembers could examine whether ornottheywereinkeeping withthe
rules anddisciplines onthose measures. Article 21ontheAgreement onAgriculture provided that
theprovisions ofGATT 1994 andofother Multilateral Trade Agreements inAnnex 1AoftheWTO
Agreement applied subject totheprovisions oftheAgreement onAgriculture. Thespecific nature
oftheAgreement onAgriculture wasalsoaffirmed inArticle 13.Theobligations which governed
themaintenance ofagricultural subsidies werefirstandforemost within theframework oftheAgreement
inAgriculture.NotifyingagriculturalsubsidiestothisCommitteeaswellastotheAgricultureCommittee
could create confusion overthecompetencies ofthetwoCommittees andovertheinterlinkages between
theAgreements theyadminister. Forthefunctioning oftheWTO itwasimportant tofindasolution
thatprevented suchasituation arising.
15. Switzerland considered thatitwasfortheWorking Group onNotifications toexamine any
measures thathadalready beenundertaken. TheChairman oftheAgriculture Committee inaletter
of4October1994totheChairmanoftheWorkingGrouponNotificationshadcalleduponthisChairman
tocompare thecontent ofthenotification totheCommittee onAgriculture withthatrequired bythis
Committee. Ifcontrary toapreliminary analysis some important aspect oftheformat ofnotifications
adopted bythisCommittee wasnotaccessible totheMembers through thenotification totheCommittee
onAgriculture oranother source notified totheWTO, Switzerland considered thatforthepurpose
oftransparency theformat fortheCommittee onAgriculture could beamended inorder toinclude
thatinformation. Agricultural subsidies would therefore beputinasingle notification accessible to
allMembers oftheWTO. Thiswould eliminate redundancy andeconomise inhuman resources while
allowing theWTO Members torespect theirnotification obligations under theAgriculture andSubsidies
Agreements.
16. Therepresentative oftheUnited States stated thathisGovernment 'snotification wasnowin
theclearance procedure, andwould besubmitted assoonaspossible. IntheviewoftheUnited States,
agricultural subsidies werefullycovered bytheAgreement onSubsidies andCountervailing Measures
except where provided bytheAgreement onAgriculture. TheUnited States would include information
onagricultural programmes initsnotification. TheUnited States wasinterested inthework ofthe
Notifications Working Group tostreamline orharmonize notification requirements. Itwasnecessary
tostrike abalance between transparency andrealistically identifying areaswhere Members 'workcould
bemade easier. However, theUnited States expected that,untildecided otherwise, agricultural subsidy
programmes would beincluded inArticle 25notifications.
17. Therepresentative ofAustralia stated thatSwitzerland wasnotalone inunilaterally deciding
toexclude agricultural subsidies fromitsnotification under thisAgreement. Thenotification obligations
under Article 25oftheSubsidies Agreement andArticle XVI:1 ofGATT 1994 didnotexclude aG/SCM/M/5
Page4
particular sector suchasagriculture. These obligations wereseparate fromthose under theAgriculture
Agreement. Theyalsodiffered inform, particularly withrespect todomestic support measures. Given
theseparate nature oftheobligations andformats, notifications should bemade tobothCommittees.
Arguments regarding theamount ofwork involved werenotconvincing. Totheextent thatthedata
inthetwonotifications wereidentical, therewasnotmuch extrawork including itinbothnotifications.
Ifthedatawere different, thatremoved thejustification fornotmaking twoseparate notifications.
While theWorking Group onNotifications might findsome method forgreater harmonization of
notification requirements, Australia didnotexpect thatthiswould involve non-notification ofthe
agricultural sector oranyother sector tothisCommittee.
18. AustraliadidnotregardtheAgricultureAgreementtobealexspecialisandcouldseenorationale
fortheviewthatfulfilling notification obligations under thisAgreement inanywayundermined the
competence oftheAgriculture Agreement. Article 13oftheAgriculture Agreement exempted for
alimited period certain measures fromcertain actions under theSubsidies Agreement, butonlywhere
those measures fulfilled certain criteria. There wasnotacomplete exemption ofdomestic support
measures fromthepurview oftheSubsidies Agreement, forexample. Those measures stillfellwithin
thecompetence ofthisCommittee andtherefore issues ofcompetence didnotprovide ajustification
fornon-notification.
19. Therepresentative ofArgentina stated thatwork wasbeing donewithin theWorking Group
onNotifications onthisissue. Unless anduntiladecision wastaken tothecontrary, therewasaclear
legalobligation tonotify agricultural subsidies tothisCommittee.
20. Therepresentative ofNewZealand stated thatnotifications should meettherequirements of
Article 25andArticle XVIinrespect ofcomprehensive coverage andafullprovision ofinformation
assetoutintheagreed format. Members should notify allsubsidies asdefined inArticle 1.1ofthe
Agreement which werespecific within themeaning ofArticle 2,including agricultural subsidies. New
Zealand expected Members tofulfil theirlegal obligation inthatregard. Throughout theSubsidies
Agreement consideration hadbeengiven toareas where there might beaneedforspecial provisions
foragricultural subsidies pursuant totheAgreement onAgriculture, andinsuchcases thishadbeen
clearly stipulated. However, therewasnosuchspecial provision inrespect ofArticle 25.Moreover,
inadopting therevised questionnaire format forthese notifications thisCommittee hadagreed toa
setofgeneral rules which stated clearly thatallspecific subsidies shallbenotified.
21. Some countries hadraised apractical question ofwhether anypossible overlap orduplication
innotifications could bereduced. NewZealand wasprepared toexamine theseissues inaconstructive
fashion intheWorking Group onNotifications. NewZealand hadgiven some thought towaysinwhich
thenotifications required bytheCommittees onAgriculture andSubsidies might beharmonized and
streamlined. Whatever practical andpragmatic solutions might bearrived at,however, there wasa
clear legalobligation tonotify agricultural subsidies under theSubsidies Agreement.
22. Therepresentative oftheECshared some oftheconcerns oftheSwiss delegate. However,
theEChadchosen nottotakethelawintoitsownhands andhadnotified agricultural subsidies to
thisCommittee. Ahorizontal Working Group wasexamining theharmonization andstreamlining of
notification requirements, anditwastobehoped thatasolution could befound toavoid duplication
ofwork. Buttherightforum fordiscussing these matters wastheWorking Group, anduntilasolution
wasfound theECwould continue tonotify tothisCommittee andwould expect other Members to
dolikewise. However, agricultural subsidies were nottheonlysubsidy notification issue. The
notification obligation hadnotbeentaken seriously bytoomany Members oftheCommittee. The
Committee should payspecial attention totheaspect ofquality when itexamined these notifications,
including whatprogrammes hadandhadnotbeennotified, andavoid theerroneous assumption that
Members withlonger notifications necessarily subsidized more thanthose withshort notifications.G/SCM/M/5
Page5
23. Therepresentative ofJapan recognized theimportance ofnotifications. AWorking Group
wasworking onnotifications inorder toavoid duplication andburden. Thisprocess should be
accelerated.
24. Therepresentative ofPoland recognized theveryclearobligation established bytheAgreement
tonotify allspecific subsidies. However, Poland shared Switzerland 'sconcerns regarding thepossible
consequencesofdoublenotificationtodifferentbodies.Ifthesamenotificationwasdiscussedindifferent
bodies, there wasariskofdiffering conclusions. Pending theoutcome ofthework oftheWorking
Group, Poland would besatisfied toseeacopyofthenotification which Switzerland intended tosubmit
totheCommittee onAgriculture.
25. TherepresentativeofCanadastatedthatagriculturalsubsidieswerewithinthescopeofArticle25
andthisviewwould bereflected initsownnotifications totheCommittee.
26. Therepresentative ofMexico stated thatnotification obligations under theSubsidies Agreement
included anytypeofsubsidies programme inanysector. TheSubsidies Agreement andtheAgriculture
Agreement overlapped tosome degree. Thus, Article 13covered some issues intheagriculture sector
which arealsolinked totheSubsidies Agreement. However, inthemedium andlongtermthedisciplines
applied toagriculture werethose thatflowed fromtheSubsidies Agreement, because theAgriculture
Agreement wastransitional. Thus, notifications made under Article 25ofthisSubsidies Agreement
hadtocover theagriculture sector.
27. Therepresentative ofKorea stated that,forthereason thattheSubsidies Agreement was
comprehensive innature, itmight beinevitable thatallsubsidies, including agricultural subsidies, should
benotified tothisCommittee forthepurpose oftransparency. However, thenotification ofagricultural
subsidies tothisCommittee should serve onlythepurpose ofrecord orreferences, thusexcluding the
possibility ofsubstantial examination ordiscussion onagricultural subsidies inthisCommittee.
28. Therepresentative ofCanada queried whether there would beanyprocedural impediment to
thisCommittee reviewing anotification made totheCommittee onAgriculture.
29. Therepresentative ofAustralia stated thatevenifanotification totheAgriculture Committee
could notbeexamined assuchinthisCommittee, during thisCommittee 'sexamination questions could
beasked regarding anysubsidy, whether ornotnotified tothisCommittee. However, thiswould not
justify non-notification tothisCommittee.
30. Therepresentative ofMexico indicated thatrepeating intheSubsidies Committee the
comprehensive review ofnotifications made intheAgriculture Committee would duplicate anexhaustive
process ofreview ofnotifications intheAgriculture Committee. However, anyMember wasfreeto
askspecific questions onanysubsidy issue inthisCommittee.
31. Therepresentative oftheECstated thatthequestion ofexamination ofnotifications, likethat
ofthenotifications themselves, wasamatter fortheNotifications Working Group. Pending horizontal
agreement theexamination hadtobecarried outinthisCommittee. Members werefreetoaskquestions
regarding anysubsidy maintained byaMember, whether ornotnotified tothisCommittee, andwhatever
thesource ofinformation regarding thesubsidy.
32. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland stated that,regarding agricultural subsidies, itwasnot
Switzerland 'sintention toelude questions inthisCommittee inorder toensure adequate transparency.
33. TheChairman stated thatthere hadbeenauseful exchange ofviews andthose views pointed
clearly inthesamedirection regarding thescope ofnotification obligations. Thevarious interventionsG/SCM/M/5
Page6
hadconfirmed theneedtodistinguish between possible prospective measures tosimplify andrationalize
notifications andexisting obligations under theAgreement. Heagreed withtheECthatthemainfocus
ofthisCommittee 'sdiscussion should notbetheagriculture issue. TheCommittee would havetolook
more generally atthequality ofnotifications.
34. TheChairman recalled thatArticle 26required theCommittee toexamine newandfull
notifications atspecial sessions heldevery thirdyear. Aspecial session oftheCommittee thusshould
beheldforthispurpose in1995. However, theCommittee could notholdsuchasession inthelast
fewmonths ofthisyear, norwould itbeuseful forittodosountilareasonable number ofnotifications
hadbeenreceived. Hetherefore proposed thattheCommittee holdaspecial session inthespring of
1996. Thisspecial session could beconducted insuchamanner thatonlyMembers which hadmade
anotification themselves, asofthedateofthemeeting, would havetherighttoposequestions with
respect tothenotifications submitted. Other Members would beentitled tolisten tothediscussion
only. Although thisproposal wasunorthodox, toholdaspecial session toreview therelatively small
number ofnotifications submitted would betopenalize theveryMembers thathadfulfilled their
notification obligations.
35. Therepresentative ofBrazil stated thatwhile there wasacertain degree offairness inthe
Chairman 'sproposal, preventing Members fromasking questions oncertain notifications might result
inalessfruitful discussion. Brazil required timetoreflect ontheproposal.
36. Therepresentative ofMexico stated thattheproposal tolimitparticipation could encourage
submission ofnotifications. However, thereview session might notbewellattended. Healsoqueried
whether itwaspossible toholdaCommittee meeting where certain Members were notbeallowed
toparticipate.
37. TherepresentativeofPolandstatedthatArticle26oftheAgreementprovidedthattheCommittee
shallexaminenotifications.TherewasnoprovisionforexcludingsomeMembersfromsuchanexercise.
Also, there could benewMembers oftheWTO whoacceded atalatestage. There wasnoreason
toexclude newMembers thathadnotyethadtimetosubmit theirnotifications.
38. TheChairman stated thatitwasnottheintention toexclude anynewMembers whohadnot
hadareasonable timetonotify.
39. Therepresentative ofKorea sought clarification regarding participation byMembers which
didnotmaintain anysubsidy programmes.
40. TheChairman stated thatifaMember hadnosubsidies andhadsonotified, itwould beable
toparticipate inthenormal manner.
41. Therepresentative ofHong Kong questioned whether itwasappropriate tolinkaMember 's
righttoaskquestions orseekclarification onother'snotifications tothefulfilment ofthatMember 's
notification obligation. Thiswould setadangerous precedent forwhich there wasnolegalbasis in
theAgreement.
42. Therepresentative ofArgentina questioned whether under Article 26Members 'ability toreview
notifications could berestricted.
43. Therepresentative oftheUnited States stated thatfrom aviewpoint oflogic andequity, he
agreed withthespirit oftheChairman 'sproposal. However, hereserved hisviews onthebroader
procedural andlegalconsiderations which other delegations hadraised. Would Members which hadG/SCM/M/5
Page7
made anotification beprecluded inthereview procedure from asking questions ofMembers which
hadnotnotified?
44. TheChairman responded inthenegative. Theintent wasnottopunish those Members that
hadnotified.
45. Therepresentative ofColombia suggested thattheCommittee meetagain attheendoftheyear
orthebeginning ofnextyeartoevaluate thesituation withrespect tonotifications andtranslation, as
ithaddonewithrespect tonotifications oflegislation. Once asubstantial number ofnotifications had
beenreceived andtranslated theCommittee could fixadateforameeting.
46. Therepresentative oftheECasked whether theCommittee wanted tosetaprecedent thatin
theWTO, asintheGATT, Members didnotnotify subsidies andtheexercise ofreview ofnotifications
became asterile, useless, andboring exercise. IftheCommittee didnotfindawaytoencourage
Members tofulfiltheirobligations, itwould chipaserious block fromtheAgreement. TheCommittee
could lookattheprecedent ofthelegislation review forestablishing aschedule andorganizing the
review exercise. However, theCommittee should notpostpone thedecision whether toholdareview
untilacritical mass ofnotifications hadbeenreceived. TheChairman 'sproposal didnotexclude
Members from theCommittee, butonlylimited whocould askquestions atagiven point intime.
Itwould notdiminish therightofMembers todosointhefuture oncetheyhadnotified. Inconclusion,
theECsought areasonable andlogical solution tothisproblem. TheChairman 'sproposal wasone
suchsolution. TheECwould decide itsattitude regarding anotification review onthebasisofwhether
suchasolution hasbeenfound.
47. TherepresentativeofJapanexpressedconcernregardingtheChairman'sproposal.Notifications
covered awiderange ofsubsidies andvarious Ministries andagencies wereinvolved. Furthermore,
because ofitshorizontal nature theCommittee should notprejudice thework oftheWorking Group
onNotifications. Therefore, Japan required moretimetoreflect ontheproposal toholdaspecial review
inthespring. Withrespect totheproposal tolimitparticipation inthereview, Japan wanted toconsider
itslegalimplications andsignificance.
48. Therepresentative ofTrinidad andTobago questioned thelegalbasisforexcluding participation
bysome Member countries inthereview. Further, theessential purpose oftheCommittee wasto
provide transparency. Byexcluding participation theCommittee denied theverytransparency itsought.
49. TheChairman stated thatthedebate hadfocused attention ontheproblem thattheWTO was
anotification-basedorganizationthatwasencounteringapoorfollow-uponthenotificationrequirements.
Heproposed toundertake informal consultations onthisissue.
50. TheCommittee tooknoteofthestatements made, anddecided thattheChairman would hold
informal consultations, bothonthetiming andonthemanner inwhich toproceed withthereview
onnotifications.
E. Permanent Group ofExperts
51. TheChairman recalled thattheCommittee atitsregular meeting of13June1995decided that
Members would endeavour tosubmit theirsuggestions forpersons toserve onthePGEby1October
1995. Henowproposed tosetanabsolute deadline forsuggestions byMembers of15November 1995.
Asofthatdatethelistwould beclosed. TheChairman andVice-Chairman would thenmake available
toallMembers onrequest thecurricula vitaeofnominees andwould meetwiththedelegation ofany
Member wishing toexpress aviewregarding thecomposition ofthePGE. Based onareview oftheG/SCM/M/5
Page8
curricula vitae, discussions withMembers, anycontacts withthenominees directly, andfurther
consultations asappropriate, aslateofcandidates would beproposed totheCommittee.
52. TheCommittee sodecided.
F. Understanding regarding subsidy calculations under Annex IV
53. TheChairman stated thattodateAustralia, theEC,Japan, Korea andtheUnited States had
nominated experts toparticipate intheinformal Group ofExperts examining thismatter. TheGroup
would holditsfirstmeeting tomorrow on1November 1995. AnyMember desiring tonominate an
expert toparticipate should submit anomination, inwriting, totheChairman oftheGroup,
Mr.Victor Prado ofBrazil.
54. TheCommittee tooknoteoftheChairman 'sstatement.
G. Semi-annual reports ofcountervailing dutyactions
55. TheChairman recalled thatarequest forsemi-annual reports forthefirsthalfof1995 had
beencirculated totheMembers on17July1995. Noreports hadbeenreceived from thefollowing
Members: Antigua andBarbuda, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Botswana, Brunei
Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, theCentral African Republic, Côted'Ivoire, Cyprus, Djibouti,
Dominica, Egypt, ElSalvador, Gabon, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea Bissau, Guinea Rep.of,Guyana,
India,Indonesia,Israel,Jamaica,Kenya,Kuwait,Lesotho,Liechtenstein,Macau,Malawi,theMaldives,
Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nicaragua, Nigeria,
Pakistan, Paraguay, thePhilippines, St.Lucia, St.Vincent andtheGrenadines, Senegal, Sierra Leone,
Singapore,SlovakRepublic,SouthAfrica,SriLanka,Suriname,Swaziland,Togo,TrinidadandTobago,
Tunisia, Uganda, Venezuela andZimbabwe.
56. Thedeadline forsubmitting semi-annual reports was31August 1995. IfaMember hadtaken
countervailing actions ithadanobligation toreport those actions totheCommittee. IfaMember had
taken noactions itwasaneasytasktosoindicate. Further, every Member, whether ornotithad
taken actions, should provide atableindicating whether thereareoutstanding countervailing measures
inthatMember asrequired bytheformat approved bythisCommittee. AllMembers wereurged to
make maximum efforts tosubmit theiroutstanding semi-annual reports immediately andtoprovide
alltheinformation required bytheformat. Asinthepast,theSecretariat would circulate by1December
anaddendum toG/SCM/N/7 summarizing thestatus ofnotifications andincluding alistofMembers
which hadnotmade notifications.
57. TheChairman asked whether anydelegation would liketoaddress anyofthese notifications.
58. Therepresentative ofEgypt stated thathiscountry hadtaken noactions andthatanotification
inwriting tothateffect would beprovided.
59. Therepresentative oftheECreferred toanongoing caseinCanada concerning sugar from
theCommunity. Aninjury determination bytheCanadian International Trade Tribunal wasexpected
laterthisweek. TheECwasconcerned about thesubsidy determination reached byRevenue Canada.
Depending ontheinjury determination, theissue might bebrought totheCommittee inthefuture.
60. TheCommittee tooknoteofthestatements made.G/SCM/M/5
Page9
H. Other business
61. Nomatter wasraised under thisitem.
I. Annual report totheCouncil forTrade inGoods
62. TheCommittee adopted itsAnnual Report totheCouncil forTrade inGoods.
63. Thenextregular meeting oftheCommittee willbeheldintheweek of29April 1996.