 RESTRICTED  
  
G/SCM/M/108  
 
10 September 2019  
(19-5788) Page: 1/8 
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures    
 
MINUTES OF THE SPECI AL MEETING  
HELD ON 30 APRIL 201 9 
 
CHAIR: MR LUIS ADOLF O FERNÁNDEZ (COSTA R ICA) 
1. The Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures ("Committee") held a special meeting 
on 30 April 2019, convened in WTO/AIR/SCM/26 dated 18 April 2019.  
 
2. The Committee adopted the following agenda:  
 
1   REVIEW OF 2017 N EW AND FULL SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS (G/SCM /N/315/…)  
NOT PREVIOUSLY REVIE WED  ................................ ................................ ...........................  2 
1.1   China (G/SCM/N/315/CHN)  ................................ ................................ ...........................  2 
1.2   India ( G/SCM/N/284/IND/SUPP L.2 - G/SCM/N/315/IN D) ................................ ..................  2 
1.3   Israel ( G/SCM/N/284/ISR - G/SCM/N/315/ISR)  ................................ ...............................  2 
1.4   Jordan ( G/SCM/N/315/JOR/SUPP L.1 – G/SCM/N/299/JO R/REV.2) ................................ ...... 3 
1.5   Russian Federation ( G/SCM/N/315/ RUS) ................................ ................................ ........  3 
1.6   Saint Kitts and Nevis ( G/SCM/N/284/KNA - G/SCM/N/290/KNA - G/SCM/N/299/KNA - 
G/SCM/N/315/KNA)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  3 
2   REVIEW OF 2015 N EW AND FULL SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS (G/SCM /N/284/…)  
NOT PREVIOUSLY REVIE WED  ................................ ................................ ...........................  3 
3   CONTINUATION OF REVIEW OF 2017 NEW A ND FULL SUBSIDY NOTI FICATIONS 
(G/SCM/N/315/…)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  3 
3.1   Brazil ( G/SCM/N/315/BRA)  ................................ ................................ ...........................  4 
3.2   Korea, Republic of ( G/SCM/N/315/KOR)  ................................ ................................ .........  4 
4   CONTINUATION OF REVIEW OF 2015 NEW A ND FULL SUBSIDY NOTI FICATIONS 
(G/SCM/N/284/…)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  4 
4.1   Brazil (G/SCM/N/284/BRA)  ................................ ................................ ...........................  4 
4.2   China (G/SCM/N/220/CHN, G/SCM/N/253/CHN, G/SCM/N/284/CHN, and 
G/SCM/N/95/CHN/Suppl.1, G/SCM/N/123/CHN/Suppl.1, G/SCM/N/155/CHN/Suppl.1, 
G/SCM/N/186/CHN/Suppl.1, G/SCM/N/220/CHN/Suppl.1, G/SCM/N/253/CHN/Suppl.1 and 
G/SCM/ N/284/CHN/Suppl.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................  4 
4.3   Saint Lucia (G/SCM/N/284/LCA -G/SCM/N/290/LCA)  ................................ ........................  6 
4.4   United States (G/SCM/N/284/USA)  ................................ ................................ ................  6 
5   CONTINUATION OF REVIEW OF 2013 NEW A ND FULL NOTIFICATION S 
(G/SCM/N/253/…)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  7 
5.1   Russian Federation (G/SCM/N/253/RUS and G/SCM/N/253/RUS/Rev.1)  .............................  7 
6   CONTINUATION OF REVIEW OF 2009 NEW A ND FULL NOTIFICATION S 
(G/SCM/N/186/…)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  7 
6.1   Gabon (G/SCM /N/186/GAB)  ................................ ................................ ..........................  7 
6.2   Turkey (G/SCM/N/186/TUR)  ................................ ................................ .........................  7 G/SCM/M/108  
 
- 2 - 
 
  1  REVIEW OF 2017 NEW A ND FULL SUBSIDY NOTI FICATIONS (G/SCM/N/3 15/…) NOT 
PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED  
3. This was the Committee's fourth special meeting at which new and full subsidy notifications 
for 2017 were reviewed. These notifications were due by 30 June 2017.  
 
4. The Chair recalled that at its April 2017 regular meeting, the Committee had decided to continue 
applying the procedures set out in G/SCM/117. According to these procedures, only notifications  
circulated to Members in all three WTO working languages not later than 3 January 2019 could be 
reviewed at this meeting.  
 
5. These notifications were listed in WTO/AIR/SCM/25. Written questions pertaining to those 
notifications were due by 28 January 2019. Written answers to these questions were due by 
1 April 2019. The Chair noted that there were six new and full notifications for 2017 on the agenda.  
 
1.1  China (G/SCM/N/315/CHN)  
6. Written questions regarding this notification can be found in:  
 
• G/SCM/Q2/CHN/75 – Questions from the United States  
• G/SCM/Q2/CHN/76 – Questions from the Dominican Republic  
• G/SCM/Q2/CHN/77 – Questions from Japan  
• G/SCM/Q2/CHN/78 – Questions from New Zealand  
• G/SCM/Q2/CHN/79 – Questions from the European Union  
 
7. China  stated that it had asked the competent authorities to prepare the responses which would 
be provided in due course. Regarding the completeness of its notification, China indicated that 
improving the transparency of subsidy notifications was of great import ance for the effective 
operation of the SCM Agreement. However, the completeness of a notification was a complicated 
issue. The SCM Agreement neither refer s to the word "completeness" nor establishe s a unified 
objective or a standard to determine whether a  notification was complete or not. The Agreement 
requires Members to notify specific subsidies and makes clear that the notification of a measure does 
not prejudge either its legal status under the Agreement or the nature of the measure itself. In other 
words, Members could notify their subsidies according to their own understanding of the Agreement. 
Considering the technical difficulties in determining the completeness of subsidy notifications the 
latest version of the transparency proposal in the Council for Trade in Goods had been revised 
accordingly.  
 
8. The United States  asked China to clarify whether it was implying that the SCM Agreement did 
not require a complete notification.  
 
9. China  reiterated that the exact word of "complete" did not exist in the Agr eement.  
 
10. The United States , Dominican Republic , Japan , New Zealand , and the European Union  indicated 
that they were waiting for the written answers for their questions.  
 
11. The Chair noted that because the questions from New Zealand and the European Union we re 
submitted after the applicable deadline, and no written replies had yet been provided for any of the 
questions, the Committee would return to that notification at the fall special meeting.  
 
12. The Committee took note  of the notification, questions and statements made.  
 
1.2  India ( G/SCM/N/284/IND/SUPP L.2 - G/SCM/N/315/IN D) 
13. No Member raised any questions or comments about this double -symbolled notification.  
 
14. The Committee took note  of the notification.  
 
1.3  Israel ( G/SCM/N/284/ ISR - G/SCM/N/315/IS R) 
15. No Member raised any questions or comments about this double -symbolled notification.  
 G/SCM/M/108  
 
- 3 - 
 
  16. The Committee took note  of the notification.  
 
1.4  Jordan (G/SCM/N/315/JOR/SUPP L.1 – G/SCM/N/299/JO R/REV.2)  
17. Jordan submitted a double -symbolled notification comprising (i) a new and full 2017 
notification; and (ii) a final transparency notification in respect of extensions under Article 27.4 of 
the SCM  Agreement. No Member raised any questions about this notific ation.  
 
18. Jordan  informed Members that it had fully complied with its commitments and terminated the 
export subsidy programme by 31 December 2018 through Regulation No.106 of 2016 which 
indicated that "income resulting from exporting goods of local origin outside the King dom [was] 
totally exempted from income tax only until 31 December 2018".  
 
19. The Committee took note  of the notification and statements made.  
 
1.5  Russian Federation (G/SCM/N/315/RUS)  
20. Written questions and answers regarding this notification can be found in:  
 
• G/SCM/Q2/RUS/17 – questions from Canada  
• G/SCM/Q2/RUS/18 – replies to Canada.  
 
21. Canada  thanked the Russian Federation for its answers and noted that it would follow -up if 
necessary.  
 
22. The Russian Federation  indicated its willingness to continue consultations if  necessary.  
 
23. The Committee took note  of the notification.  
 
24. The Chair noted that because both questions and written replies had been submitted after the 
applicable deadlines, the Committee would return to this notification at its fall 2019 special meeting.  
 
25. The Committee took note  of the notification, questions, answers, a nd statements made.  
 
1.6  Saint Kitts and Nevis (G/SCM/N/284/KNA - G/SCM/N/290/KNA - 
G/SCM/N/299/KNA - G/SCM/N/315/KNA)  
26. Saint Kitts and Nevis submitted a multi -symbolled notification comprising new and full 
notifications for 2017 and 2015; as well as transparen cy notifications in respect of extensions under 
Article 27.4 of the SCM  Agreement.  
 
27. No Member raised any questions or comments about this notification.  
 
28. The Committee took note  of the notification.  
 
2  REVIEW OF 2015 NEW A ND FULL SUBSIDY NOTI FICATIONS (G/SCM /N/284/…) NOT 
PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED  
29. No additional notifications were reviewed under this agenda item.1 
 
3  CONTINUATION OF REVI EW OF 2017 NEW AND F ULL SUBSIDY NOTIFICA TIONS 
(G/SCM/N/315/…)  
30. The Chair noted that this agenda item was for continuation of reviews of  2017 new and full 
notifications started at prior meetings that had not yet been completed, due to late submission of 
questions or non -submission or late submission of written replies.  
 
                                                
1 Multi-symbolled 2015 new and full notifications of India (G/SCM/N/284/IND/Suppl.2); Israel 
(G/SCM/N/284/ISR); and Saint Kitts and Nevis (G/SCM/N/284/KNA) were reviewed under the previous agenda 
item. G/SCM/M/108  
 
- 4 - 
 
  3.1  Brazil (G/SCM/N/315/BRA)  
31. Written questions and answers regarding this notification can be found in:  
 
• G/SCM/Q2/BRA/51 - questions from the Dominican Republic  
• G/SCM/Q2/BRA/52 – replies to the Dominican Republic  
 
32. The Committee took note  of the notification, questions and answers.  
 
3.2  Korea, Republic of (G/SCM/N/315/KOR)  
33. Written questions and answers regarding this notification can be found in:  
 
• G/SCM/Q2/KOR/58 - questions from New Zealand  
• G/SCM/Q2/KOR/59 - replies to New Zealand  
 
34. The Commi ttee took note  of the notification, questions and answers.  
 
4  CONTINUATION OF REVI EW OF 2015 NEW AND F ULL SUBSIDY NOTIFICA TIONS 
(G/SCM/N/284/…)  
35. The Chair noted that this agenda item was for continuation of reviews of 2015 new and full 
notifications started  at prior meetings that had not yet been completed, due to late submission of 
questions or non -submission or late submission of written replies. The Committee also considered 
under this agenda item the follow -up questions that had been submitted in respect  of certain of 
those notifications.  
 
36. The Chair recalled that the exchange of written questions and answers was the essence of the 
review process for those notifications, as per the Committee's agreed procedures. Failure to reply 
promptly to such questions  undermined transparency, and thus frustrated the purpose of the review. 
All Members that had not yet responded to written questions concerning their subsidy notifications 
thus should submit their answers without further delay. However, the Chair noted tha t a number of 
delegations with notifications under the remaining agenda items had submitted written answers to 
the questions that were pending at the end of the last special meeting.  
 
4.1  Brazil (G/SCM/N/284/BRA)  
37. Written questions and answers regarding this notification can be found in:  
 
• G/SCM/Q2/BRA/49 – questions from New Zealand  
• G/SCM/Q2/BRA/50 – replies to New Zealand  
 
38. The Committee took note  of the notification, the questions and answers.  
 
4.2  China (G/SCM/N/220/CHN, G/SCM/N/253/CHN, G/SCM/N/284/CHN, and 
G/SCM/N/95/CHN/Suppl.1, G/SCM/N/123/CHN/Suppl.1, G/SCM/N/155/CHN/Suppl.1, 
G/SCM/N/186/CHN/Suppl.1, G/SCM/N/220/CHN/Suppl.1, G/SCM/N/253/CHN/Suppl.1 
and G/SCM/N/284/CHN/Suppl.1)  
39. The multi -symbolled notifications from Ch ina covered the periods 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, 
2011, 2013 and 2015, and were taken up together under this agenda item.  
 
40. The Chair noted that these notifications were on the agenda of the Committee because China 
had not yet provided written replies to the  follow -up questions from the United States which can be 
found in:  
 
• G/SCM/Q2/CHN/74 – follow -up question from the United States  
41. China  noted that it had asked  the competent authorities at the local level to prepare and submit 
its replies to the questions p osed by the United States as soon as possible. Regarding the question 
why that notification did not cover all provincial level administrative units, China noted that since 
the submission of its first notification on local subsidies in 2015, China had been endeavouring to G/SCM/M/108  
 
- 5 - 
 
  improve the transparency of its local subsidy policies and had made important progress so far. Its 
first local subsidy notification for the years of 2001 to 2014 had covered 19 provinces, but the latest 
subsidy notifications submitted by Ch ina in 2018 for the years 2015 to 2016 had already incorporated 
all provincial level administrative units.  
 
42. Regarding the question o f local subsidies for strategic emerging industries and subsidies for 
internationally well -known brands China stated that it  had carefully studied the subsidy policies 
mentioned by the US which were exactly the information the US had previously requested China to 
provide according to Article 25.8 and 25.10 of the SCM Agreement. For part of these policies, China 
had already made  clarifications at previous regular meetings which could be checked through the 
minutes of previous meetings.  
 
43. China was preparing the notification for 2017 to 2018 , which required the local governments to 
sort out and verify the various policies which we re of concern to the United States. The outcomes 
would be manifested in the next subsidy notifications of China.  
 
44. The United States  reiterated that it was expecting written answers to its questions. Referring to 
China's previous statement, the US agreed t hat the word "complete" was not in the Agreement in 
the context of notifications. However, Article 25.2 says that Members shall notify any subsidy which 
means all subsidies. In addition, the US also referred to Article 26.1 where it says the Committee 
shall examine new and full notifications. According to the US, 'full' is another word for 'complete'.  
 
45. China  noted that it had been striving to enhance the transparency of its subsidies policies in 
recent years. China was a vast country with complicated admini strative levels and imbalanced 
regional development. Therefore, it has never been an easy task for China to collect information on 
local subsidy policies. Nevertheless, China had been constantly building capacity in this regard, and 
despite numerous diffic ulties it had eventually managed to cover all provincial levels, administrative 
units in its subsidy notifications. China expected Members to see how sincere China had been to 
resolve Member's concerns, improve the transparency of China's policies and perf orm notification 
obligations.  
 
46. With regard to the delay for the answers to the questions raised by Members, China recalled 
that it had submitted written questions on the US notification in October 2017, but unfortunately, it 
had received answers from the U S in October 2018.  
 
47. With respect to the completeness of the subsidy notifications, China noted that Members had 
different understanding regarding specificity of subsidies. In addition, the SCM Agreement did not 
provide a definition for local subsidies, and Members had differe nt understanding in this regard. In 
China's point of view, local subsidy programmes were those fully financed by the local government 
or jointly financed by the central and local governments, whereas the central government subsidies 
were those solely finan ced by central government.  
 
48. China indicated that the completeness of subsidy notifications was a complicated issue. China 
had seen that many of the subsidies were not included in the notifications of Members. For instance, 
subsidies granted to foreign com panies within the provisions of the US Internal Revenue Code 
relating to foreign sales corporations (FSC), extra -territorial income (ETI) and successive legislation, 
had not been included in the US notifications.  
 
49. The United States  reiterated that China h ad been a Member for eighteen years and its first 
substantial notification had come sixteen years after it had become a Member which was a lot of 
time to develop a system for its local subsidies. Secondly, with respect to the new notification or the 
most r ecent notification, if Members would look at the US questions, they would see that there was 
a lot of programmes that remain unnotified, especially at the sub -central level.  
 
50. China  reiterated that as a large developing country facing numerous difficulties  and problems, 
China would do its best to improve the transparency.  
 
51. The Chair noted that because the follow -up questions remained pending, the Committee would 
return to these notifications at the fall special meeting.  
 
52. The Committee took note  of the notif ication, questions and statements made.  
 G/SCM/M/108  
 
- 6 - 
 
  4.3  Saint Lucia (G/SCM/N/284/LCA -G/SCM/N/290/LCA)  
53. This double -symbolled notification from Saint Lucia included a transparency notification in 
respect of extensions under Article 27.4 of the SCM Agreement.  
 
54. Written ques tions with respect to this notification can be found in:  
 
• G/SCM/Q2/LCA/4 – questions from Mexico  
55. Saint Lucia  recalled the importance of preserving a competitive environment for investment. 
While capital was extremely footloose, and where governments in dev eloped countries and emerging 
markets were providing generous start up incentives to businesses, small economies like Saint Lucia 
had to seek creative ways not to be excluded from opportunities that benefit their people. Over the 
past years, federal, state  and municipal governments in larger countries had been offering incentives 
to large technology firms, large e -Commerce businesses, large auto makers and manufacturers  to 
incentivize as well as  lure investment.  
 
56. Saint Lucia was unable to provide such generous support measures to entice large -scale 
investment given limited fiscal room to manoeuvre. It had therefore explored creative strategies to 
stop, and potentially reverse the outflow of jobs to more competitive, aggressive and generous 
jurisdictions  while seeking to comply with its obligations to its trading partners and the multilateral 
system. Unfortunately, there had been some delays in updating the Fiscal Incentives Act to fall in 
line with its commitments. Saint Lucia was in the process of revie wing its fiscal incentives regime as 
elaborated by the Fiscal Incentives Act as  part of a broader effort to establish a better Tax 
Expenditure Management system  and to  ensure  greater  compatibility with the  National Investment 
Policy (NIP).  
 
57. The review exercise which has been undertaken with technical assistance from the World Bank 
and the International Finance Cooperation (IFC) was seeking to incorporate international best 
practice into the new Fiscal Incentives Regime. Accordingly, and pursu ant to Saint Lucia's obligations 
with respect to the SCM Agreement, the terms of reference and scope of work associated with that 
initiative, required that the FIA be amended so as to remove all non -conforming language (in keeping 
with the prohibitions of Article 3) such as export allowance, local content and any other export 
contingent performance requirement from the revised Fiscal Incentive Act. This process was 
expected to be completed within 18 months. Saint Lucia expected to provide a positive update on 
its progress through its upcoming notification and noted that the actions taken would be 
communicated formally to the Committee.  
 
58. Mexico  noted that it was expecting Saint Lucia's written replies to its questions.  
 
59. The Chair noted that because the questi ons from Mexico remained pending, the Committee 
would return to this notification at the fall special meeting.  
 
60. The Committee took note  of the notification, questions and statements made.  
 
4.4  United States (G/SCM/N/284/USA)  
61. Written questions and answers with respect to this notification can be found in:  
 
• G/SCM/Q2/USA/73 – questions from China  
• G/SCM/Q2/USA/75 – replies to China  
62. China  expressed its concerns regarding the timing of the written responses. China had 
submitted written questions in October 2017 and received the written replies in October 2018 which 
reflected the fact that improving the transparency of trade policies and strengthening performance 
of notification obligations was a problem for all Members.  
 
63. Due to the lack of enough information in the n otifications submitted by the US, China had 
requested the US to provide the amount of some subsidies , such as the information technology 
project grants and community development block grant programmes but had not yet received any 
feedback from the written responses.  
 G/SCM/M/108  
 
- 7 - 
 
  64. With respect of New Mexico property tax abatement, the US had pointed out in its responses 
that benefitted sectors were diverse and vary. In that case, China was not sure how the US could 
judge whether a subsidy was specific and therefore, need ed to be included in its notification.  
 
65. The United States  recalled that China's questions were with respect to its 2015 notification 
rather than its 2017 notification. Although they had been submitted after the established deadlines 
the answers should have been provided sooner than a year later and the US would work on that in 
the future. As to the issue of specificity, the US agreed with China that specificity was often a very 
difficult issue which required a judgement call. Many of China's programs referred by the US, 
however, were often very industry specific by their very nature  such as  programmes that follow a 
five-year plan for the steel industry or China's fisheries subsidies programmes.  
 
66. China  noted that the five -year plan had a guiding nature without  any concrete subsidies. 
Therefore, it was not included in China's notifications.  
 
67. The Committee took note  of the notification, questions, answers and statements made.  
 
5  CONTINUATION OF REVI EW OF 2013 NEW AND F ULL NOTIFICATIONS 
(G/SCM/N/253/…)  
5.1  Russian Federation (G/SCM/N/253/RUS and G/SCM/N/253/RUS/Rev.1)  
68. Writte n questions with respect to this notification can be found in:  
 
• G/SCM/Q2/RUS/16 – questions from the European Union  
69. The Russian Federation  stated that it would finalise the responses soon.2 
 
70. The European Union  stated that it looked forward to receiving written replies.  
 
71. The Chair noted that because the questions from the European Union remained pending, the 
Committee would return to this notification at the fall special meeting.  
 
72. The Committee took note  of the  notification and statements made.  
 
6  CONTINUATION OF REVI EW OF 2009 NEW AND F ULL NOTIFICATIONS 
(G/SCM/N/186/…)  
73. The Chair noted  that this agenda item was for the continuation of reviews of 2009 new and full 
notifications  with respect to which questions from previous meetings remained pending.  
 
6.1  Gabon (G/SCM/N/186/GAB)  
74. Pending written questions concerning this notification can be fo und in:  
 
• G/SCM/Q2/GAB/1 – questions from the United States  
• G/SCM/Q2/GAB/2 – questions from Turkey  
 
75. The Chair noted that as no written replies had been submitted by Gabon, the Committee would 
return to this notification at its fall 2019 special meeting.  
 
6.2  Turkey (G/SCM/N/186/TUR)  
76. Written questions and answers regarding this notification can be found in:  
 
• G/SCM/Q2/TUR/23 – questions from Australia  
• G/SCM/Q2/TUR/36 and G/SCM/Q2/TUR/36/Corr.1 – replies to Australia  
• G/SCM/Q2/TUR/39 – additional replies to Australi a 
 
                                                
2 Circulated in document G/SCM/Q2/RUS/19 dated 7 May 2019.  G/SCM/M/108  
 
- 8 - 
 
  77. The Chair  noted that because additional written replies had been submitted after the applicable 
deadline, the Committee would return to this notification at its fall 2019 special meeting.  
 
78. The Committee took note  of the notification, questions, answers  and statements made.  
 
79. The Chair reminded the delegations that had not yet replied to questions that they had received 
in connection with this or previous meetings to provide their written responses as soon as possible, 
so that the Committee could conclude the review of the notifications at its fall special meeting. He 
also reminded Members that had not yet done so to submit their 2017 new and full subsidy 
notifications as soon as possible.  
 
80. All Members were required to submit their 2019 new and full notifications, not later than 
30 June 2019. The Members that already had made those notifications were to be commended. All 
other Members should redouble their efforts to notify on time, which would greatly enhance the 
transparency function of subsidy notification and review.  
 
81. For new and ful l notifications to be placed on the agenda of the fall special meeting, the Chair 
reminded the delegations that these notifications would have to be circulated in all three working 
languages not later than 17 weeks prior to the meeting. Given the time need ed for translation, this 
left a narrow window to notify in time for review in the fall. The Secretariat stood ready to offer any 
assistance in this regard.  
 
82. The Chair also informed delegations wishing to receive written answers to any questions 
regarding n otifications reviewed at the present meeting that they should submit their questions in 
writing, to both the Member concerned and to the Secretariat. Similarly, the written answers must 
be submitted directly to the Member that posed the question, and to th e Secretariat. The Chair 
emphasized that it was the responsibility of the Members submitting questions and answers to 
provide them directly to the other Member concerned, at the time it submitted it to the Secretariat 
for circulation to all Members concern ed.  
 
83. Finally, the Chair informed the delegations that after the week's Rules Committee cluster, the 
Secretariat would circulate the usual triple -symbolled document containing all of the deadlines for 
documents to be submitted.3 
 
84. The meeting was closed . 
__________  
 
 
 
                                                
3 G/ADP/W/503/Rev.1 - G/SCM/W/578/Rev.1 - G/SG/W/245/Rev.1.  