 RESTRICTED  
  
G/SCM/M/118  
 
16 September 2022  
(22-6844) Page: 1/19 
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures   
 
 
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING  
HELD ON 26 APRIL 2022  
CHAIR: MS NORIKO TERANISHI  (JAPAN)  
1. The Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures ("Committee") held a special 
meeting on 26 April 2022, convened in WTO/AIR/SCM /42 dated 14 April 2022. The meeting was 
held in person and virtually via Interprefy . 
2. The Committee adopted the following agenda:  
1   REVIEW OF 2021 NEW AND FULL SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS (G/SC M/N/372/…)  
NOT PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED  ................................ ................................ ..........................  5 
1.1   Albania (G/SCM/N/372/ALB)  ................................ ................................ .................  5 
1.2   Australia (G/SCM/N/372/AUS)  ................................ ................................ ..............  5 
1.3   Brazil (G/SCM/N/372/BRA)  ................................ ................................ ...................  6 
1.4   Canada (G/SCM/N/372/CAN)  ................................ ................................ .................  6 
1.5   Chile (G/SCM/N/372/CHL)  ................................ ................................ .....................  6 
1.6   China (G/SCM/N/372/CHN)  ................................ ................................ ...................  6 
1.7   Costa Rica (G/SCM/N/372/CRI)  ................................ ................................ .............  7 
1.8   Ecuador (G/SCM/N/372/ECU)  ................................ ................................ ................  8 
1.9   El Salvador (G/SCM/N/372/SLV)  ................................ ................................ ...........  8 
1.10   European Union (G/SCM/N/372/EU and Addenda 2 to 10; 12 to 17; 20 to 24;  
26; and 27, respectively pertaining to Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czec h 
Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, 
Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Spain, and 
Sweden)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................  8 
1.11   Georgia (G/SCM/N/372/GEO)  ................................ ................................ ..............  9 
1.12   Honduras (G/SCM/N/372/HND)  ................................ ................................ ...........  9 
1.13   Hong Kong, China (G/SCM/N/372/HKG)  ................................ ..............................  9 
1.14   Iceland (G/SCM/N/372/ISL)  ................................ ................................ ..............  10 
1.15   Israel (G/SCM/N/372/ISR)  ................................ ................................ ................  10 
1.16   Japan (G/SCM/N/372/JPN)  ................................ ................................ ................  10 
1.17   Kazakhstan (G/SCM/N/372/KAZ)  ................................ ................................ ...... 10 
1.18   Republic of Korea (G/SCM/N/372/KOR)  ................................ .............................  10 
1.19   Liechtenstein (G/SCM/N/372/LIE)  ................................ ................................ ..... 11 
1.20   Madagascar (G/SCM/N/372/MDG)  ................................ ................................ ..... 11 
1.21   Malaysia (G/SCM/N/372/MYS) ................................ ................................ ...........  11 
1.22   Mauritius (G/SCM/N/372/MUS)  ................................ ................................ .........  11 G/SCM/M/118  
 
- 2 - 
 
  1.23   New Zealand (G/SCM/N/372/NZL)  ................................ ................................ .... 11 
1.24   Norway (G/SCM/N/372/NOR)  ................................ ................................ ............  11 
1.25   Philippines (G/SCM/N/372/PHL)  ................................ ................................ ....... 12 
1.26   Seychelles (G/SCM/N/372/SYC)  ................................ ................................ ........  12 
1.27   Singapore (G/SCM/N/372/SGP)  ................................ ................................ .........  12 
1.28   Chinese Taipei (G/SCM/N/372/TPKM/Suppl.1)  ................................ ..................  12 
1.29   Thailand (G/SCM/N/372/THA)  ................................ ................................ ...........  12 
1.30   Ukraine (G/SCM/N/372/UKR)  ................................ ................................ ............  12 
1.31   United Kingdom (G/SCM/N/372/GBR)  ................................ ...............................  12 
1.32   United States (G/SCM/N/372/USA)  ................................ ................................ ... 13 
2   REVIEW OF 2019 NEW AND FULL SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS (G/SCM/N/343/…)  
NOT PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED  ................................ ................................ ........................  13 
3   CONTINUATION OF REVIEW OF 2021 NEW AND FULL SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS 
(G/SCM/N/372/…)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 13 
3.1   Cambodia (G/SCM/N/343/KHM - G/SCM/N/372/KHM)  ................................ ....... 13 
3.2   Montenegro (G/SCM/N/372/MNE and G/SCM/N/372/MNE/Corr.1)  ....................  13 
3.3   Macao, China (G/SCM/N/372/MA C) ................................ ................................ ..... 14 
3.4   Lao People's Democratic Republic (G/SCM/N/343/LAO - G/SCM/N/372/LAO)  ... 14 
4   CONTINUATION OF REVIEW OF 2019 NEW AND FULL SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS 
(G/SCM/N/343/…)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 14 
4.1   Argentina (G/SCM/N/343/ARG/Suppl.2)  ................................ .............................  14 
4.2   China (G/SCM/N/343/CHN and G/SCM/N/343/CHN/Corr.1) ...............................  14 
4.3   Dominican Republic ( G/SCM/N/343/DOM ) ................................ ...........................  16 
4.4   European Union ( G/SCM/N/343/EU/ Add.22  pertaining to Portugal)  ...................  16 
4.5   Indonesia (G/SCM/N/343/IDN)  ................................ ................................ ...........  16 
4.6   Mexico ( G/SCM/N/343/MEX)  ................................ ................................ ...............  17 
4.7   Philippines ( G/SCM/N/343/PHL/ Suppl.1 ) ................................ ............................  17 
4.8   Russian Federation ( G/SCM/N/343/RUS)  ................................ ............................  17 
4.9   United States (G/SCM/N/343/USA/Suppl.1)  ................................ ........................  17 
5   CONTINUATION OF REVIEW OF 2017 NEW AND FULL SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS 
(G/SCM/N/315/…)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 17 
5.1   Mexico ( G/SCM/N/315/MEX)  ................................ ................................ ...............  17 
6   CONTINUATION OF REVIEW OF 2015 NEW AND FULL SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS 
(G/SCM/N/284/…)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 18 
6.1   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 - 
G/SCM/N/284/CHN/SUPPL.1)  ................................ ................................ .....................  18 
7   CONTINUATION OF REVIEW OF 2009 NEW AND FULL NO TIFICATIONS 
(G/SCM/N/186/…)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 18 
7.1   Gabon ( G/SCM/N/186/GAB)  ................................ ................................ ................  18 
 G/SCM/M/118  
 
- 3 - 
 
  3. The European Union  requested the floor to make a statement in relation to the situation in 
Ukraine and the Russian Federation. The European Union condemned in the strongest possible terms 
the unprovoked and unjustified military aggression of the Russian Federation which has  costly 
violated international law and WTO system. The European Union and some other Members had 
circulated a joint statement explaining the trade measures that they would adopt against the Russian 
Federation to restore peace and security as soon as possib le, in full respect of Ukraine's territorial 
integrity and sovereignty.  
4. Because of the Russian Federation's invasion of Ukraine, trade in goods in and from Ukraine 
had been severely disrupted. The European Union reiterated its concern over the trade impact  of the 
Russian Federation's unprovoked and unjustified aggression against Ukraine, in particular regarding 
the supply of a number of commodities such as fertilizers and energy products. The increase in 
energy and fertilizer prices caused by the illegal in vasion by the Russian Federation would likely 
trigger increased subsidization in some WTO Members creating additional negative consequences 
for global trade. The European Union and its member States were in full solidarity with Ukraine and 
its people.  
5. Ukraine stated that due to the Russian Federation's full -scale invasion of Ukraine on 
24 February 2022, the activities of the Ukrainian investigating authorities and the decision -making 
body had been seriously disrupted. Although Ukraine had no ongoing counter vailing duty ("CVD") 
investigation, the situation had deprived Ukrainian domestic industries' of the rights to prepare and 
submit applications for CVD investigations. It also had impeded the ability of other interested parties, 
such as foreign governments,  exporters, importers, and users, to participate in the investigations 
effectively. The investigating authority of Ukraine was not able to hold bilateral consultations as 
required by Article 13 or duly fulfil other provisions of the SCM Agreement. The mult ilateral trading 
system was an attempt by governments to make the business environment stable and predictable 
by adhering to international trade rules. The Russian Federation had deteriorated the proper 
functioning of the multilateral trading system and ca used significant distortions in world markets 
including by severely undermining food security. Ukraine was very grateful to all WTO Members that 
were standing with it during these terrifying times.   
6. The United Kingdom  stated that it would not sit by and ig nore the large scale aggression and 
egregious violations of international law and the United Nations' ("UN") Charter committed by one 
WTO Member against another. The direct consequences of the Russian Federation's actions were 
starting to show, impeding th e ability of Ukraine to fully participate in the work of the WTO and in 
the global trading system. While the Russian Federation continued to violate international law, 
human rights and multiple commitments to peace and security, the United Kingdom would co ntinue 
to work with its allies and partners across the multilateral system to condemn Russia's appalling 
actions and to isolate it on the international stage.  
7. Canada  echoed the statements made by the European Union, Ukraine, and the 
United  Kingdom. It strongly condemned the Russian Federation's unjustifiable and unprovoked 
invasion of Ukraine which continued to cause devastating humanitarian consequences and the 
senseless death of innocent people. The Russian Federation's hostile act was not just an attack on 
Ukraine and its people, or a reckless decision taken in a fragile moment in the global economic 
recovery from COVID -19, but it was also a blatant violation of international law and the rules -based 
international order. The Russian Federation was solely r esponsible for this crisis and its false 
narratives could not change that. The Russian  Federation had destroyed Ukraine's ability to supply 
the world with food and it had cut itself off from the global trading system. Canada was acting to 
protect its essen tial security interests which were inextricably linked to the rules -based international 
environment. Canada would continue to work closely with its allies and partners to promote peace 
and security for all States and their citizens.  
8. New Zealand  joined othe r Members in condemning unequivocally the unprovoked and 
unjustified attack by the Russian Federation on Ukraine. Those actions were grave breaches of 
international rules. Use of force to change borders and targeting civilians were strictly prohibited 
under international law. The Russian Federation's invasion had implications on global peace, security 
and economic stability, deeply undermining the work of the Committee which was underpinned by 
the multilateral cooperation.  
9. Australia  condemned in the stronge st possible terms the Russian Federation's unprovoked, 
unjust, and illegal invasion of Ukraine which was a gross violation of international law, including the G/SCM/M/118  
 
- 4 - 
 
  UN Charter. Australia strongly supported Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity and call ed on 
the Russian Federation to cease its attacks on Ukraine and withdraw its forces from Ukrainian 
territory. The Russian Federation's war in Ukraine was exacting a catastrophic humanitarian toll in 
addition to trade disruptions and the food crisis. Austr alia was working in lockstep with its partners 
to support Ukraine and hold the Russian Federation accountable for its actions. Australia had 
imposed far -reaching sanctions to inflict heavy costs on the Russian Federation and others who were 
responsible. In ternational unity had underpinned the effective response to the Russian Federation's 
invasion.  
10. The United States  fully supported Ukraine and the statements made by previous speakers. 
The United States had made its position on the Russian Federation's actio ns clear, and recalled that 
the joint statement in document WT/GC/244 on the aggression by the Russian  Federation against 
Ukraine with Belarus' support, condemned the Russian  Federation's actions as a violation of 
international law, the UN Charter and the fundamental principles of international peace and security. 
The Russian Federation's actions undermined the rules -based system that Members had built and 
worked to improve. The United States underscored its support for Ukraine during this unimaginably 
difficult time.  
11. The Republic of Korea  joined previous speakers regarding the situation in Ukraine. It strongly 
condemned the Russian Federation's armed invasion of Ukraine as a violation of the principles of the 
UN Charter and the rules of the international co mmunity. The Republic of Korea shared the 
international community's deep concern over the unfolding humanitarian situation in Ukraine. 
The use of force that had been causing innocent casualties could not be justified under any 
circumstances. Ukraine's sove reignty, territorial integrity and political independence had to be 
respected.  
12. Japan  echoed the previous statements. The Russian Federation's aggression against Ukraine 
was an evident infringement of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine and  constituted a 
grave breach of the UN Charter that prohibits the use of force. It was an attempt to unilaterally 
change the status quo  by force and thus challenged the basis of the international order on which the 
WTO was founded. Japan did not tolerate such action and condemned the Russian Federation's 
aggression in the strongest possible terms. It urged the Russian Federation to cease the military 
operations in Ukraine and withdraw its forces immediately. Japan stood in solidarity with Ukraine 
and its people and continued cooperating with the members of the international community, 
including the G7.  
13. Norway  expressed its full support to Ukrainian people and Ukraine as a sovereign nation. 
The Russian Federation's military attack on Ukraine was an unprovoked and illegal attack on a 
peaceful neighbour and its population which had caused death and destruction as well as human 
suffering on a h orrendous scale with millions of refugees and internal displacement. 
Norway  condemned the Russian Federation's illegal attack on Ukraine in the strongest possible terms 
and stated that the Russian Federation's aggressive actions were a clear violation of U kraine's 
independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. Members had to defend the world order and the 
relationships between States were determined not on the basis of power but on international law.  
14. Norway also condemned the Russian Federation's fal se narrative on its military invasion of 
Ukraine and the impacts thereof including the effects of sanctions implemented by other Members 
as a reaction to the Russian Federation's military invasion. The measures taken as a reaction to the 
Russian Federation 's unprovoked actions were fully consistent with Norway's WTO rights and 
obligations.  
15. The effects of Russian Federation's military invasion had been increasingly felt outside the 
Ukrainian borders causing a refugee crisis and rises in the prices of food, energy, and other 
commodities. The Russian Federation was directly responsible for a shock impact on global food 
systems which would be felt worldwide especially by the world's poorest and most vulnerable. 
With this military invasion, the Russian Federatio n had shown its complete disregard of the 
multilateral system and forfeited the right to use the system for its own purposes. It was of utmost 
importance that all Members understand these realities and counter the Russian Federation's 
attempts to create a false narrative at the WTO and all other relevant fora.  G/SCM/M/118  
 
- 5 - 
 
  16. Chinese Taipei  joined previous speakers in condemning the Russian Federation's military 
aggression in Ukraine, which continued to cause devastating losses of human lives, millions of 
refugees, great t urmoil in international trade and serious worsening of the global food crisis. 
This unprovoked and unjustified attack had to be stopped immediately. Chinese Taipei called upon 
the Russian Federation to respect international law and the territorial sovereig nty of another 
Member, and it stood firmly by Ukraine and its people.  
17. The Russian Federation  noted that the statements delivered by the same small group of 
Members were advancing themselves by serving the political agenda of those Members which was 
not re levant to the WTO mandate. Representatives of the Russian Federation explained in 
appropriate fora in the UN what was going on with the operation in Ukraine. The Russian  Federation 
rejected all unfounded allegations raised by some delegations, in particula r regarding the 
deterioration of the multilateral trading system and food security, and referred Members to its 
intervention at the CTG meeting held the week before. The attempts to isolate anyone in the 
globalized international economy would cause repercu ssions in many markets especially while fragile 
economies were being rebuilt following the COVID -19 pandemic. For that reason, the Russian 
Federation was of the view that the discussions in the WTO regarding the trade -related consequences 
of the situation in Ukraine and the unjustified unilateral trade -restrictive measures of some Members 
were quite relevant. Those Members chose to take part in economic confrontation and demonstrated 
disregard for universally accepted WTO rules and norms.  
18. For example, the European Union had allowed disbursement of significant subsidies to energy 
intensive sectors. The European Union had cut the supplies of essential energy products into its 
territory and paid for the consequences of this political step through subsidies to its industry. 
Not everyone, however, had such a deep pocket, and any negative economic consequences would 
be the direct cause of that reckless economic war. The Russian  Federation looked forward to seeing 
the subsidy notification of the European Union.  
19. In response to Norway's statement indicating that the responses were fully consistent with 
the rules, the Russian Federation recalled that Members would discuss the trade remedy measures 
such as anti -dumping, countervailing duty, or safeguard measures at the  Rules  Committees, the 
effects of which were devastating even when lawful and ordinary. A group of Members, however, 
were in a concerted action of a reckless economic war dismantling the whole international trade 
structure. This was not about the legal sys tem but just cutting supplies in disregard of the 
multilateral trading system.  
1  REVIEW OF 2021 NEW AND FULL SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS (G/SCM/N/372/…) NOT 
PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED  
1.1  Albania ( G/SCM/N/372/ALB)  
20. No Member raised any questions or comments about this notification.  
21. The Committee took note  of the notification.  
1.2  Australia ( G/SCM/N/372/AUS)  
22. Written questions and answers regarding this notification can be found in:  
• G/SCM/Q2/AUS/62 – questions from the United States  
• G/SCM/Q2/AUS/63 – questions from the United Kingdom  
• G/SCM/Q2/AUS/64 – replies to the United States  
• G/SCM/Q2/AUS/65 – replies to the United Kingdom  
23. The Committee took note  of the notification, questions and replies.  G/SCM/M/118  
 
- 6 - 
 
  1.3  Brazil ( G/SCM/N/372/BRA)  
24. Written questions and answers regarding this noti fication can be found in:  
• G/SCM/Q2/BRA/55 – questions from the United Kingdom  
• G/SCM/Q2/BRA/56 – replies to the United Kingdom  
25. The Chair  noted that because the written replies had been provided after the applicable deadline 
the Committee would return  to this notification at its next special meeting.  
1.4  Canada ( G/SCM/N/372/CAN)  
26. Written questions and answers regarding this notification can be found in:  
• G/SCM/Q2/CAN/71 – questions from Chinese Taipei  
• G/SCM/Q2/CAN/72 – questions from the United States  
• G/SCM/Q2/CAN/73 – questions from the United Kingdom  
• G/SCM/Q2/CAN/74 – questions from Australia  
• G/SCM/Q2/CAN/75 – replies to Chinese Taipei  
• G/SCM/Q2/CAN/76 – replies to the United Kingdom  
• G/SCM/Q2/CAN/77 – replies to the United States  
27. The Chair  noted that because the written questions by Australia had been posed after the 
applicable deadline and still pending, the Committee would return to this notification as well as the 
questions raised by Australia a t its next special meeting.  
1.5  Chile ( G/SCM/N/372/ CHL)  
28. Written questions and answers regarding this notification can be found in:  
• G/SCM/Q2/CHL/31 – questions from Australia  
• G/SCM/Q2/CHL/32 – replies to Australia1 
29. Chile noted that the written replies would be provided shortly and it would like to prov ide general 
replies at the meeting. The questions posed by Australia were about two fisheries subsidies contained 
in Chile's notification: (i) the fund for the promotion and development of remote areas and (ii) the 
National Institute for the Sustainable De velopment of Small -Scale Fisheries and Aquaculture 
(INDESPA). Both programmes used the same definition of "small -scale fishing" which was contained 
in the General Law on Fisheries and Aquaculture. The programmes contemplated the requirement 
not to increase  fishing operations and their focus was to safeguard navigational safety.  
30. Australia  thanked Chile for its oral replies.  
31. The Chair  noted that because the written questions by Australia had been posed after the 
applicable deadline, the Committee would retur n to this notification a t its next special meeting.  
1.6  China ( G/SCM/N/372/CHN)  
32. Written questions regarding this notification can be found in:  
• G/SCM/Q2/CHN/105 – questions from the United Kingdom  
• G/SCM/Q2/CHN/106 – questions from the United States  
• G/SCM /Q2/CHN/107 – questions from Australia  
• G/SCM/Q2/CHN/110 – questions from Canada  
• G/SCM/Q2/CHN/111 – replies to the United Kingdom  
• G/SCM/Q2/CHN/112 – replies to the United States  
33. China  noted that transparency in trade policies was the cornerstone for the effective operation 
of the WTO. In recent years, China had been striving to enhance the transparency of its subsidy 
 
1 This document was circulated on 31 May 2022.  G/SCM/M/118  
 
- 7 - 
 
  policies and made a succession of major breakthroughs in this process . The Chinese Government 
had timely submitted notifications as required by the WTO demonstrating its firm support for the 
multilateral trading system.  
34. Covering 71 subsidy policies at the central and 374 subsidy policies at the sub -central levels 
that involve 31 provinces/autonomous regions/municipalities and 5 cities directly designated by the 
State Council, the notification achieved full coverage of all provincial administrative regions and 
included many subsidy policies at the country level.  
35. China wa s grateful to the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada for their 
written questions. It had submitted written replies to the United States and the United  Kingdom's 
questions. Relevant Chinese authorities were conducting a careful study of  the questions from 
Australia and Canada and the written replies would be submitted as soon as possible.  
36. The United States  noted that it had received China's replies two days earlier and would have 
two follow -up questions. According to certain financial s tatements of various fossil -fuel companies 
in China, the Government of China had provided financial grants totalling RMB  20.4 billion in 2020. 
In question eight, the United States had asked why those financial contributions had not been 
included in China's  notification. In reply, China requested the United States to provide the relevant 
documents. The United States asked China to clarify whether it was requesting the financial 
statements of its own state -owned fossil fuel companies and whether those stateme nts were not 
available to the Government of China.  
37. With respect to the question  20, the United States requested China to clarify whether the distant 
water fishing enterprises were completely exempted from income taxes.  
38. Canada  looked forward to receiving C hina's written replies before the next meeting of the 
Committee.  
39. The United Kingdom  noted that it had not had time to examine the replies in detail. It would 
submit written follow -up questions if needed.  
40. Australia  looked forward to receiving China's writte n replies in due course.  
41. China  noted the concerns raised by the United States. It would contact the relevant authorities 
and companies to double check the requested information. With respect to the question  20, China 
recalled that it requested the United States to refer to China's Enterprise Tax Law.  
42. The United States  reiterated that China's reply on the question on distant water fishing 
enterprises was not a particular response.  
43. Japan  noted that China had been providing support including through state -owned investment 
funds and government -affiliated financial institutions, to the advanced industries included in " Made 
in China 2025" and other programs on an extremely large scale. When not provided in line with 
market principles, massive government support  might cause excess capacity even in the advanced 
industries which could have a major negative impact on the international markets. Japan highlighted 
the importance of submitting appropriate subsidy notifications and requested China to respond 
seriously to  the questions in order to make the notification system meaningful.  
44. China  noted the concerns raised by the United States and it would double check with the 
relevant departments.  
45. The Chair  noted that because the written replies to the United Kingdom and the  United States 
as well as the pending questions from Australia and Canada had been submitted after the applicable 
deadlines, the Committee would take up this notification and the relevant questions and replies 
again a t its next special meeting.  
1.7  Costa Rica (G/SCM/N/372/CRI)  
46. Written questions and answers regarding this notification can be found in:  G/SCM/M/118  
 
- 8 - 
 
  • G/SCM/Q2/CRI/12 – questions from the United States  
• G/SCM/Q2/CRI/13 – replies to the United States  
47. The Committee took note  of the notification, questions and replies.  
1.8  Ecuador ( G/SCM/N/372/ECU)  
48. Written questions and answers regarding this notification can be found in:  
• G/SCM/Q2/ECU/5 – questions from the United States  
• G/SCM/Q2/ECU/6 – replies to the United States2 
49. Ecuador  provided oral replies to the questions at the meeting. Regarding the first question on 
the Organic Law for Production Incentives and Tax Fraud Prevention, Ecuador explained that the 
incentive was not exclusively for the mining sector but also for other sec tors in accordance with the 
second paragraph of Article  26 of the Organic  Code of Production, Trade and Investment. 
The general income tax rate was 22% pursuant to Article 37 of the Internal Taxation Law, which 
had been in force at the time of the enactmen t of the Organic Law for Production Incentives and 
Tax Fraud Prevention; therefore, there was no specific income tax reduction for the mining sector. 
The income tax rate for the mining sector had been clarified as the general rate established for 
corporati ons by the Law on the Revitalization of the Economy and the Strengthening of Dollarization 
as published in Official Journal Supplement No. 484 of 9  May 2019. Ecuador did not consider it 
necessary to notify the relevant law because (i) tax stability was app licable to all sectors of the 
economy and not exclusively to the mining sector; and (ii) the income tax rate for the mining sector 
was consistent with the general income tax rate for corporations.  
50. Regarding the second question by the United States, Ecuador explained that the second chapter 
of the Productive Development Law, which had set out the relevant incentives, had been repealed 
by the Organic Law for Economic Development and Fiscal Sustainabil ity Following the COVID -19 
Pandemic. Therefore , it was not necessary to notify those measures.  
51. The United States  looked forward to receiving written replies.  
52. The Chair  noted that since Ecuador had not yet provided its written replies to the questions 
posed by the United States the Committee would return  to this notification at its next special 
meeting.  
1.9  El Salvador ( G/SCM/N/372/SLV)  
53. Written questions and answers regardin g this notification can be found in:  
• G/SCM/Q2/SLV/3 – question from the United States  
• G/SCM/Q2/SLV/4 – reply to the United States  
54. The Chair noted that since El Salvador had provided its written reply after the applicable 
deadline the Committee would return to this notification at its next special meeting.  
1.10  European Union (G/SCM/N/372/EU and Addenda 2 to 10; 12 to 17; 20 to 24; 26; 
and 27, respectively pertaining to Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, 
Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, 
Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Spain, and Sweden)  
55. Written questions and answers regarding these notifications can be found in:  
• G/SCM/Q2/EU/62 – questions from the Unite d States (pertaining to Denmark)  
• G/SCM/Q2/EU/63 – questions from the United States (pertaining to Hungary)  
• G/SCM/Q2/EU/64 – questions from the United States (pertaining to Spain)  
• G/SCM/Q2/EU/65 – questions from the United States  
• G/SCM/Q2/EU/66 – questions from Australia (pertaining to Bulgaria)  
 
2 This document was circulated on 28 April 2022.  G/SCM/M/118  
 
- 9 - 
 
  • G/SCM/Q2/EU/67 – questions from Australia (pertaining to Cyprus)  
• G/SCM/Q2/EU/68 – questions from Australia (pertaining to Denmark)  
• G/SCM/Q2/EU/69 – questions from Australia (pertaining to Greece)  
• G/SCM/Q2/EU/70 – questions from Australia (pertaining to Spain)  
• G/SCM/Q2/EU/71 – questions from Australia (pertaining to Ireland)  
• G/SCM/Q2/EU/72 – replies to the United States (pertaining to Hungary)  
• G/SCM/Q2/EU/73 – replies to the United States (pertaining to Spain)  
• G/SCM/Q2/EU/74 – replies to the United States (pertaining to Denmark)  
• G/SCM/Q2/EU/75 – replies to the United States  
56. The European Union  provided oral replies with respect to the questions raised by the 
United  States in document G/ SCM/Q2/EU/65. In response to the first question, the European  Union 
explained that there was no conflict between the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund's objective 
of creating jobs in the fishing sector and the control of fishing capacity and intensity. In the European 
Union, the control of fishing capacity was based on a segmentation of the fleet; structural action 
was required only in those segments where there was overcapacity. In the other segments, there 
was a balance between the capacity of the flee t and the available fishing opportunities, thus the 
sector could create jobs without jeopardising that situation. Nevertheless, the Common Fisheries 
Policy would require European Union Member States to manage their fleets by taking into account 
trends and based on best scientific advice, with the objective of achieving a stable and enduring 
balance between the fishing capacity and the available fishing opportunities.  
57. With respect to the second question, the European Union noted that the criteria mentioned i n 
the question had been used to set the financial allocations for the 2014 -2020 period and discontinued 
for the 2021 -2027 period. The Common Fisheries Policy required Member States to take due care in 
the management of their fishing capacity in order to en sure a stable and enduring balance between 
the fleets' fishing capacity and fishing opportunities over time. They had the obligation to implement 
structural measures where there was overcapacity.  
58. The United States  looked forward to receiving the written re plies. 
59. The Chair  noted that because the written replies to questions on the notifications pertaining to 
Hungary, Spain, Denmark and the European Union had been submitted the week before and there 
had been pending questions; and because the questions from A ustralia had been submitted after 
the applicable deadline, the notifications contained in documents G/SCM/N/372/EU and addenda 3, 
5, 7, 12, 13, 14, and 26 respectively pertaining to the European Union, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, 
Greece, Hungary, Ireland, a nd Spain, would be on the agenda of the next special meeting of the 
Committee.  
1.11  Georgia (G/SCM/N/372/GEO)  
60. Written questions and answers regarding this notification can be found in:  
• G/SCM/Q2/GEO/1 – question from the United States  
• G/SCM/Q2/GEO/2 – reply to the United States  
61. The Committee took note  of the notification, question and reply.  
1.12  Honduras ( G/SCM/N/372/HND)  
62. No Member raised any questions or comments about this notification.  
63. The Committee took note  of the notification.  
1.13  Hong Kong, China ( G/SCM /N/372/HKG)  
64. Written questions and replies regarding this notification can be found in:  
• G/SCM/Q2/HKG/14 – questions from the United States  
• G/SCM/Q2/HKG/15 – questions from Australia  
• G/SCM/Q2/HKG/16 – reply to the United States  G/SCM/M/118  
 
- 10 - 
 
  • G/SCM /Q2/HKG/17 – reply to Australia3  
65. The Chair  noted that since the questions by Australia had been posed after the applicable 
deadline the Committee would return  to this notification at its next special meeting.  
1.14  Iceland ( G/SCM/N/372/ISL)  
66. No Member raised any questions or comments about this notification.  
67. The Committee took note  of the notification.  
1.15  Israel ( G/SCM/N/372/ISR)  
68. Written questions and replies regarding this notification can be found in:  
• G/SCM/Q2/ISR/19 – questions from the United States  
• G/SCM/Q2/ISR/20 – questions from Australia  
• G/SCM/Q2/ISR/21 – replies to the United States  
• G/SCM/Q2/ISR/22 – replies to Australia  
69. The Chair noted that the questions from Australia and written replies to both the United  States 
and Australia had been submitted after the applicable deadlines. Therefore, the notification, 
questions and replies would be taken up again by the Committee at its next special meeting.  
1.16  Japan ( G/SCM/N/372/JPN)  
70. Written questions and replies regarding  this notification can be found in:  
• G/SCM/Q2/JPN/78 – questions from Chinese Taipei  
• G/SCM/Q2/JPN/79 – questions from the United Kingdom  
• G/SCM/Q2/JPN/80 – replies to Chinese Taipei  
• G/SCM/Q2/JPN/81 – replies to the United Kingdom  
• G/SCM/Q2/JPN/82 – questions from Australia  
• G/SCM/Q2/JPN/83 – replies to Australia4 
71. The Chair  noted that the questions from Australia had been submitted after the applicable 
deadline. Therefore, both the notification and questions from Australia would be on the agenda of 
the next special meeting of the Committee.  
1.17  Kazakhstan ( G/SCM/N/372/KAZ)  
72. No Me mber raised any questions or comments about this notification.  
73. The Committee took note  of the notification.  
1.18  Republic of Korea ( G/SCM/N/372/KOR)  
74. Written questions regarding this notification can be found in:  
• G/SCM/Q2/KOR/66 – questions from Australia  
75. The Chair  noted that the questions from Australia had been submitted after the applicable 
deadline. Therefore, both the notification and questions from Australia would be on the agenda of 
the next special meeting of the Committee.  
 
3 This document was circulated on 31 May 2022.  
4 This document was circulated on 31 May 2022.  G/SCM/M/118  
 
- 11 - 
 
  1.19  Liechtenstein ( G/SCM /N/372/LIE)  
76. No Member raised any questions or comments about this notification.  
77. The Committee took note  of the notification.  
1.20  Madagascar ( G/SCM/N/372/MDG)  
78. No Member raised any questions or comments about this notification.  
79. The Committee took note  of the not ification.  
1.21  Malaysia ( G/SCM/N/372/MYS)  
80. Written questions and replies regarding this notification can be found in:  
• G/SCM/Q2/MYS/26 – questions from the United States  
• G/SCM/Q2/MYS/27 – replies to the United States  
81. The United States  indicated that it would need time to review the replies and might have 
follow -up questions.  
82. Malaysia  took note of the comments by the United States.  
83. The Chair noted that since Malaysia's written replies had been submitted after the applicable 
deadline, th e Committee would take up this notification as well as the questions and replies again 
at its next special meeting.  
1.22  Mauritius ( G/SCM/N/372/MUS)  
84. No Member raised any questions or comments about this notification.  
85. The Committee took note  of the notification.  
1.23  New Zealand ( G/SCM/N/372/NZL)  
86. Written questions and replies regarding this notification can be found in:  
• G/SCM/Q2/NZL/32 – questions from the United States  
• G/SCM/Q2/NZL/33 – replies to the United States  
87. The Chair  noted that since New Zealand's written replies had been submitted after the applicable 
deadline, the Committee would take up this notification as well as the questions and replies again 
at its next special meeting.  
1.24  Norway ( G/SCM/N/372/NOR)  
88. No Member raise d any questions or comments about this notification.  
89. Norway  explained that its notification covered twenty subsidy schemes mainly organized in 
chapters on the basis of their overall objective. The largest subsidy amounts notified were granted 
to disadvanta ged regions, specific industries such as the press grant scheme, aiming to stimulate 
diversity in news and current affairs media, and national nuclear waste management, aiming to close 
nuclear facilities in a safe and secure manner. The forestry sector, un dertakings suffering a 
substantial loss of turnover due to the COVID -19 pandemic and the agricultural sector were also in 
that group.  
90. Relatively smaller amounts had been granted to the fishery sector and specific industries such 
as national programmes prom oting Norwegian space industry and media diversity. Similar amounts 
had been granted to research and development such as the bioenergy scheme aiming to promote G/SCM/M/118  
 
- 12 - 
 
  bioenergy as an alternative to fossil energy , and to sectors for which there were no realistic 
alternatives to mineral products or where electricity was not a substitute. Almost all subsidies were 
in the form of grants and for the majority of the schemes no statistical data was available to show 
trade effects.  
91. Since the previous reporting period, the  Regional Risk Loans and Guarantees (item 3.2); 
Forest Trust Fund Scheme (item 7.1); and the Timber Account scheme (item 7.2) had been removed. 
The programme on national nuclear waste management and operation of nuclear facilities (item 4.4) 
and temporary grant scheme for undertakings suffering a substantial loss of turnover due to the 
COVID -19 pandemic (item 6) had been added since the previous notification.  
92. Norway thanked the Secretariat for all its support and encouragement in its notification process.  
93. The Committee took note  of the notification and the statement.  
1.25  Philippines ( G/SCM/N/372/PHL)  
94. Written questions regarding this notification can be found in:  
• G/SCM/Q2/PHL/21 – questions from the United States  
95. The Chair noted that since the questions from th e United States had been received after the 
applicable deadline and still pending, the Committee would take up this notification and questions 
again at its next special meeting.  
1.26  Seychelles ( G/SCM/N/372/SYC)  
96. No Member raised any questions or comments about this notification.  
97. The Committee took note  of the notification.  
1.27  Singapore ( G/SCM/N/372/SGP)  
98. No Member raised any questions or comments about this notification.  
99. The Committee took note  of the notification.  
1.28  Chinese Taipei ( G/SCM/N/372/TPKM/Sup pl.1)  
100.   No Member raised any questions or comments about this notification.  
101.   The Committee took note  of the notification.  
1.29  Thailand ( G/SCM/N/372/THA)  
102.   No Member raised any questions or comments about this notification.  
103.   The Committee took note  of the notific ation.  
1.30  Ukraine ( G/SCM/N/372/UKR)  
104.   No Member raised any questions or comments about this notification.  
105.   The Committee took note  of the notification.  
1.31  United Kingdom ( G/SCM/N/372/GBR)  
106.   Written questions and replies regarding this notification can be found in:  
• G/SCM/Q2/GBR/1 – questions from Australia  G/SCM/M/118  
 
- 13 - 
 
  • G/SCM/Q2/GBR/2 – replies to Australia5 
107.   The Chair noted that since the questions from Australia had been received after the applicable 
deadline, the Committee would take up this notification again at its next special meeting.  
1.32  United States ( G/SCM/N/372/USA)  
108.   Written questions and replies regarding this n otification can be found in:  
• G/SCM/Q2/USA/82 – questions from the United Kingdom  
• G/SCM/Q2/USA/83 – questions from Australia  
• G/SCM/Q2/USA/84 – replies to the United Kingdom  
109.   The United States  indicated that the questions from Australia had been receiv ed after the 
deadline and written replies would be provided as soon as possible.  
110.   Australia  looked forward to receiving the replies in due course.  
111.   The Chair noted that since the questions from Australia had been received after the applicable 
deadline and still pending, the Committee would take up this notification and those questions again 
at its next special meeting.  
2  REVIEW OF 2019 NEW AND FULL SUBSIDY NOTIF ICATIONS (G/SCM/N/343/…) NOT 
PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED  
112.   The Chair recalled that the 2019 notification of Liechtenstein would not be reviewed again 
because the previous agenda item already covered it.  
3  CONTINUATION OF REVIEW OF 2021 NEW AND FULL SUBSIDY NOTIFICAT IONS 
(G/SCM/N/372/…)  
113.   The Chair  noted that this agenda item was for continuation of reviews of 2021 new and full 
notifications which had started at the previous meeting but had not yet been completed, due to late 
submission of questions or non -submission o r late submission of written replies.  
3.1  Cambodia ( G/SCM/N/343/KHM - G/SCM/N/372/KHM)  
114.   Written questions and replies regarding this double -symbolled notification can be found in:  
• G/SCM/Q2/KHM/1 – questions from the United States  
• G/SCM/Q2/KHM/2 – replies to the United States  
115.   The United States  thanked Cambodia for its replies and noted that Cambodia's LDC status did 
not absolve it from its obligation to fully notify its subsidy programmes under Article 25 of the SCM 
Agreement.  
116.   The Committee took note  of the notification, questions, replies and the statement made.  
3.2  Montenegro ( G/SCM/N/372/MNE and G/SCM/N/372/MNE/Corr.1)  
117.   Written questions regarding this notification can be found in:  
• G/SCM/Q2/MNE/1 – questions from New Zealand  
• G/SCM/Q2/MNE/2 – questions from the United States  
 
5 This document was circulated on 31 May 2022.  G/SCM/M/118  
 
- 14 - 
 
  118.   The Chair  noted that since Montenegro had not yet provided its written replies to the questions 
posed by New Zealand and the United States, the Committee would return  to this notification at its 
next speci al meeting.  
3.3  Macao, China ( G/SCM/N/372/MAC)  
119.   Written questions and answers regarding this notification can be found in:  
• G/SCM/Q2/MAC/10 – question from New Zealand  
• G/SCM/Q2/MAC/11 – questions from the United States  
• G/SCM/Q2/MAC/12 – reply to New Zeala nd 
• G/SCM/Q2/MAC/13 – replies to the United States  
120.   The Committee took note  of the notification, questions and replies.  
3.4  Lao People's Democratic Republic ( G/SCM/N/343/LAO - G/SCM/N/372/LAO)  
121.   Written questions and replies regarding this double -symbolled notification can be found in:  
• G/SCM/Q2/LAO/1 – questions from the United States  
• G/SCM/Q2/LAO/2 – replies to the United States6 
122.   Lao People's Democratic Republic  provided its oral responses to the questions posed by the 
United States. Regarding the first question, Lao People's Democratic Republic explained that the 
relevant programme had been included in its notification. With respect to the second question, it 
noted that the Prime Ministry Decree No. 46/PM, 2001 had been used to fill i n the details of the Law 
on Foreign Investment Promotion and Management, dated 1994. This Law had been replaced by the 
Law on Investment Promotion dated 2009 and its subsequent amendment in 2016. Lao People's 
Democratic Republic  had requested the United St ates to refer its notification for further details.  
123.   The United States  looked forward to receiving written replies.  
124.   The Chair  noted that because the written replies had not been provided before the applicable 
deadline, the Committee would return  to this notification at its next special meeting.  
4  CONTINUATION OF REVIEW OF 2019 NEW AND FULL SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS 
(G/SCM /N/343/…)  
125.   The Chair  noted that this agenda item was for continuation of reviews of 2019 new and full 
notifications which had started at prior meetings but 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 regarding those 
notifications.  
4.1  Argentina (G/SCM/N/343/ARG/Suppl.2)  
126.   Written questions and answers regarding this notification can be f ound in:  
• G/SCM/Q2/ARG/42 – questions from the United States  
• G/SCM/Q2/ARG/43 – replies to the United States  
127.   The Committee took note  of the notification, questions, and answers.  
4.2  China (G/SCM/N/343/CHN and G/SCM/N/343/CHN/Corr.1)  
128.   Written questions and answers regarding this notification can be found in:  
• G/SCM/Q2/CHN/103 – follow -up questions from Canada  
 
6 This document was circulated on 27 April 2022.  G/SCM/M/118  
 
- 15 - 
 
  • G/SCM/Q2/CHN/104 – second set of follow -up questions from the United States  
• G/SCM/Q2/CHN/108 – replies to second set of follow -up question s from the United States  
• G/SCM/Q2/CHN/109 – replies to follow -up questions from Canada  
129.   The United States  noted that it had one comment and one follow -up question regarding the 
responses provided by China to its questions. Although the United States had gi ven China multiple 
opportunities to acknowledge and accept its obligation to publish subsidy measures in the MOFCOM 
Gazette, China had continued to refuse to do so. Subsidy measures were related to international 
trade and therefore subject to the obligatio n contained in China's Protocol of Accession. China's 
failure to publish such measures in the MOFCOM Gazette would undermine China's claim that it had 
been committed to enhancing transparency of its subsidy policy. If China truly wanted to enhance 
transpar ency of its subsidy policy, it would publish all such policies in the MOFCOM Gazette as it was 
committed to in its Protocol of Accession.  
130.   With respect to the second question, the United States requested China to clarify whether the 
Domestic Refined Fuel P rice Reform Upward Adjustment According to the System measure 
constituted a specific subsidy to the fisheries sector. According to Zhong -Fa 2008 No. 37, the central 
government had subsidized refined fuel prices for fisheries including distant water fisheri es among 
other industries.  
131.   Canada  expressed its disappointment with the answers provided by China. Canada had asked 
why two programmes had not been included in China's 2019 subsidy notification. Regarding the 
Special Fund for Patent Invention programme, China had asked Canada to provide the website to 
the program. However, it was China 's obligation to provide information on specific subsidies – not 
that of the Member asking questions.  
132.   With respect to the second programme which involved export performance  grants, China had 
responded that the program had been notified in 2006. Canada failed to see how the notification of 
a program over 15 years earlier would justify not having it included in China's 2019 subsidy 
notification while it was still in force duri ng the period covered by the notification. Although the 
subsidy notification process was an important aspect of the multilateral system China had not taken 
its transparency obligations seriously. All Members had to make every effort to provide notification s 
and respond to questions in a complete manner to have a functioning system.  
133.   China  noted the concerns raised by the United States and Canada. In response to the first 
comment by the United States, China stated that it took that issue very seriously and would contact 
the relevant department to study how to improve the situation.   
134.   With respect to the United States' question on Domestic Refined Fuel Price Reform Upward 
Adjustment According to the System, China indicated that fisheries sector had not enjoyed a 
preferential price therefore there was no subsidy for fisheries sector in terms of fuel price. 
The relevant document published on 31 December 2021 did not include the fisheries sector. 
In response to the comments by the United States on Zhong -Fa 2008 No.  37, China clarified that 
the accurate document should be Guo -Fa 2008 No.  37 which had been repealed. China also 
requested the United States to check item 71 of its latest subsidy notification for further information. 
China stated that the document Guo -Fa 2008 No.  37 involved subsidies for many sectors such as 
public transportation  and forestry industry. Therefore, it was not specific to fisheries sector.  
135.   In response to Canada's first question on Special Fund for Patent Invention, China noted that 
it had checked but could not find the relevant document therefore requested further i nformation 
from Canada. With respect to Canada's second question on Export Performance Grants, it noted that 
the document Cai Qi No.  467, 2000 had been notified in China's notification submitted in 2006.   
136.   The United States  reiterated its concern regarding  China's publication obligation. China's 
answer indicating that it would study this matter seemed odd to the United States as China had 
taken on that obligation 21 years ago. The United States hoped that China would observe its 
obligation and publish all t he legal measures relating to the establishment and implementation of 
China's subsidy programmes.  
137.   With respect to the fuel programme, the United States requested China to clarify the legal 
citation for the document that had repealed Zhong -Fa No. 37. The United States also noted China's G/SCM/M/118  
 
- 16 - 
 
  reply which had acknowledged the existence of a generic fuel subsidy programme. However, as the 
number of industries listed by China was limited, this programme seemed to be specific and therefore 
should have been notified.  
138.   China  clarified that it had referred to only e few of the industries but not the complete list of 
sectors. There were lots of other industries covered by that policy therefore in China's view it was 
not a specific subsidy.  
139.   Recalling that the replies to the follow -up questions from Canada and the United States had 
been received after the applicable deadline, the Chair noted that this notification would be on the 
agenda of the next special meeting of the Committee.  
4.3  Dominican Republic (G/SCM /N/343/DOM ) 
140.   Written questions regarding this notification can be found in:  
• G/SCM/Q2/DOM/3 – questions from the United States  
141.   Dominican Republic  noted that the replies would be submitted prior to the next meeting of the 
Committee.  
142.   The United States  noted  that it looked forward to receiving the written replies.  
143.   The Chair  noted that since Dominican Republic had not provided its written answers to 
questions posed by the United States, the notification would be on the agenda of the next special 
meeting of th e Committee.  
4.4  European Union (G/SCM/N/343/EU/ Add.22  pertaining to Portugal)  
144.   Written questions regarding this notification can be found in:  
• G/SCM/Q2/EU/59 – question from Australia  
145.   The European Union  noted that it had been working with Portugal to prepare a supplementary 
notification hoping to resolve the issue before the next meeting of the Committee.  
146.   Australia  expressed its disappointment noting that it had submitted that question in 
January  2020 and was still waiting the reply.  
147.   The Chair noted that since the European Union had not provided its written answers to 
questions posed by Australia, the notification contained in document G/SCM/N/343/EU/Add.22 
pertaining to Portugal would be on the agenda of the next special meeting of the Committee.  
4.5  Indonesia (G/SCM/N/343/IDN)  
148.   Written questions and answers regarding this notification can be found in:  
• G/SCM/Q2/IDN/16 – follow -up questions from the United States  
• G/SCM/Q2/IDN/17 – replies to follo w-up questions from the United States7 
149.   Indonesia  stated that the written replies would be provided shortly. As a general comment, 
Indonesia noted that the Fishing Ship Vessels Construction Program was not given to individual small 
fishers, but rather to groups of small fishers that were members of kelompok usaha Bersama  and 
cooperatives.  
150.   The United States  looked forward to receiving the written replies.  
 
7 This document was circulated on 27 April 2022.  G/SCM/M/118  
 
- 17 - 
 
  151.   The Chair  noted that since Indonesia had not provided its written answers to questions posed 
by the United States, the notification would be on the agenda of the next special meeting of the 
Committee.  
4.6  Mexico (G/SCM/N/343/MEX)  
152.   Written questions and answers regardin g this notification can be found in:  
• G/SCM/Q2/MEX/34 – questions from the United States  
• G/SCM/Q2/MEX/40 – partial replies to the United States8 
153.   The Committee took note  of the notification, questions, answers.  
4.7  Philippines (G/SCM/N/343/PHL/ Suppl.1 ) 
154.   The written questions and replies regarding this notification can be found in:  
• G/SCM/Q2/PHL/19 – follow -up question from the United States  
• G/SCM/Q2/PHL/20 – reply to the follow -up question from the United States  
155.   The Committee took note  of the notification, question and reply.  
4.8  Russian Federation (G/SCM/N/343/RUS)  
156.   Written questions regarding this notification can be found in:  
• G/SCM/Q2/RUS/21 – questions from the United States  
157.  The Russian Federation  stated that the replies would be submi tted as soon as they were 
finalized.  
158.  The Chair  noted that since the Russian Federation had not provided its written replies to 
questions from the United States , the Committee would return to this notification at its next special 
meeting.  
4.9  United States (G/SCM/N/343/USA/Suppl.1)  
159.   Written questions and replies regarding this notification can be found in:  
• G/SCM/Q2/USA/80 – questions from New Zealand  
• G/SCM/Q2/USA/81 – replies to New Zealand  
160.   The Committee took note  of the notification, questions, and answers.  
5  CONTINUATION OF REVIEW OF 2017 NEW AND FULL SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS 
(G/SCM/N/315/…)  
5.1  Mexico (G/SCM/N/315/MEX)  
161.   Written questions regarding this notification can be found in:  
• G/SCM/Q2/MEX/34 – questions from the United States  
• G/SCM /Q2/MEX/40 – partial replies to questions from the United States9 
162.   The Committee took note  of the notification, questions, answers.  
 
8 The first set of partial replies were circulated in document G/SCM/Q2/MEX/38.  
9 The first set of partial replies were circulated in document G/SCM/Q2/MEX/38.  G/SCM/M/118  
 
- 18 - 
 
  6  CONTINUATION OF REVIEW OF 2015 NEW AND FULL SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS 
(G/SCM/N/284/…)  
6.1  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 - 
G/SCM/N/284/CHN/SUPPL.1)  
163.   Written questions and answers regarding th is notification can be found in:  
• G/SCM/Q2/CHN/88 – Follow -up questions from the United States  
• G/SCM/Q2/CHN/95 – Replies to follow -up questions from the United States  
164.  The Chair  explained that the notifications in question cover 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011,  
2013 and 2015 new and full notifications and would be taken up together under this agenda item. 
She also recalled that in document G/SCM/Q2/CHN/95 China provided its partial replies to the 
follow -up questions indicating that it was checking further inform ation for two of the questions posed 
by the United States contained in document G/SCM/Q2/CHN/88. China had not provided any written 
replies to those pending questions.  
165.  The United States  recalled that in its written replies, China had indicated that it was following 
up and trying to obtain information with respect to two programmes. The United  States had not yet 
received any information about those programmes. It had been a long time since those programmes 
had been implemented and waiting for answers for yea rs was not the purpose of the transparency 
obligations under the SCM Agreement.  
166.  According to China , there was only one pending question, regarding Beijing Municipality 
Opinion on the Implementation of Accelerating the Cultivation and Development of Strate gic 
Emerging Industries which had been repealed.  
167.  The United States  clarified that there were two programmes with pending questions: (i) Beijing 
Municipality Opinion on the Implementation of Accelerating the Cultivation and Development of 
Strategic Emerging  Industries and (ii) Shanghai Municipality Measure on the Administration of the 
Strategic Emerging Industries Development Special Fund. The United States also noted that one of 
the programmes might have been terminated but they had never been notified. The  United States 
found it odd to hear that China would not notify the programme as it had been repealed.  
168.  China  confirmed that the programme by Shanghai Municipality had also been repealed. 
According to China it had provided replies to all questions therefor e it hoped that those questions 
would not be on the agenda of the next meeting.  
169.  The United States  noted that the notification in question was about China's sub -central 
programmes and was going back in time to 2001 and 2003. Those programmes had been in eff ect 
at one point in that time. China's explanations were odd because China could wait until its 
programmes were terminated and then could indicate that no notification was required.  
170.  The Chair  noted that due to the pending written answers, the Committee wou ld return to this 
notification at its next special meeting.  
7  CONTINUATION OF REVIEW OF 2009 NEW AND FULL NOTIFICATIONS 
(G/SCM/N/186/…)  
7.1  Gabon (G/SCM/N/186/GAB)  
171.   Written questions regarding this notification can be found in:  
• G/SCM/Q2/GAB/1 – question from the United States  
• G/SCM/Q2/GAB/2 – question from Turkey  
• G/SCM/Q2/GAB/3 – reply to the question from the United States  
• G/SCM/Q2/GAB/4 – reply to the question from Turkey  G/SCM/M/118  
 
- 19 - 
 
  172.  Turkey  thanked Gabon for its replies noting that it had no further questions.  
173.  The United States  thanked Gabon for its replies and indicated that it would be pleased to meet 
Gabon bilaterally to discuss technical support that could be provided.  
174.  The Committee took note of the notification, questions, answers, and statements.  
175.  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 next special 
meeting. She also reminded Members that had not yet done so to submit their 2021 new and full 
subsidy notifications as soon as possible.  
176.  For new and full notifications to be placed on the agenda of the next special meeting, the Chair 
reminded the delegations that these notifications would have to be circulated in all three working 
languages not later than 27 June 2022. Given the time needed for translation, this left a narrow 
window to notify in time for review in the fall. The Secretar iat stood ready to offer any assistance in 
this regard.  
177.  The Chair also informed delegations wishing to receive written answers to any questions 
regarding notifications reviewed at the present meeting that they should submit their questions in 
writing, to b oth the Member concerned and to the Secretariat. Similarly, the written answers must 
be submitted directly to the Member that posed the question, and to the Secretariat. The Chair 
emphasized that it was the responsibility of the Members submitting question s 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 concerned.  
178.  Finally, the Chair informed the delegations that after the week's Rules Committee cluster, the 
Secretariat would circulate the usual triple -symbolled document in G/SCM/W/586 containing all of 
the deadlines for documents to be submitted.  
179.  The meeting was closed . 
 
__________  