RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SCM/M/26
30 March 2001
(01-1617)
Committee on Subsidies
and Countervailing Measures
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
HELD ON 7 NOVEMBER 2000
Chairperson:  Ms. Usha Dwarka-Canabady (Mauritius)
1. The Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures held a regular meeting on
7 November 2000.
2. The Committee adopted the following agenda:
Page
A. INTERNATIONAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
 – REQUEST FOR OBSERVER STATUS FROM THE GULFORGANIZATION FOR INDUS TRIAL CONS ULTING..................................................... 3
B. NATIONAL LEG ISLATION................................................................................................ 3
1. Review of notifications of new or amended legislation or
regulations not previously reviewed by the committee
(including supplemental notifications of existing provisions not
previously reviewed):
(i) Chile - G/ADP/N/1/CHL/2-G/SCM/N/1/CHL/2
(ii) Turkey - G/ADP/N/1/TUR/3-G/SCM/N/1/TUR/3
(iii) Malaysia - G/ADP/N/1/MYS /1/Add.1-G/SCM/N/1/MYS/1/Add.1
2. Continuing review of prev iously reviewed notifications
United States - G/ADP/Q1/USA/21-G/SCM/Q1/USA/21
United States - G/ADP/Q1/USA/22-G/SCM/Q1/USA/22
C. SUBSIDIES – 2000 UPDATING NOTIF ICATIONS (GSCM/N/60/..) ............................... 4
- Bahrain G/SCM/N/60/BHR
- Chile G/SCM/N/60/CHL- Costa Rica G/SCM/N/60/CRI
- European Communities G/SCM/N/60/EEC/Adds.2,3,4,6,
8,10,11, 12 and 14
- Jordan G/SCM/N/60/JOR
- Korea G/SCM/N/60/KOR- Liechtenstein G/SCM/N/60/LIE
- Norway G/SCM/N/60/NOR
- Singapore G/SCM/N/60/SGPG/SCM/M/26
Page 2
Page
- Slovenia G/SCM/N/60/SVN
- Switzerland G/SCM/N/60/CHE
- United Arab Emirates G/SCM/N/60/ARE- Uruguay G/SCM/N/60/URY
D. SUBSIDIES 1999 UPDATING NOTIFI CATIONS (G/SCM/N/48/..) ................................. 4
- Australia G/SCM/N/48/AUS
- Bahrain G/SCM/N/48/BHR
- Bolivia G/SCM/N/48/BOL- Canada G/SCM/N/48/CAN
- Costa Rica G/SCM/N/48/CRI
- European Communities G/SCM/N/48/EEC/Adds.1,2,3,4,
5,6,8,9,10,11,12, 13 +
+ Suppl.1, 14 and 15
- Jordan G/SCM/N/48/JOR
- Slovenia G/SCM/N/48/SVN
- United Arab Emirates G/SCM/N/48/ARE
- Uruguay G/SCM/N/48/URY
E. SUBSIDIES 1998 NEW AND FULL NOTIFIC ATIONS (G/SCM /N/38/..)........................ 5
- Bolivia G/SCM/N/38/BOL
- Cyprus G/SCM/N/38/CYP,
G/SCM/Q2/CYP/8 andG/SCM/Q2/CYP/9
- Norway G/SCM/N/38/NOR/Suppl.1
G/SCM/Q2/NOR/9
- United Arab Emirates G/SCM/N/38/ARE
F. CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON THE 6 NOVEMBER 2000 MEETING OF
THE WORKING PARTY ON SU BSIDY NOTIFIC ATIONS ............................................. 6
G. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORT OF COUNTERVAILING ACTIONS
(ARTICLE 25.11) (G/SCM/N /62/Add.1 AND ADDENDA) ............................................... 7
H. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL COUNTERVAILING
ACTIONS:  NOTIFICATIONS (G/SCM/N/61, 63-65) ........................................................ 7
I. PERMANENT GROUP OF EXPERT S – ELECTION OF AN EXPE RT............................ 8
J. OTHER BU SINESS .............................................................................................................. 9
K. DATE OF NEXT RE GULAR MEETING .......................................................................... 11
L. ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN
GOODS (ARTIC LE 32.7) ................................................................................................... 11G/SCM/M/26
Page 3
A. INTERNATIONAL INTER-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS - REQUEST FOR
OBSERVER STATUS BY THE GULF ORGANIZATION FOR INDUSTRIAL
CONSULTING
3. The Chairperson recalled that in July 2000, the Gulf Organization for Industrial Consulting
had requested by letter observer status in various Councils and Committees of the WTO, including the
SCM Committee, and that in July 1996, the General Council had adopted procedures for observer
status for international intergovernmental organizations (WT/L/161, Annex 3).  In accordance with
those procedures, requests for observer status are to be considered on a case-by-case basis by each
WTO body to which a request has been addressed, taking into account such criteria as the nature of
the work of the organization concerned, the nature  of its membership, the number of WTO Members
in the organization, reciprocity with respect to access to proceedings, documents and other aspects ofobservership, and whether the organization has been involved in the past with the work of the GATT.
4. At its meeting on 7 February 1997, the General Council agreed, with regard to international
intergovernmental organizations, (a) that the organizations which already had observer status in the
General Council on an ad hoc  basis be granted observer status immediately; (b) that for international
intergovernmental organizations whose requests had not been considered the Chairman would
conduct consultations; and (c) to invite the other WTO bodies to proceed in a similar manner.
5. The Chairperson noted that the Gulf Organization for Industrial Consulting had not
previously attended meetings of the Committee as an observer, and that the Chairpersons of the other
bodies in which the Gulf Organization had requested observer status, including the General Council
and the CTG, were consulting with Members concerning the request.
6. The Chairperson thus proposed to conduct consultations on the request for observer status in
the SCM Committee of the Gulf Organization for Industrial Consulting, in the context of already
ongoing consultations of other pending requests for observership previously considered by the
Committee, such as COMESA, and to report back to the Committee at an appropriate time.
7. The Committee so decided.
B. NATIONAL LEGISLATION
8. The review of notifications of countervailing duty legislation and/or regulations was
conducted, in accordance with the procedures adopted by the Committee at its special meeting in
April 1996 (G/SCM/W/293).  All of the notifications subject to review, and the questions posed with
respect to those notifications, had been considered at the previous week's meeting of the Committee
on Anti-Dumping Practices.
9. No additional questions or comments were raised at the present meeting in respect of any of
the notifications.
10. The Chairperson drew to the Committee's attention document G/SCM/W/426, circulated on
17 October 2000, which listed all legislation review questions submitted over the course of the review
process since it began in 1995 that had not yet been answered in writing.  The Chairperson waspleased to report that a number of Members had responded to the reminders in that regard issued by
the previous Chairperson of the Committee and the Chairperson of the ADP Committee in
Spring 2000, by submitting written answers to outsta nding legislation review questions.  She hoped
that this trend would continue, until all outstanding questions had been answered.  The Chairperson
proposed that Members again take stock of the situation at the next Committee meeting.G/SCM/M/26
Page 4
11. The Chairperson indicated that any written follow-up questions concerning any legislative
notification reviewed that day were to be submitted not later than 27 November 2000 and written
answers to such questions submitted not later than 8 January 2001.  For a previously reviewed
notification of legislation to appear on the agenda of the Committee's regular meeting in Spring 2001,
questions would have to be submitted to the Secretariat, and to the Member whose notification was inquestion, no later than 15 March 2001.
12. The Committee took note of the Chairperson's statement.
C. SUBSIDIES - 2000 UPDATING NOTIFICATIONS
13. The Chairperson noted that no written questions had been received in respect to any of the
2000 updating notifications on the agenda for review.
14. No questions or comments were raised at the meeting concerning any of these notifications.
15. The delegate of Brazil stated, in respect of items C, D and E of the agenda, that the previous
afternoon he had received from his capital a draft of Brazil's subsidy notification, but that he believed
it would need some adjustments, and then final approval in capital before it could be submitted.  He
hoped that this could be accomplished quickly.  The Chairperson expressed appreciation that the
notification would be forthcoming.
16. The Chairperson reminded Members that any written questions in respect of notifications
reviewed under item C were to be sent to the Me mber concerned in writing, with a copy to the
Secretariat, not later than 27 November 2000, and that written answers to all written questions were to
be submitted not later than 8 January 2001.
17. The Committee took note of the statements made.
D. SUBSIDIES - 1999 UPDATING NOTIFICATIONS
18. The Chairperson noted that the 1999 updating notifications of Bahrain, Costa Rica, Jordan,
Slovenia, the United Arab Emirates and Uruguay were multiple-symbolled, and had been reviewed
under the previous agenda item as 2000 updating notifications.  Therefore, she proposed that theCommittee consider the review of those notifications to be complete, and to confine its consideration
under this agenda item to the four remaining notifications, i.e., those of Australia, Bolivia, Canada,
and the European Communities.
19. Concerning the notification of Australia, the Chairperson noted that the European
Communities had posed written questions and that Australia had provided written answers.
20. The written questions and answers can be found in the following documents:
G/SCM/Q2/AUS/15 - Questions from the European Communities
G/SCM/Q2/AUS/16 - Questions from the European Communities
G/SCM/Q2/AUS/17 - Answers to questions from the European Communities
G/SCM/Q2/AUS/18 - Answers to questions from the European Communities
21. The delegate of Australia apologised to delegates about the lateness of its notification and the
1999 update.  The Australian delegation had in fact completed the notification in respect of the
Commonwealth about one year earlier, but it had taken considerably longer to obtain information in
respect of sub-national entities - states and territories - by which time the Commonwealth portion of
the notification had had to be redone.  Australia expected that its 2000 update would be provided toG/SCM/M/26
Page 5
the Secretariat shortly, and that this notification would include information on new programmes
covering Australia's textiles, clothing and footwear arrangements and its passenger motor vehicle
arrangements.  The delegate also explained th at document G/SCM/Q2/AUS /17 had been circulated
before G/SCM/Q2/AUS/18 because the former had been treated as an Article 25.8 request rather than
as a question in respect of a notification, and  Australia had waited until its notification had been puton the agenda for review.  Because Australia's written replies had been received only shortly before
the meeting, the delegate was asked to present them orally.
22. The delegate of the European Communities thanked Australia for its prompt reply to its
questions concerning the book programme.  Concer ning the answers provided in G/SCM/Q2/AUS/18,
the EC still had some serious misgivings about the status of the passenger motor vehicle export
facilitation scheme.  The EC had asked questions on this scheme on several occasions and was not
satisfied that this was a measure that was not subject to notification under the SCM Agreement.Having said that, the EC was very encouraged to hear that the replacement scheme apparently would
be included in the next Australian update notification, which seemed to be an indication of some
progress.  The EC was also quite heartened to hear that the replacement for the textile and clothing
programme apparently also would be included in the updating notification.  On that basis, the EC was
grateful for the answers, even thought not totally satisfied with them, and was encouraged that some
progress was being made in expanding the transparency of the Australia's notification.
23. No questions were raised in respect of the notifications of Bolivia, Canada or the European
Communities.
24. The Chairperson reminded Members of the deadlines for any written follow-up questions and
answers.
25. The Committee took note of the statements made.
E. SUBSIDIES - 1998 NEW AND FULL NOTIFICATIONS
26. The Chairperson recalled that, in accordance with the Committee's decision at its
November 1999 regular meeting, the procedures for review of the 1998 new and full notifications
figuring on the agenda were the same, in respect of the exchange of written questions and answers inadvance of a meeting, and in respect of the time periods for those questions and answers, as were
reflected in document G/SCM/18.
27. No questions were raised in respect of the 1998 new and full notification of Bolivia .
28. The written answers to written questions posed concerning the notification of Cyprus, having
been received after the applicable deadline, were presented orally.  The questions and answers can be
found in the following documents:
G/SCM/Q2/CYP/8 – Questions from Korea
G/SCM/Q2/CYP/9 – Answers to questions from Korea
G/SCM/Q2/CYP/10 – Questions  from the United States
G/SCM/Q2/CYP/11 – Answers to questions from the United States
29. The written answers to written questions posed concerning the supplemental notification of
Norway, having been received after the applicable deadline, were presented orally.  The written
questions and answers concerning this notifica tion can be found in the following documents:
G/SCM/Q2/NOR/9 – Questions from the United States
G/SCM/Q2/NOR/10 – Answers to qu estions from the United StatesG/SCM/M/26
Page 6
30. Regarding the notification of the United Arab Emirates, the Chairperson recalled that this was
a multiple-symbolled notification, which the Committee had already considered under the two
previous agenda items.  No questions were raised in respect of this notification.
31. The Chairperson reminded Members of the deadlines for any written follow-up questions and
answers concerning the notifications reviewed under this agenda item.
32. The Chairperson also noted that the 1998 new and full notifications of Australia and Uruguay,
which were multiple-symbolled as also being updating notifications, had been reviewed as such under
previous agenda items.  She suggested therefore that it was not necessary to re-review these
notifications as new and full notifications at the Committee's Spring 2001 regular meeting.
33. The Committee so agreed, and took note  of all statements made.
F. CHAIRPERSON'S REPORT ON THE 6 NOVEMBER 2000 MEETING OF THE
WORKING PARTY ON SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS
34. The Chairperson reported that, as Members were aware, the Working Party on Subsidy
Notifications had met the day before, pursuant to a decision of the Committee at its May 2000
meeting.  Two topics had been on the agenda of that meeting, the first being ways to reduce theburden of subsidy notifications while maintaining transparency, and the second being procedures for
the review of 2001 new and full notifications.
35. There had been a very constructive initial discussion on these two topics.  In respect of the
first topic, a number of Members had intervened in respect of the different problems that they faced in
making notifications.  It was clear that human and financial resource constraints were a verysignificant cause of the low compliance with the notification obligation on the part of most if not all
Members who took the floor.  While it was recognized that there were other causes as well, including
lack of understanding of the obligations and concern over the legal implications of notifications, there
was nonetheless broad support for the idea of requiring less frequent subsidy notifications, by
concentrating on new and full notifications and by eliminating updating notifications, with someproposals for developing countries to submit their new and full notifications less frequently than
developed countries.  It had been agreed that the Secretariat would circulate a brief anonymous
questionnaire to Members to seek further details on the difficulties faced by members in notifying
their subsidies.  The Chairperson also indicated that she would send letters to Members who had never
notified since 1995 to remind them of their obligations and to urge them to do so, and that she also
would raise these issues informally with capita l-based teams from a number of these countries who
would be in Geneva during the next year for their Trade Policy Reviews.
36. Concerning the second topic, there seemed to be agreement that the special review meetings
for 2001 new and full notifications should be held back-to-back with the Committee's regular
meetings in Fall 2001, and Spring and Fall 2002.  There also seemed to be agreement to maintain the
procedure of advance exchange of written questions and answers so that discussions at the review
meetings could focus on follow-up issues.  A suggestion also had been made that a mechanism beestablished to permit a previously-reviewed notification to be reconsidered at a subsequent meeting if
any Member wished to do so.  It was suggested in this regard that a procedure such as that for
continuing review of previously-reviewed legislative notifications could be added to the procedures.
37. It had been decided that the Working Party would meet again back-to-back with the
Committee's Spring 2001 regular meetings, and that  in the meantime, these two topics would be
further pursued in informal consultations and, if necessary, in meetings of the Working Party as
deemed appropriate.G/SCM/M/26
Page 7
38. The Committee took note of the Chairperson's report.
G. SEMI-ANNUAL REPORTS OF COUNTERVAILING ACTIONS
39. The Chairperson recalled that a request for semi-annual reports of countervailing actions
taken during the first half of 2000, to be submitted by 31 August 2000, had been circulated to
Members in G/SCM/N/62, dated 28 June 2000.  As was unfortunately almost always the case, a
number of the semi-annual reports were received late.  The Chairperson reminded Members that semi-
annual reports were always due at the end of February for the period July through December of the
previous year, and at the end of August for the pe riod January through June of the current year.  She
requested Members to take appropriate steps to submit these notifications on time.  In particular for
those Members who had taken no actions, such notification should be a matter of a routine one-
sentence letter transmitted to the Secretariat stating that no actions had been taken.
40. Members who had submitted semi-annual reports were identified in paragraph 1 of document
G/SCM/N/62/Add.1, dated 25 October 2000.  After the report had been circulated, the European
Communities also had submitted a semi-annual report.  To the extent possible, the semi-annual
reports had been translated and circulated to the Committee, and were included in the documents
made available for that meeting.
41. In addition to the nine Members who submitted semi-annual reports of countervailing actions,
47 Members, listed in paragraph 2 of document G/SCM/N/62/Add.1 had notified the Committee that
they had not taken any countervailing actions during the period in question.  After the document was
circulated to Members, Cuba and Zambia also had submitted notifications of no actions taken.
42. The Chairperson noted that while there appeared  to be a certain general compliance with this
notification requirement among Members who took actions, there remained a significant number of
Members who had not responded to the requests for semi-annual reports, and had therefore failed to
comply with that important requirement set forth in Article 25.11 of the Agreement.  These Members
were identified in the Committee's draft Annual Report, as well as in document G/SCM/N/62/Add.1
at paragraph 3.  Any Member who submitted a semi-annual report in written form before the close ofbusiness that day would be identified in the Annual Report as having notified.
43. The delegate of Australia pointed out a slight error in Australia's semi-annual report that he
had only noticed that morning.  The report read at first glance as though Australia had initiated a new
case against bulk brandy from France, because there was an "R" missing from the first line of the
information concerning this investigation.  In fact, this was a continuation review, i.e. a 5 year review.
A correction was subsequently circulat ed in document G/SCM/N/62/AUS/Corr.1.
44. The delegate of Canada noted that the semi-annual report of Canada that was in the package
of room documents was dated 29 August 2000.  There had, however, been a revision to that
document, G/SCM/N/62/CAN/Rev.1, dated 24 Octo ber 2000, because there was one section missing
from the 29 August version.
45. The Committee took note of the statements made.
H. NOTIFICATIONS OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL COUNTERVAILING ACTIONS
46. The Chairperson recalled that lists of the notifications of preliminary and final countervailing
duty actions received by the Committee were circul ated in documents G/SCM/N/63-66.  Since the last
meeting of the Committee, preliminary and final countervailing actions had been notified by
Australia, Canada, Chile, the European Communities, Mexico, South Africa and the United States.G/SCM/M/26
Page 8
47. The delegate of Thailand noted that document G/SCM/N/65 indicated that the United States
had imposed CVD measures on certain pipe and tube from Thailand.  Thailand was not aware that this
CVD measure had been initiated or imposed on th e mentioned product, and asked the United States
for clarification of the issue.
48. The delegate of the United States thanked the Thai delegation for bringing this question to his
attention, and stated that the United States would need to look into it, as there did not appear to be an
outstanding order with respect to Thailand on thos e particular products.  The US delegation would
notify the Thai delegation as well as the Secretariat once the matter had been clarified.  A correction
was subsequently circulated in document G/SCM/N/65/Corr.1
49. The Committee took note of the statements made.
I. PERMANENT GROUP OF EXPERTS - ELECTION OF AN EXPERT
50. The Chairperson recalled that as indicated in document G/SCM/28, Mr. A.V. Ganesan had
resigned from the Permanent Group of Experts as of 18 May 2000, due to his appointment to the
Appellate Body.  Mr. Ganesan's five-year term of office on the PGE was to expire in Spring 2002, and
as set forth in the Committee's decision concerning the PGE (G/SCM/4), where a PGE Member leaves
the PGE before completion of his or her term, a replacement Member is to be elected by theCommittee for the remainder of the predecessor's term.
51. Thus, Members had been requested in document  G/SCM/28 to suggest individuals to replace
Mr. Ganesan on the PGE.  Two individuals had been  suggested, namely Mr. Jorge Castro Bernieri, a
Venezuelan lawyer, and Professor Okan Aktan, a Turkish professor of economics.  Since receiving
these suggestions, as provided for in the Committee's decision and in keeping with past practice, theChairperson and Vice Chairperson, assisted by the Secretariat, had had extensive informal contacts
with Members on this matter.  One initial idea in respect of which Members' views had been sought
was whether it would be possible to retain both candidatures, such that at the present meeting one of
these two individuals would be elected to replace Mr. Ganesan, and the second individual elected to
fill the vacancy that would arise in Spring 2001.  Some 10 Members, however, had indicated that theywere not in favour of such a procedure.
52. The Chairperson then had continued consultations, sending a number of faxes, and directly
contacting a number of delegations to seek their views, and had twice extended the deadline for input
from Members, most recently to the previous day at 6:00 p.m.  In the end, fifty delegations had been
contacted directly.  During those discussions, Members had uniformly expressed the view that both
candidates were very well qualified, and the large majority of Members expressing views stated that
they could join a consensus in respect of either candidate.  Some 14 of the delegations contacted didnot express any view, however.
53. Thirteen delegations had indicated support for one or the other candidature, and of these,
seven supported the candidature of Professor Aktan, and six supported the candidature of Mr. Castro
Bernieri.  Under the procedures agreed by the Committee, the Chairperson and Vice Chairperson of
the Committee were to propose one of the suggested individuals to the Committee for election, on thebasis of input from Members.  Given the extreme closeness of the results of their consultations, the
Chairperson and Vice Chairperson did not feel that there was a sufficient basis at that time to
formulate a proposal to the Committee.  Therefore, the Chairperson proposed to continue the
consultations with Members so that a replacement for Mr. Ganesan hopefully could be elected at the
next regular meeting of the Committee in May.
54. The delegate of Venezuela thanked the Chairperson and stated that Venezuela, like Turkey,
had presented a candidate who it thought had assets to become a part of the Permanent Group ofG/SCM/M/26
Page 9
Experts.  Considering the qualities of both candida tes, and considering the narrow margin resulting
after the extensive consultations that had taken place, however, in Venezuela's view it might be
prolonging the process too much to extend the consultations to the Committee's May meeting.  He
suggested that instead the final consultations could take place through the end of that day, so that a
solution or definitive decision could be arrived at by the following day at the latest.  But in any case,in Venezuela's opinion it would be too long to leave this decision until May.
55. The delegate of Turkey thanked the Chairperson and said that Turkey could go along with the
Chairperson's proposal of leaving the matter until the Committee's next regular meeting.
56. The Chairperson thanked the delegates of Venezuela and Turkey and agreed that it would be a
long time until the next meeting.  Whichever of the candidatures was ultimately proposed to the
Committee, however, the individual in question would ne ed to be elected at a formal meeting of the
Committee.  The difficulty was that the PGE was an important body and she had re-contacted manyMembers several times to urge them to come fo rward with an opinion on the candidates put forward.
All Members had agreed that both candidates were good, and the majority of Members expressing a
view did not really wish to express support in favour of either candidate.  In fact, the number of
delegations indicating support for one or the other candidature was very low.  The Chairperson was
not certain that between then and the next day she would be able to gather any more expressions of
support one way or the other that would significantly change the situation. The Chairperson noted that
if Members wished her to carry on the consultations to the following day, she was willing to do so.
However, the deadline had been extended twice and Members had had until 6:00 p.m. the day before
to express their opinions.  In view of this, the Ch airperson suggested that instead of an extension of
one more day, she should perhaps pursue the consultations until early in 2001, and then convene aspecial meeting of the Committee shortly after the fi nal deadline for expressions of view, perhaps in
early February, for the PGE election based on the results of this final round of consultations.
57. The Committee so decided.
J. OTHER BUSINESS
1. Brazil – Countervailing duty on desiccated coconut – Request by the Philippines
58. The delegate of the Philippines stated that as a matter of WTO law, the countervailing duty of
121.5 per cent imposed by the government of Brazil for 5 years from 1995 to 2000 on desiccated
coconut imported from the Philippines should have expired in August 2000.  The Philippines sought
confirmation from the Brazilian delegation that the Brazilian government had indeed terminated the
imposition of the levy and that consequently the regular MFN rate now applied to Philippine exports
of desiccated coconut into the Brazilian market.  If Brazil had in fact notified the WTO of itstermination of this countervailing duty, the Philippi nes would be grateful to obtain confirmation of the
relevant document number, and would as well l ook forward to Brazil's unwavering implementation
thereof.  If Brazil had not terminated the measure, the Philippine delegation wished to find out from
the Brazilian delegation the legal basis for its continued application.
59. The delegate of Brazil noted that its countervailing measures reported in document
G/SCM/N/62/BRA on powdered coconut from Côte d'I voire, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and
Sri Lanka,  and on coconut milk powder from Sri Lanka, were no longer in force.  The measures had
ended on 21 August 2000, and would not be extended.
60. The delegate of the Philippines thanked the Brazilian delegation for that information, which
would be relayed to the capital.  The Philippines looked forward to smooth and harmonious relations,
especially with regard to that export product of interest to the Philippines.G/SCM/M/26
Page 10
2. United States – Byrd Amendment – Request by Japan
61. The delegate of Japan indicated that he wished to make a short statement on the Byrd
Amendment that was included in the United States Agricultural Appropriations Bill.  The delegate
already had taken up this topic in the meeting of the Committee on Anti-dumping Practices the
previous week, but had been request ed by his capital also to make a statement in the SCM Committee.
In the light of GATT Article VI:3 and SCM Agreement Article 32, any countervailing duties should
be levied to the extent that injury to a domestic industry of the importing country was properly offset.
The Byrd Amendment obviously was aimed at distributing countervailing duty revenues to domestic
industries in addition to imposing the countervailing  duties.  This would provide controversial double
protection to domestic industries far beyond the remedies allowed in GATT and the SCM Agreement.
Furthermore, the parties qualified for the distribu tion would include supporters of the countervailing
case.  This would cause a negative effect on the implementation of SCM Agreement Article 11.4,which describes the requirements for initiation of investigations.
62. The delegate of Korea stated that like Japan, Korea also had deep concerns over the US
Agricultural Appropriations Bill.  Korea believed that the Bill was inconsistent with the SCM
Agreement as it undercut the rationale of the so-called level playing field.  Moreover, Korea was
concerned that it could impact upon the stability of the world trade environment as the reward offunding to petitioners inevitably would promote a vicious circle of unnecessary petitions.  In this
context, Korea strongly requested the United States to enact a new law in the very near future to
remove the problematic articles in the Byrd Amendment.
63. The delegate of the European Communities stated that his delegation also had some concerns
about the content of the Byrd Amendment.  The EC delegation had already made these concerns clear
in a statement in the Anti-Dumping Committee the previous week, and had nothing particular to add
to that statement in the SCM Committee, except that they were aware that there were also a number of
people in the US Administration who apparently felt uncomfortable about the contents of this
Amendment.  The EC delegation hoped to be able to work together and cooperate in that regard to
eventually eliminate that provision, and certainly to make sure that it did not have any damagingeffects on European exports.  The EC's concern, which already had been raised by other delegations,
was that this Amendment effectively offered an excessive remedy for both dumping and
subsidisation, which went beyond what was permitted by Article VI of the GATT and by the
Subsidies Agreement.  Thus, the EC's concerns were very much the same as those expressed by Japan
and Korea.
64. The delegate of Canada noted that Canada also had concerns with respect to the Byrd
Amendment, and Canada also had made a statement in the Anti-dumping Committee meeting the
previous week.  Canada also had made formal representations to the US Administration on this
matter.  Canada wished to echo the concerns that had just been raised by the EC delegate.  Canada
considered that the change in the US trade remedies laws would have an unfortunate effect on tilting
the playing field, and Canada was hopeful that th e US Administration would take immediate steps to
correct this situation.
65. The delegate of Malaysia stated that Malaysia also had concerns on the US Agricultural
Appropriations Bill, and shared the sentiments expressed by the Japanese, Korean, EC and Canadian
delegations.  To Malaysia, clearly this Amendment was in violation of the United States' obligations
under the SCM Agreement.
66. The delegate of the Philippines wished to add his voice to the previous delegations who had
expressed concern regarding the Byrd Amendment.  The Philippines looked at the Amendment with
serious concern and considered that it was clearly in contravention of the WTO Agreements.G/SCM/M/26
Page 11
67. The delegate of Australia stated that Australia also had expressed its concerns in the
Committee on Anti-dumping Practices, which he would not reiterate in detail.  He wished, however,
to join other delegations in expressing concerns about the legislation, not only in respect of the
excessive remedy, but also in particular the point mentioned by the delegation of Japan as to the
incentives that the Byrd Amendment would provid e for industries not only to put forward petitions
but actually to support petitions. To Australia, this was quite a retrograde step with regard to an
important part of both the Antidumpi ng and Countervailing Agreements.
68. The delegate of Mexico stated that Mexico too wished to share the concerns which had been
voiced by other delegations regarding the so-called Byrd Amendment.  Mexico had raised these
concerns in the Anti-dumping Committee meeting, and thus would not repeat them in detail.  Instead,
Mexico simply wished to voice its concern and to hope that the United States would take the
necessary steps to remove the measure as soon as possible.
69. The delegation of Chile wished to echo the statements of other delegations.  Like them, Chile
had addressed this matter in the Anti-dumping Committee and thought that the issue was similar
under the SCM Agreement.  Chile hoped that sufficient pressure would arise to bring the United
States to amend its law.
70. The delegate of the United States thanked the delegations that had spoken for their comments.
He wished to assure everyone, whether or not they had spoken, that the concerns expressed would of
course be communicated in full to his authorities in Washington, who would take careful note of them
as things proceeded.  He hoped that Members would understand that he was not in a position at that
point to provide specific reactions to the comments that had been made, but stated that the
United States did intend to honour faithfully its obligations under the SCM Agreement and the otherWTO Agreements.  The US delegation would be happy to report to the Committee any further
developments in respect of this matter, and should it become necessary to notify legislation, the
United States could take up additional questions and comments at that point.
71. The Committee took note of all statements made.
K. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING
72. The Chairperson recalled that the Committee had agreed at its meeting of 21 February 1995
that its regular meetings normally would be held in the last week of April and the last week of
October, in conjunction with the regular meetings of the Committee on Anti-dumping Practices.  As
anti-dumping related meetings would occupy the entire last full week of April 2001 (i.e., the week of
23 April), it was proposed that the next regular meeting of the SCM Committee be held during the
first week of May.  In particular, the Safeguards Committee would meet on Monday 30 April 2001.Because the Working Party on Subsidy Notifications would meet on Tuesday, 1 May 2001, the
regular meeting of the Committee would be held starting on Wednesday 2 May 2001.  The
Chairperson also reminded Members that she might reconvene the Committee in special session
before that, depending on the outcome of the further consultations for the election of a PGE member
to replace Mr. Ganesan.
L. ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS
73. The Committee adopted its annual report.  The report was subsequently circulated in
document G/L/408.
74. The meeting was adjourned.
__________