./.RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SCM/W/436
6 April 2001
(01-1755)
Committee on Subsidies
and Countervailing MeasuresOriginal:  English
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS CONCERNING PROPOSALS
ON IMPLEMENTATION-RELATED ISSUES REFERRED TO
THE COMMITTEE IN THE 15 DECEMBER 2000
DECISION OF THE GENERAL COUNCIL
Questions and Comments of Australia
The following communication, dated 5 April 2001, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of Australia.
_______________
G/SCM/W/429:  Colombia:  Footnote 61
Could Colombia respond to the question of the definition of capital goods.  Would it need to
be addressed, assuming that different Members have different taxation systems and differential taxes
in this context.  It would appear from the docum ent that Colombia is suggesting that exporters are
unable to deduct the depreciation of capital goods unlike non-exporting companies.  Given, therefore,
that the problem may stem from discriminatory domestic internal taxation of capital goods, we would
like elaboration from Colombia, particularly on whether these are issues more related to internaltaxation disparities.
G/SCM/W/430:  India:  Footnote 61
What sort of administrative burden and transparency implications would arise from the Indian
proposal in respect of a situation where capital goods are used for both domestic and export
production (para. 3.4).  How would calculations be made and monitored in respect of the proportion
of production that is subsequently exported?
G/SCM/W/430:  India:  Aggregate and genera lized rates of remission of import duties
Could we have further elaboration of I ndia's argumentation on the following points:
• Has India considered issues relating to transparency, enabling countries to ensure that
subsidization was not, in fact occurring?
• Has India considered implications for the calculation of subsidization as part of a countervail
investigation?  For example, would producers have concerns in respect of equitable treatment,given that different producers may well be acquiring the same inputs at differential rates?
• What is the implication such a proposal would have for competition.  It would appear to set up the
possibility of industry collusion.  Has India considered competition ramifications?G/SCM/W/436
Page 2
G/SCM/W/431/Rev.1:  Joint DC paper:  Export competitiveness
In the event of an agreement on countries' reversion from having achieved 'export
competitiveness' to protected status because of so me form of financial crisis etc. as suggested in
para.4, we have the following question:  could the authors clarify whether, if they argue that it
requires five consecutive years of performance above at least 3.25 per cent of world trade to
demonstrate such competitiveness, then do they consider that, equally, it would require a time frame
of negative performance years below this rate to demonstrate that a reversion to reinstatement of
subsidies was justified.  If not, on what basis would they see qualification to reversion and why?
__________