RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SCM/M/36
25 April 2002
(02-2371)
Committee on Subsidies
and Countervailing Measures
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
HELD ON 13 MARCH 2002
Chairman:  Mr. Remo Moretta (Australia)
1. The Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures held a special meeting on
13 March 2002.
2. As indicated in WTO/AIR/1731, the meeting was devoted to consideration of certain requests
for extension of the transition period for export subsidies under Article 27.4, and reservations of rights
by certain Members listed in Annex VII(b).
3. The Chairman recalled that, as anticipated at the Committee's 31 January 2002 informal
meeting, a number of delegations had submitted, with the initial documentation that they had
presented by 31 December 2001, what they considered to be the full notifications supporting their
requests, although the deadline for those notifications was not until 28 February 2002.  A number ofthose Members had indicated that they would be ready to have their requests or reservations of rights
considered at this meeting.  Thus, as set forth in the airgram, the Committee had before it for
consideration the requests of Colombia, Guatemala, Panama, and Thailand, as well as the reservations
of rights as Annex VII(b) Members of Kenya and Sri Lanka.
4. As further discussed at the 31 January 2002 meeting, the Secretariat had circulated a fax to the
Committee on 4 February containing a series of deadlines for various items in the Committee's currentwork programme, including consideration of the Article 27.4 requests and reservations of rights.  As
indicated in that fax, written questions on the requests and reservations of rights on the agenda had
been due on 21 February 2002, and written answers to those questions had been due on 7 March 2002.
5. Before turning to the substance of the discussion, the Chairman re-emphasized the
Committee's normal procedures for the submission of written questions and written answers.  In
particular, no matter what the subject, the Committee's standard procedures were always that when a
Member posed written questions concerning a notification or other documentation submitted by
another Member, the questions should be provided to the Member to which they were directed, with a
copy simultaneously provided to the Secretariat for circulation to the Committee.  It had come to hisattention, however, that some delegations that had presented Article 27.4-related questions for the 21
February deadline had submitted them only to the Secretariat, and had not sent copies directly to the
Members to which the questions were directed.  The Secretariat was not so informed by the
delegations submitting the questions, and in some cases, there had been a delay of several days before
the recipient delegations even became aware that some of the questions existed.  This had reduced thealready very short time that they had had to prepare their replies.  He therefore wished to remind
Members posing written questions of the importance of sending those questions directly to the
delegations concerned, with of course a copy to the Secretariat for circulation.  Similarly, he wished to
remind the Members that had received written questions to please send their responses directly to the
Members posing the questions, as well as to the Secretariat for circulation.G/SCM/M/36
Page 2
6. As indicated in the airgram, a number of written questions had been received concerning each
of the requests and reservations of rights on the agenda, although some questions had been submitted
and/or received after that deadline.  The Chairman recalled the importance of submitting questions by
the established deadlines as well as in accordance with the Committee's established procedures, so
that discussions at meetings could be as productive as possible.  In spite of the lateness of some of thequestions, all Members receiving questions had submitted written answers.  Given the lateness of
some of the questions and answers, however, and gi ven the shortness of time between the deadline for
written answers and the meeting, not all of the questions and answers were available in all three
languages.  Nevertheless, all of the documentation received to that point was available either in the
document packages or in the room.  He hoped that delegations could manage to work with the
documentation in its existing form, and he thanked all delegations for their understanding.
7. As for the procedures, as a purely organizational  matter, the discussion of each of the requests
before the Committee would follow the usual practice of an introduction and then presentation of the
answers to written questions by the requester, followed by an opportunity for follow-up questions by
other Members.
8. As for the broader question of the overall proced ures and timing in resolving the requests that
had been received, his sense from talking with various delegations was that as the Committee was
embarking on a brand-new exercise, there was a natural desire on the part of some to move at a
relatively deliberate pace, particularly at this early stage of the Committee's work.  This would allow
Members time to deepen their understanding of the nature and operation of the programmes coveredby the requests, and to have a full opportunity to obtain the clarifications that they deemed necessary.
On the more precise question of whether the Committee would be in a position at the meeting to take
action in respect of some or all of the requests on the agenda, the Chairman was, of course, in the
Committee's hands, and would do his best to facilitate  any consensus that might emerge.  He did note,
however, that a number of questions had been posed in respect of each request and that in some casesthe written answers were relatively lengthy and contained a considerable amount of factual
information, all of which might take some time for Members to digest fully.  In the light of this, and
given that the deadline for the written answers was quite recent, his sense was that there might be a
need to create an opportunity for written follow-up questions and answers after this meeting.  This
would give Members a bit more time to reflect on the totality of the information provided to that
point, and to determine whether their questions had been fully answered or whether they would still
need some further clarification.  He therefore proposed to fix a deadline in principle for any follow-upquestions concerning any of the requests to be considered at the meeting.  For the sake of simplicity,
he proposed that this be 4 April 2002, as this was a deadline that had already been identified for a
number of other sorts of documents to be discussed at the April-May Committee meetings.  Written
answers thus would be due on 24 April, also a pre-existing deadline for a number of other things.
Any written follow-up questions and answers thus could be discussed during the course of the April-May meetings, and at that point, Members would have a better sense for the issues that might remain
open.
9. Concerning the Article 27.4 request of Colombia,  the request and related documentation were
found in documents G/SCM/N/74/COL and G/SCM/N/71/COL.  Colombia's request consisted of two
parts:  one pursuant to the language of paragr aph 10.6 of the Ministerial Decision on Implementation-
Related Issues (WT/MIN(01)/17), and one pursuant to Article 27.4 on its own.  Australia, Canada, the
European Communities, Japan, Switzerland and the United States had submitted written questions on
Colombia's request.  These questions were contai ned in documents G/SCM/Q3/COL/1-6.  The written
responses to the written questions concerning the first part of Colombia's request were contained indocument G/SCM/Q3/COL/7, and concerning the second part of the request are contained in
document G/SCM/Q3/COL/8.G/SCM/M/36
Page 3
10. The delegate of Switzerland thanked Colombia  for the extensive information that Colombia
had submitted, also in a timely manner.
11. Switzerland was of the view that Special Impor t-Export System for Capital Goods and Spare
Parts ("SIEX") and Zonas Francas ("ZF") programmes fell within paragraph 10.6 of the MinisterialDecision on Implementation, and therefore had no further questions on those programmes.  However,
Switzerland had not yet been convinced that the Transport Compensation Mechanism ( Mecanismo de
Compensación del Transporte  - "MCT") programme fell within the conditions in Article 27.4.
Switzerland wished to know what Colombia's reference to "faraway markets" meant and whether it
was also possible for foreign entities to benefit from this programme.
12. In response to the additional comments from the delegate of Switzerland, the delegate of
Colombia clarified that Colombia based its reques t with respect to the MCT programme exclusively
on Article 27.4 of the SCM Agreement  and was not trying to imply that the MCT programme fell
within the parameters set out in paragraph 10.6 of the Ministerial Decision on Implementation.  It was
Colombia's understanding that Article 27.4 offered the possibility to request an extension for any type
of exemption.  In addition, she explained that there was no list of "faraway" or "remote" markets, but
that these were markets of destinations involving transshipment.
13. The delegate of the European Communities with respect to the duration of the programmes
for which a request had been made under the special procedure for Article 27.4 requests, noted that
his delegation understood that the import plans in question were company specific, and asked whatwas the average duration of import plans, and whether there was a maximum duration.
14. The delegate of Colombia stated that, with respect to the SIEX, the duration did depend to a
certain extent on specific companies' situations.  However, because of the very nature of the
programmes, they were not given for a duration of more than five years, usually between 3 and 5years.  Colombia understood the concerns that the possible duration of the programme might generate
and that was why Colombia had stated that it would adopt the legal provisions that would make it
possible to guarantee that the duration of the programme was strictly within the limits of the transition
period granted.  The authorizations granted would have to be adapted strictly to the extension of the
transition period.
15. The delegates of Australia and Canada
 reserved their delegations' rights to ask any follow-up
questions.
16. The delegate of the United States thanked the delegation of Colombia for the responses.  His
delegation was also concerned about the possible duration of the VAT-deferral under SIEX.  He asked
for clarification as to what might occur if the deferral were granted to a company in the last year ofthe transition period,  as the company might arguably benefit for an additional four years beyond the
transition period.
17. The delegate of Colombia stated that it was true that the VAT-deferral programme did not
currently lay down any time limitations.  Thus, if an  importer indicated that it wished to benefit from
this incentive as of that day, the Government of Colombia would not tell this company that they
would benefit from this programme only up until a particular day.  However, once the transition
period was approved, it was Colombia's understanding that any programme adopted would contain the
time limits established by the transition period
18. The Chairman indicated that it might be helpful for Colombia to submit additional
information on the scope of the sort of plans that were submitted under the SIEX programme for a
determination to be made, and to shed greater clarity on the way that the system worked for the
benefit of interested Members.G/SCM/M/36
Page 4
19. The Chairman noted that the Article 27.4 request of Guatemala  was made on the basis of the
special procedures approved by Ministers at Doha, which could be found in document G/SCM/39.
The request and related documentation could be found in documents G/SCM/N/74/GTM and
G/SCM/N/71/GTM.  To date, Canada, the European Communities, Japan, Switzerland and the United
States had submitted written questions on this request.  These questions were contained in documentsG/SCM/Q3/GTM/1-5.  Guatemala's written responses were contained in document
G/SCM/Q3/GTM/6.
20. The delegate of Guatemala asked Members for flexibility regarding statistics.  Guatemala
realized that certain information was required to be included in its request and that certain Members
had specifically requested it. Guatemala had a rather uncoordinated statistical system, particularly
where foreign trade was concerned.  The system did not cover regimes subject to special provisions.However, Guatemala had a draft statistics law which was going to strengthen coordination between
ministries and set up machinery to improve statistics.  It was extremely difficult for Guatemala to
provide statistics and the information provided in this context had involved a great effort by the
government, and it should be recognized that other Members also suffered from the same problems.
The delegate urged the Committee to grant Guatemala's request.
21. The Chairman stated that the delegate of Guatemala had raised a very important issue.  Those
countries making requests obviously had to do their best to submit relevant information, on the basis
of which Members could make informed judgements and decisions.  Having said this, he asked
Members to recall the discussions that had already taken place in the informal consultation process onthis issue.  In the context of these requests, the Committee would not be dealing with uniform systems
or programmes administered in exactly the same way.  The quality and quantity of statistical
information could vary, and Members w ould need to show some flexibility.
22. The delegate of Switzerland thanked the delegate of Guatemala for the explanations given and
took note of the difficulties in providing statistic al information.  He wished to pose a follow-up
question concerning Programme II (tax exemptions for free zones).  He noted that Guatemala had
indicated that 21 free zones existed, while only 13 were operational.  What was going to happen with
the free zones that were not operational?
23. The delegate of Guatemala responded that it was not expected that these free zones would be
reactivated.
24. The Chairman recalled that Article 27.4 request of Panama  and related documentation could
be found in documents G/SCM/N/74/PAN/1 and G/SCM/N/74/PAN/2 and G/ SCM/N/71/PAN.  The
two request documents from Panama reflected the fact that Panama had requested extensions of
various programmes, some under the special procedures in document G/SCM/39, and some underArticle 27.4 on its own.  To date, Australia, Canada, the European Communities, Japan, Switzerland
and the United States had submitted written questions on Panama's requests.  These questions were
contained in documents G/SCM/Q3/PAN/1-6.  Panama's written responses were contained in
documents G/SCM/Q3/PAN/7 and /8.
25. The Chairman noted that the delegate of Panama had indicated that information with respect
to the Tax Credit Certificate (CAT) programme was being processed by the relevant authority and
would be provided to Members.  He wondered whet her Panama could give any greater precision as to
when this information might be made available.
26. The delegate of Panama took note of this concern and would use the dates of 4 and 24 April
2002 as target dates for sending in this information.
27. The delegate of the European Communities thanked Panama for the detailed replies.  His
delegation wished Panama to clarify to which implementing regulation it was referring in its responseG/SCM/M/36
Page 5
to one of the EC questions relating to the potential benefits that took the form of special funding
programmes, in which Panama had indicated that a certain regulation did not state that a funding
programme had been established.
28. The delegate of Panama, responded by confirming that Panama's Law 3 of 13 March 1993,
which was supposed to provide incentives to national industry, provided in Article 14 that the state
would encourage a set of actions to promote industrial development and encourage exports.  In
paragraph 14(d), it established special financing programmes through credit institutions of the country
for export activities on preferential conditions.  Article 23 of the law that come into effect in June
1995 established that only companies registered on that date under the income tax registration
programme would retain the benefits established by the programme.  Executive Decree 274 of 29
December 1995 set out regulations for all provisions of this law.  This regulation did not create anyprogramme for the effective application of Article 14(d), which referred to special credit programmes.
As a result, no company on the register could receive any benefit under this provision.  Thus, Panama
could confirm that there was no such programme relating to benefits accruing to companies on the
national register.
29. The delegate of Australia wished to thank the delegation of Panama for the replies.  Australia
considered it important that it was able to assess the standstill provisions of paragraph 4 of
G/SCM/39.  In order to be able to do so, the intensity or favourability of a programme needed to be
determined as referred to in paragraph 3(b) of G/SCM/39.  This was the reason that Australia had
posed the questions to Panama and it provided the context within which Australia would evaluatePanama's replies and provide, if necessary, further follow-up questions by 4 April.
30. The delegate of United States also wished to thank the delegation of Panama for the replies.
With respect to the tax certificate (CAT) programme, the United States understood that the way the
benefit amount was calculated was that 15 per cent was multiplied by the per cent of national valueadded.  Was this national value-added component possibly in violation of Article 3.1(b) of the SCM
Agreement , in that the subsidy might be contingent on the use of domestic over imported goods?
31. The delegate of Panama responded that the relevant legal instruments provided that there
should be the issue of a tax certificate provided the company and the corresponding product had
demonstrated that the value-added for the product was equivalent to 15 per cent.  His delegation took
note of the concerns expressed under Article 3.1(b) of the SCM Agreement , and would examine the
provision in this light.
32. The Article 27.4 request of Thailand  was made on the basis of Article 27.4 on its own.  The
request and related documentation could be  found in documents G/SCM/N/74/THA and
G/SCM/N/71/THA.  Australia, the European Communities, Japan, Mexico, Switzerland and theUnited States had submitted written questions on this request, contained in documents
G/SCM/Q3/THA/1-6.  Thailand's written responses to the written questions of the European
Communities and the United States and to certain questions of Mexico had been submitted just prior
to the meeting and were contained in document G/SCM/Q3/THA/7.  This document did not include
responses to the written questions of Australia, Japan or Switzerland, or to certain questions ofMexico.
33. Subsequent to the meeting Peru also submitted written questions to be found in
G/SCM/Q3/THA/8.
NO RESPONSES TO THESE QUESTIONS HAVE YET BEEN RECEIVED.
34. The Chairman urged all Members to respect deadlines and urged Thailand to submit its
responses to the remaining questions.  He sugge sted that the Committee could revisit Thailand's
request when all necessary documentation was available.  He thanked all delegations that hadG/SCM/M/36
Page 6
participated in this discussion of the Article 27.4 requests of Colombia, Guatemala, Panama, and
Thailand.  He thought that the Committee had had a very useful and constructive exchange of
questions and answers on these requests, which had certainly helped to clarify a number of the issues
raised by Members and set down some important points for consideration on the next occasion.  His
sense from the discussion was that the Committee was not at that point in a position to come to a finalview in respect of any of the requests.  Given this, he urged delegations that wished to receive written
answers to any follow-up questions to please submit those questions in writing to the Member
concerned, with a copy to the Secretariat, by 4 April 2002.  Written answers to all such questions were
to be sent to the Member that posed the question, with a copy to the Secretariat for circulation, by 24
April 2002.  The requests would be reverted to on the basis of any follow-up questions and answers
that might be received, at the Committee's April-May 2002 meetings.
35. The delegate from the United States noted the offer made by Sri Lanka to provide the
updating notification and looked forward to receiving it.
36. The Committee took note of all of the questions and answers and statements made.
37. Turning to Kenya's  and Sri Lanka's  reservations of rights as Members listed in Annex
VII(b), the Chairman recalled that, pursuant to paragraph 6(b) of the procedures in document
G/SCM/39, a Member listed in Annex VII(b) had the possibility, not later than 31 December 2001, toreserve its rights to use the procedures at such time as it might leave Annex VII(b) due to its GNI per
capita.  To do so, it had to submit the initial documentation as referred to in paragraph 1(a) of theprocedures.  According to paragraph 6(c) of the procedures, if the Member left Annex VII(b) during
the extension period, it could obtain an extension through the end of calendar year 2007 by following
the procedures otherwise set forth in G/SCM/39.  As provided in paragraph 6(d), the year of the
Member’s exit from Annex VII(b) would be the base  period for determining its standstill obligations.
Four Members had reserved rights as Annex VII(b)  Members, and the initial documentation of two of
those -- Kenya and Sri Lanka -- was on the agenda for discussion at this meeting.
38. Before commencing the discussion of these individual reservations of rights, the Chairman
observed that because these two Members had at this point only reserved their rights to exercise the
procedures in G/SCM/39 at some future point, it seemed to him that there was no need for the
Committee to take formal action in respect of these reservations of rights.  Rather, Committee action
would be needed as and when the Members in que stion graduated from Annex VII(b), and exercised
their rights under the procedures to seek an extension of their transition periods.  Thus, while the
discussion of Kenya’s and Sri Lanka’s initial documentation, and the question and answer process, of
course would continue until Members had received all of the clarifications that they sought, he
thought that today and at any future meetings where Kenya’s and Sri Lanka’s reservations of rights
might be discussed, the Committee would need simply to take note of the information and answersprovided.  For the Members posing questions, he again stressed that under the special procedures, the
standstill obligations for the Annex VII(b) Members would come into effect only as of their
graduation from Annex VII(b).
39. Turning to the reservation of rights by Kenya, to be found in document G/SCM/N/74/KEN,
Australia, the European Communities, Japan, Switzerland and the United States had submitted written
questions on this reservation of rights, contained in documents G/SCM/Q3/KEN /1-5.  Kenya’s written
responses were contained in document G/SCM/Q3/KEN/6.
40. The delegate of Kenya stated that his delegation had made its submissions for the purpose of
transparency, in accordance with paragraph 6(b) of  document G/SCM/39, within the specified period.
However, if the responses given were not as comprehensive as those posing the questions would have
expected, his delegation would be willing to submit any further information they might need.G/SCM/M/36
Page 7
41. The delegate of the European Communities thanked the delegation of Kenya for its replies.
His delegation thought it would facilitate its work if it had a proper basis on which to assess Kenya's
reservation of rights.  This basis would be a notification under Article 25 of the SCM Agreement .  His
first question was, therefore, whether his delegation could expect such a notification.  Second, his
delegation wondered whether the programme might constitute a prohibited import substitutionsubsidy under Article 3.1(b) of the SCM Agreement .  The Kenyan delegation had indicated in its
response that the use of local supplies was encouraged but not mandatory.  He wondered if Kenya
could clarify whether subsidies were only granted when local supplies were used.
42. The delegate of Kenya stated that the first part of Kenya's responses in document
G/SCM/Q3/KEN/6 responded to the general questions  by those Members seeking more information
about the programmes for which a reservation of rights had been made.  The second part contained aresponse to the more specific questions by the European Communities.  Kenya wished to make clear
that it was not seeking an extension, but rather wa s reserving its rights.  In response to the question
just posed by the EC delegate, the delegate of Kenya stated that there was no differentiation in
treatment between domestic and imported goods.  The Government of Kenya did not insist on the use
of local products in order for the subsidy to be granted.  The use of local products was encouraged butnot mandatory, and it was up to the firms concerned to decide.
43. The Chairman observed that Kenya was reserving its rights pending possible graduation from
Annex VII(b).  The Chairman asked whether Kenya could clarify, pursuant to the EC's questions, its
intentions to notify under Article 25 of the SCM Agreement.
44. The delegate of Kenya stated that his delegation would look into this matter.
45. The delegate of Switzerland stated that his delegation had taken note of this reservation of
rights, and could support the manner in which the Chair intended to address these reservations.
However, his delegation found it quite irritating that the Committee had to accept a reservation of
rights without having any notification from Kenya.  His delegation urged Kenya to make full
notification under Article 25 as early as possible.
46. The delegate of Australia thought that this exchange raised the issue of what the obligations
were of Annex VII(b) Members taking the opportunity to reserve rights under the procedures in
G/SCM/39.  Australia agreed with the EC and Switzerland that there seemed to be a transparencyissue:  it was difficult to assess whether programmes met the conditions outlined in G/SCM/39
without information provided by Annex VII(b) Members, or to assess whether the standstill
requirements were met in the event an Annex VII(b) Member reached the level of GNP per capita set
out in that Annex.  Australia supported the call by Switzerland and the EC to Kenya to provide an
Article 25 notification.  This would go a long way to meeting the transparency requirements asAustralia saw them for Annex VII(b) Members.
47. The delegate of Kenya stated that his delegation took note of the comments of the European
Communities, Switzerland and Australia.  Kenya was guided by paragraph 6(b) of document
G/SCM/39, which made it clear that a Member listed in Annex VII(b) whose GNP per capita had notreached the level provided for in that Annex and whose programme(s) met the criteria in paragraph 2
could reserve its right to make use of the procedures, as referred to in 6(c), by submitting the
documentation referred to in 1(a) not later than 31 December 2001.  This was exactly what his
delegation had done.
48. The Chairman stated that there was no doubt that the obligation to submit an Article 25
notification was separate from the exercise at hand, and that Kenya had been guided by other
documents, such as G/SCM/39.  However, he unders tood that other Members, such as the European
Communities, Switzerland and Australia, were suggesting that Kenya needed to meet its Article 25
obligation and, in doing so, it would go a long way to adding to the transparency required for otherG/SCM/M/36
Page 8
elements of the Committee's work.  While the Article 25 process was separate, Members needed to
work constructively on all fronts.  He urged Members experiencing difficulties in making their
notifications to provide as much information on these problems as possible in response to the
questions posed in G/SCM/W/473 in order that the Committee could seek to resolve those problems.
He thought it might be useful for Kenya to provide Members with a response on its future intentionswith respect to Article 25 by the 4 April deadline.
49. The delegate of the United States wished to endorse the comments already made with respect
to Article 25 notifications.  Based on the US reading of the special provisions, the Committee was
obligated to make a determination as to whether the programmes met the criteria under the special
provisions, for which Members obviously needed full details of the programmes in question.
50. The Chairman noted that the reservation of rights of Sri Lanka  could be found in document
G/SCM/N/74/LKA.  Australia, Canada, the European Communities, Japan, Switzerland and the
United States had submitted written questions on this reservation of rights, contained in documents
G/SCM/Q3/LKA/1-6.  Sri Lanka's written responses  are contained in document G/SCM/Q3/LKA/7.
51. The Chairman asked whether Sri Lanka was in a position to respond orally to the questions
posed.
52. The delegate of Sri Lanka thanked the Members who had submitted questions for their
interest in its reservation of rights.  As an Annex VII(b) Member, Sri Lanka, had made use of the
procedures in paragraph 6(c) of the special procedures in document G/SCM/39 in order to avail itself
of the special procedures at a future date when Sri Lanka might graduate from Annex VII(b).  Sri
Lanka had also provided the information referred to in para. 1(a) of document G/SCM/39.  Sri Lanka
would appreciate if Members would recognize that Sri Lanka had only made a reservation of rights,
and take into account this situation when exam ining the information provided under the special
procedures.  Nevertheless, for transparency purposes, Sri Lanka wished to provide the following
information voluntarily in response to the questions already posed.  Sri Lanka would appreciate it if
Members would recognize Sri Lanka's situation in posing any further questions.  The questions posed
by Australia, Switzerland, Japan and the United States concentrated mainly on the details of the
programmes.  The questions posed by the European Communities and Canada were specific in nature.
The questions posed by the European Communities were received after the agreed deadline.
However, Sri Lanka was thankful that the European Communities had also sent Sri Lanka an advancecopy.  Sri Lanka had, through its full notification in 1997, in document G/SCM/N3/LKA, notified all
of the programmes contained in Annex 1 of its communication to the Committee under the special
procedures (G/SCM/N74/LKA).  Sri Lanka intended to make a notification updating that earlier one
in two weeks time.
53. The delegate of Canada thanked Sri Lanka for its responses and would be reviewing them,
and asked when information relating to the identification of total exports and the percentage of
national exports under each programme would be available?
54. The delegate of Sri Lanka was not in a position to commit to a firm date when this
information would be available.  The information had been requested and Sri Lanka would provide it
as soon as possible.
55. The delegate of the European Communities wished to raise a point that already had been
raised, namely, the ability to assess the standstill requirement under the programmes for which
extension requests or reservations of rights were being made.  The delegate of Sri Lanka had stated
that there were full or partial import duty remissions possible under those programmes.  In order to
assess whether the standstill requirement, and therefore the level of favourability, had been
maintained, the European Communities would need to know what the exact rates of import duty
remission were.  He asked when Sri Lanka would be in a position to provide this information.G/SCM/M/36
Page 9
56. The Chairman recalled that he had already addressed the issue of standstill with respect to
these particular requests, i.e. that this applied upon graduation of Annex VII(b) Members.
57. The delegate of Sri Lanka agreed with the statement of the Chairman on this issue.  She had
already mentioned that Sri Lanka had made a full notification in 1997, was aware of Sri Lanka's
obligations to update this notification, and would be providing information as necessary respecting the
format in Article 25.  As to information relating to standstill, the matter would arise at the time when
Sri Lanka would actually try to make use of its reserved rights.
58. The delegate from Australia thanked Sri Lanka for its replies and answers to questions.  His
delegation looked forward to receiving Sri Lanka's statement in writing, and also looked forward to
receiving the Article 25 notification to which Sri Lanka had referred.  Australia's comments on
transparency made in the context of the discussion of Kenya's reservation of rights obviously also
applied in this context.
59. The delegate of Saint Lucia requested that any figures in Members' documentation relating to
the "Caribbean" region be disaggregated in order that her delegation could assess St. Lucia's relative
position in terms of individual world trade share.
60. The Chairman thanked the delegations of Kenya and Sri Lanka for their answers and the
further information and clarifications provided, as well as all of the delegations that had posed
questions.  He thought that this had been a fruitful and constructive discussion.  He reminded
Members that might wish to receive written answers to any follow-up questions to submit such
questions in writing to the Member concerned, with a copy to the Secretariat, by 4 April 2002.
Written answers should be provided directly to the Member posing the question, with a copy to the
Secretariat, by 24 April 2002.
61. The Committee took note of all of the statements made.
62. The Chairman reminded Members how the Committee would proceed with the remaining
requests for extensions and reservations of rights.  For the information of Members, the complete,
final list of Article 27.4 requests was contained in document G/SCM/40/Rev.2.  As Members were
aware, Members seeking Article 27.4 extensions on th e basis of the special procedures in G/SCM/39
had had a deadline of 28 February 2002 to present detailed notifications in respect of the programmes
for which they were are seeking extensions.  For convenience, all of those notifications had been
circulated in the G/SCM/N/71 series.
63. As discussed at the 31 January 2002 meeting, and as indicated in the 4  February fax to the
Committee, all of the requests and reservations of rights that had not been considered today would be
on the agenda for a first round of discussion at the Committee's April-May meetings.  As was the case
today, the discussion at those meetings would be on the basis of written questions and answers
exchanged before the meeting.  The deadline for written questions was 4 April, and the deadline for
written answers was 24 April (the same as for any fo llow-ups from today’s discussion).  To the extent
that there were follow-up questions and answers on the requests and reservations of rights discussed
here today, those would also be inscribed on the agenda of the April-May meetings.  Because of the
number of requests and reservations of rights, and the volume of the related notifications, he
anticipated that the Committee would need to set aside a two-day special session during the four
allotted meeting days in April-May for the Article 27.4 discussion.
64. The Committee was also scheduled to meet on 17 June and 25 July 2002.  These meetings
would be for further discussion of the Article 27.4 matters, as well as the other items in the
Committee’s work programme, as necessary.G/SCM/M/36
Page 10
65. Because it was possible that the Committee might need additional meeting time after July to
resolve fully all of the Article 27.4 requests, and in view of the new difficulties in scheduling
meetings, the Secretariat and he had taken the precaution of scheduling additional meeting dates for
the second half of the year.  These meetings were set for 19 September and 13 December, in addition
to the regular series of autumn meetings to be held at the end of October and beginning of November.If it should turn out that some of these dates were not needed, they could be cancelled easily.  Adding
meeting dates would in practice be impossible, however.  Thus, the Chairman urged delegates to
make note of these dates, which would be confirmed as necessary as matters evolved.
66. The Committee took note of the Chairman's statement.
67. The meeting was adjourned.
__________