RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SG/M/24 
8 April 2004 
 
 (04-1588) 
Committee on Safeguards  
  
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING 
HELD ON 20 OCTOBER 2003 
 
Chairman:  Mr. Pornchai Danvivathana (Thailand) 
 
 
 
1. The Committee on Safeguards (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 20 October 2003. 
2. The following agenda was adopted: 
A.
 NATIONAL  LEGISLATION 2  
1. Mexico - Review of New Legislative Notification 3  
2. Indonesia - Review of New Legislative Notification 4  
3. European Communities - Review of New Legislative Notification 5  
4. People's Republic of China - Review  of New and Previously Reviewed 
Legislative Notification 6  
B. NOTIFICATIONS  OF ACTIONS  RELATED  TO SAFEGUARD  MEASURES 7  
1. Brazil – Coconuts 8  
2. Bulgaria – Iron and Steel 8  
3. Bulgaria – Steel 8  
4. China – Certain Steel Products 8  
5. Czech Republic - Ammonium Nitrate 9  
6. Czech Republic - Certain Steel Products 9  
7. Ecuador - Smooth Ceramics 9  
8. Ecuador – Matches 10  
9. Ecuador – Ceramics and Porcelains 10  
10. Ecuador – Medium Density Fibreboard 10  
11. Estonia – Swine Meat 13  
12. European Communities – Mandarins 13  
13. European Communities  – Certain Steel Products 14  
14. Hungary- White Sugar 14  
15. Hungary – Ammonium Nitrate 14  
16. Jordan – Pasta 15  G/SG/M/24 
Page 2  
 
 17.
 Jordan's – Sanitary Ware Products 15  
18. Jordan – Aerated Water 16  
19. Latvia – Live Pigs and Pork 16  
20. Moldova – Sugar 16  
21. Philippines – Glass Mirrors 16  
22. Philippines – Figured Glass 17  
23. Philippines – Float Glass 17  
24. Philippines – Cement 17  
25. Philippines – Ceramic Tiles 17  
26. Poland – Matches 18  
27. Poland – Certain Steel Products 18  
28. Poland – Calcium Carbide 20  
29. Poland- Water Heaters 20  
30. United States – Certain Steel Products 20  
31. Venezuela – Certain Steel Products 21  
32. Venezuela – Paper for Writing or Printing, Sacks and Bags 22  
C. APPLICATION  OF ARTICLE  9.1 22  
D. OTHER  BUSINESS 27  
1. Andriessen Commitment 27  
2. India – Industrial Sewing Machine Needles 28  
3. Extension of the EC Safeguard Measure on Certain Steel Products 28  
E. TRANSITIONAL  REVIEW  UNDER  PARAGRAPH  18 OF THE  PROTOCOL  OF 
ACCESSION  OF THE  PEOPLE'  S REPUBLIC  OF CHINA  TO THE  WTO 30  
F. ANNUAL  REPORT  TO THE  COUNCIL  FOR  TRADE  IN GOODS 34  
G. DATE  OF THE  NEXT  REGULAR  MEETING 35  
 
A. NATIONAL  LEGISLATION 
3. The Chairman  stated that the first item on the Committee's agenda was the review of 
notifications of national safeguard  legislation and/or regulations, in accordance with the procedures 
adopted by the Committee at its special meeting in  April 1996.  The Chairman mentioned that as it 
had been indicated in the airgram convening th e meeting, the Committee had received legislative 
notifications from four Members.  The Chairman re called that as indicated in the annotated draft 
agenda attached to his fax dated 15 Septem ber 2003, questions regarding these legislative 
notifications were to have been submitted to th e Member concerned and to the Secretariat no later 
than 29 September 2003. 
4. Concerning the procedure for this meeting, the Ch airman stated that he would first give the 
floor to the Member whose legislation was being revi ewed, to make any introductory statement that it 
wished.  The Chairman would then invite that Memb er to present its answers to any written questions.  
The Chairman reminded Members of the Committee th at in accordance with the procedures adopted  G/SG/M/24 
 Page 3 
 
 
 by the Committee, a written version of those answers ha d also to be provided after the meeting.   The 
Chairman also reminded Members that follow-up ques tions could be asked at this meeting.  Other 
delegations would also be given an  opportunity to present questions orally at the meeting.  After the 
meeting, there would be a period for the submi ssion of written questions concerning any of the 
legislations reviewed in the meeting. 
5. The Chairman mentioned that if Members wished  to have written answers to questions, they 
had to ensure that all questions were presented in writing to the Member whose legislation was 
concerned, and to the Secretariat, no later than th ree weeks after the meeting, i.e., no later than 10 
November 2003.  Written answers to all questions submitted in writing by that deadline had to be 
submitted to the Secretariat no later than three w eeks later, i.e., no later than 1 December 2003. 
1. Mexico - Review of New Legislative Notification 
6. The Chairman noted that Mexico's legisla tive notification was contained in documents 
G/SG/N/1/MEX/1/Suppl.1 and Corr.1. 
7. The representative of Mexico  stated that they had no introducto ry statement to make but that 
they would like to respond to the questions put by the European Communities regarding Mexico's 
notification (see document G/SG/Q1/MEX/1).  The re presentative of Mexico stated that they would 
be providing their responses in writing at a later stage.   The delegate of Mexico pointed out that it was 
extremely difficult to foresee the specific ci rcumstances under which the measures envisaged in 
Article 89 (b) could be applied.  Mexico had not adopted any of th e safeguard measures provided for 
under the WTO in addition to the laws on the reform  of the foreign trade law on 12 March 2003.  In 
that regard, there had not been a provision to activ ate the mechanism referred to in this Article.  
According to the delegate of Mexico, this woul d probably be resolved on a case-by-case basis.  
Finally, the delegate of Mexico emphasized that th e provisions that would apply in this regard were 
basically included in Article 89 (b) to the extent that they were relevant in the so-called common 
measures for procedures to be found in chapter 1-7 in  the reform to the foreign trade law and in the 
law of July 1993 regarding the institution of proceed ings and the rights of the interested parties. 
8. The delegate of the European Communities  stated that they would wait for the written 
answers before analyzing them further.  The Eu ropean Communities would only be able to make 
follow-up questions after this analysis. 
9. The representative of Chile  stated that the changes to the foreign trade law of Mexico that 
affected anti-dumping investigations and safeguards we re a source of concern to their delegation.  For 
that reason Chile had circulated a series of ques tions (see document G/SG/Q1/MEX/2).  Most of these 
questions related to anti-dumping but two related to safeguards.  The first question was in relation to 
ex officio  investigations and the other related to public inte rest.  The delegate of Chile stated that they 
expected Mexico to answer these questions either in the meeting or at a later appropriate stage. 
10. The delegate of Mexico  mentioned that the questions had been sent only a few days before 
the meeting.  Thus, Mexico had not had the time to  attend to them.  However, on a preliminary basis 
the delegate of Mexico pointed out that in case th e investigating authority decided to initiate an ex 
officio investigation under the WTO Safeguards Agreement, this investigation would be carried out in 
conformity with the requirements of that Agreement. 
11. The Chairman  stated that he had not mentioned abou t the questions from Chile because these 
questions had not come out within the de adline that was required by the Committee. 
12. The delegate of Chinese Taipei  sought clarification regarding Article 71 concerning the scope 
of exemption from the safeguard measures.  Regard ing point five of Article 71, the delegate of G/SG/M/24 
Page 4  
 
 Chinese Taipei recalled the provision that read "any other goods as may be designated by the 
Ministry".  Chinese Taipei asked for clarification on the basis of examples.  If, for example, a material 
or semi-processed good was introduced into that fr ee zone and then re-exported, the representative of 
Chinese Taipei asked whether that kind of mate rial or semi-processed good would be exempt from 
safeguard measures. 
2. Indonesia - Review of New Legislative Notification  
13. The Chairman
 noted that Indonesia's legislative notification was contained in document 
G/SG/N/1/IDN/2. 
14. The delegate of Indonesia  stated that they wished to describ e some brief main elements of the 
Indonesian safeguard laws before switching to the issues raised by some Members.  The 
representative of Indonesia referred to the Presi dential Decree No. 84/2002 dated 16 December 2002 
("Safeguards Law") regarding the safeguarding of  the domestic industry against the impact of 
increased imports.  The representative of Indonesia st ated that the Safeguards Law was an integral 
part of Law No. 7/1994 dated 2 November 1994 on the Ratification of Agreement on Establishing the 
World Trade Organization.  Law No. 7/1994 ha d enforced all Agreements, commitments and 
decisions governing the international trade existing in  the WTO to be an inseparable part of national 
regulations.  As part of Law No. 7/1994, the WTO Agreement on Safeguards had actually been 
enforced as domestic regulation.  However, to im plement it operationally the Agreements had to be 
elaborated in the form of domestic procedures.  Accordingly, Indonesia had introduced the Decree 
No. 84/2002 dated 16 December 2002.  As a legal inst rument this regulation was aimed to prevent or 
remedy serious industry and to facilitate structural  adjustments for domestic industries rather than to 
limit competition in international markets.  In orde r to implement the Presidential Decree, a Safeguard 
Committee had been set up.  According to Article 32 of the Presidential Decree, the Committee was 
led by a chairman and consisted of the representatives of the Ministry of Industry of Trade, the Ministry of Finance, the Central Agency of Sta tistics, other related Ministers or non-governmental 
organizations, and experts of th e product subject to investigation.  Although most of the 
representatives were government officials, according to Article 33 of the Presidential Decree, the 
Committee was independent in carrying out its functions and duties. 
15. Concerning the first question asked by the United States regarding "critical 
circumstances"(see document G/SG/Q1/IDN/2), the dele gate of Indonesia stated that Article 9 of the 
Safeguards Law was intended to implement Article  6 of the Agreement on Safeguards.  Indonesia 
believed that Article 9 of the Safeguards Law had to  be implemented in accordance with Article 6 of 
the Safeguards Agreement as  every provisional safe guard action needed to be taken in "critical 
circumstances" where delay would cause injury whic h would be difficult to repair.  Therefore, the 
Government of Indonesia reassured Members that I ndonesia would ensure that the implementation of 
Article 9 of the Safeguards Law was consistent with Article 6 of the Safeguards Agreement. 
16. Concerning the question posed by the United Stat es regarding the "clear impairment suffered 
by the domestic industry", the delegate of Indonesia stated that the closest translation of "a significant 
impairment" in the Indonesian language was "a cl ear impairment suffered".  Indonesia had been 
anxious as to the consistency of the implementation of  Article 1.2 of the Safeguards Law with Article 
4.1(a) of the Agreement. 
17. Concerning the question raised by the United States regarding the terminology of serious 
injury, the delegate of Indonesia stated that the closest translation of "clearly imminent" in the 
Indonesian language was serious injury that wa s "likely to be suffered".  While Indonesia 
acknowledged that there was a higher degree of certainty  in the term "clearly imminent", they wished 
to reassure Members that Article 1.3 would be impl emented consistently with Article 4.1(b) of the 
Agreement.  G/SG/M/24 
 Page 5 
 
 
 18. Concerning questions four and five, regard ing the terminology on "the last three 
representative years", the delegate of Indonesia stated  that Indonesia considered that the last three 
representative years were too general and gave a Me mber the flexibility to choose periods in which 
the penetration of imports had been perhaps at its lowest.  The reference to the last three years under 
Safeguards Law could mean either the last three calendar years or the last three years on a pro rata  
basis depending on the availability of statistical info rmation.  In this respect, Indonesia considered 
that Article 22, paragraph 1 went beyo nd the requirements of the Agreement. 
19. Regarding the question put by the European Co mmunities  concerning "threat of injury" (see 
document G/SG/Q1/IDN/3), the representative of Indon esia stated that they would give the same 
response as they had given to the same question po sed by the United States.  The representative of 
Indonesia stated that there were missing translations from the Indonesian text into the English text.  In 
the original text there were some words which had the same meaning as "clearly imminent".  
Therefore, Indonesia confirmed that the threat of in jury determination would only be made if serious 
injury was clearly imminent. 
20. Regarding the second question by the European Communities concerning whether a 
provisional safeguard measure could be imposed in two distinct situations, the representative of 
Indonesia stated that Indonesia considered that Ar ticle 6 of the Agreement allowed for the imposition 
of safeguard measures if there was either actual seri ous injury or a threat thereof.  A Member could 
take a provisional safeguard measure pursuant to a preliminary determination that there was clear 
evidence that increased imports had caused or were threatening to cause serious injury. 
21. Concerning question three by the European Communities  regarding the "examination", the 
delegate of Indonesia stated that Article 23 of Indon esian safeguard laws had to be read in conjunction 
with Article 7.4 of the WTO Safeguards Agreement.  In this context, the examination would be no 
later than the mid-term of the measure.  Therefor e, Indonesia confirmed that the mid-term review 
would take place no later than at the mid-term of the measures. 
22. Regarding question four concerning the phrase "may hold consultations upon request", the 
representative of Indonesia confirmed that consulta tions would be held on request.  It was the 
intention of Indonesia to offer consultations a nd they would be granted to countries having a 
substantial interest. 
23. The representatives of the United States  and  the European Communities  stated that they 
would wait to see the responses in writing. 
3. European Communities - Review of New Legislative Notification 
24. The Chairman  noted that the European Communities' legislative notification was contained in 
document G/SG/N/1/EEC/1/Suppl.1. 
25. The representative of the European Communities  stated that Regulation No. 452/2003 related 
to actions that the Community could take in rela tion to the effects of anti-dumping or anti-subsidy 
measures being combined with safeguard measures .  The adoption of this Regulation had been 
required since it had been noted that the importatio n of certain goods could be subject to both anti-
dumping or anti-subsidy measures on the one hand and safeguard measures on the other.  The 
European Communities believed that the combinati on of anti-dumping or anti-subsidy measures with 
safeguard tariff measures on one or the same product c ould have an effect greater than that intended 
or desirable in terms of the Community's trade defense policy and objectives.  More importantly, it 
could be contrary to WTO Rules.  In particul ar, such a combination of measures could provide 
excessive/double protection to the industry con cerned and place an undesirably onerous burden on 
certain exporting producers seeking to export to the Community.  Therefore, in order to avoid this G/SG/M/24 
Page 6  
 
 double protection, the European Communities  adopted  a new legislation enabling the Community, if 
appropriate, to amend, suspend or repeal anti-dumpi ng, and/or anti-subsidy measures, or to provide 
for exemptions in whole or in part from an y anti-dumping or countervailing duties which would 
otherwise be payable, or to adopt any other special m easure to that effect.  To the date of the meeting, 
these regulations had been applied once to anti-dum ping measures applicable to certain hot rolled 
coils and to certain tube pipe fittings of iron and steel.  This could be found in Council Regulation EC 
No. 778/2003 dated 6 May 2003, published in the Official Journal No. L114/1.  The European Communities  was aware that the United States had al so decided to analyze the relations between the 
different types of duties, in particular in the c ontext of anti-dumping pro ceedings.  The issue being 
considered was the possible deduction of section 201 safeguard duties from the export price for the 
calculation of the dumping margin.  The European Communities  believed that this would result in 
unduly doubling the level of protections granted to the domestic producers.  The representative of the 
European Communities  stated th at the European Communities was following this matter with great 
concern and would therefore urge the United States to ensure that double protection was avoided in 
case of possible cumulation of safeguard measures with other types of duties. 
4. People's Republic of China - Review of New and Previously Reviewed Legislative 
Notification 
26. The Chairman
 noted that the legislative notification of the People's Republic of China was 
contained in document G/SG/N/1/CHN/2/Suppl.2.  To facilitate the discussions the Chairman noted 
that written questions concerning this notificati on and China's previously reviewed legislative 
notifications contained in documents G/SG/N/1/C HN/2 and/or G/SG/N/1/CHN/2/Suppl.1, had been 
received from the European Communities and the United States.  The questions posed by the 
European Communities  could be found in docum ent G/SG/Q1/CHN/8.  On 17 October 2003, China 
had submitted its responses to the EC questions in  document G/SG/Q1/CHN/12.  The United States 
had posed two sets of questions regarding the legi slative notifications of the People's Republic of 
China.  These questions could be found in docum ents G/SG/Q1/CHN/7 and G/SG/Q1/CHN/9.  China 
had responded to the questions posed by the Un ited States, in documents G/SG/Q1/CHN/10 and 
G/SG/Q1/CHN/13, respectively. 
27. The delegate of China thanked these Members for their questions and stated that China would 
also welcome any follow-up questions. 
28. The delegate of the United States  stated that the United States was in the process of reviewing 
these answers and that he expected that they would have follow-up questions in writing at a later date.  
The delegate of the United States raised one partic ular follow-up question with respect to China's 
replies in G/SG/Q1/CHN/10.  This issue concerne d China's response to question two asked by the 
United States regarding the provisions of Article 8 of China's notified regulations concerning the 
injury factors to be considered by the investigati ng authority in a safeguard investigation.  The United 
States was concerned and wanted to clarify with China the statements that the factors listed in 
Article 8 of China's notified regulations were th e only factors that the Chinese authorities would 
examine in their injury determinations.  The Un ited States referred to the second sentence in China's 
response to question two in which China stated "we will refer to Article 4.2(a) of the Agreement to 
evaluate all relevant factors of an objective, quan tifiable nature having bearing on the situation of the 
industry".  The United States asked China to clarify whet her, if there was such a relevant factor of an 
objective and quantifiable nature in a given case, th at factor would be evaluated, even though it was 
not a factor listed in Article 8 of its notified regulation. 
29. The representative of China  stated that China would prefer a written version for a follow-up 
of any clarifications from the United States and th at China was ready to r espond in writing in due 
time.  G/SG/M/24 
 Page 7 
 
 
 30. The delegate of the European Communities  stated that the Europ ean Communities was in a 
similar position to the United States.  The European  Communities  appreciated the answers that China 
had provided but they had been made available onl y late Friday so the European Communities  was 
still in the process of reviewing them.  The Europe an Communities  reserved the possibility to make 
follow-up questions and to submit th em in writing at a later stage. 
31. The delegate of Mexico  referred to the questions Mexico  had submitted on 7 October 2003 in 
document G/SG/Q1/CHN/11.  At the time of the meeting these questions were available only in 
Spanish and French.  The delegate of Mexico e xpressed Mexico's interest in seeing these questions 
translated into English for the benefits of the Chinese delegation and stated that Mexico looked 
forward to seeing replies. 
32. The delegate of China  stated that since the questions were originally in Spanish, China needed 
time to translate them into English.  China was s till in the process of providing a written response to 
Mexico's questions. 
33. The Chairman  stated that the legislative review process was of benefit to the Committee.  The 
Chairman recalled that the deadline for any written questions concerning the legislations reviewed 
was 10 November 2003.  The deadline for written an swers to all questions posed in writing was 1 
December 2003. 
34. Concerning these deadlines, the Chairman reminded the Comm ittee of the importance of 
providing written answers to written questions posed.  As Members were aware, the exchange of 
written questions and answers constituted the Committee' s only record of the review of legislations.  
Thus, the Committee's records were left incomplete  when written questions were not answered, or 
only answered long after the meeting where the revi ew took place.  In this context, the Chairman 
urged all Members to abide by the deadlines set by  the Committee for the provision of written replies 
to written questions. 
35. The Chairman informed the Committee that th ere were still 31 Members that had not yet 
made a legislative notification: Albania, Angol a, Antigua & Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Burkina 
Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo,  Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, 
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Gabon, the Gambia, Grenada, Guinea Bissau, Guyana, 
Kuwait, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Niger, Pa pua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts & Nevis, 
Saint Vincent & Grenadines, Sierra Leone, So lomon Islands, Swaziland, Tanzania and Togo. 
36. The Chairman urged these Members to make the required notification and reminded that in 
cases where no legislation existed only a very  simple "nil" notification was required. 
37. The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
B. NOTIFICATIONS  OF ACTIONS  RELATED  TO SAFEGUARD  MEASURES 
38. The Chairman  noted that various notifications of ac tions related to safeguard measures had 
been received since the previous meeting.  In order to ensure that all of these notifications could be 
reviewed in the limited time available, the Ch airman suggested that the Committee address the 
relevant safeguard investigations as separate agen da items, and review all of the notifications 
pertaining to each separate investigation at the same time. G/SG/M/24 
Page 8  
 
 1. Brazil – Coconuts 
39. The Chairman noted that Brazil had made a number  of notifications regarding its investigation 
on coconuts, as set forth in doc uments G/SG/N/8/BRA/3/Suppl.2, G/SG/N/10/BRA/3/Suppl.2, and 
G/SG/N/11/BRA/2/Suppl.2. 
40. The representative of Malaysia
 recalled that in document G/SG/N/8/BRA/3/Suppl.2, dated 
26 May 2003, Brazil had notified that it had modified the list of developing countries exempted from 
the safeguard duties on coconuts.  In this new notifi cation, Brazil had informed that they had included 
Malaysia in the list of countries subject to the safe guard duties.  The delegate of Malaysia noted that 
this notification of the safeguard measure was made 6 months after the original safeguard measure had been in force.  As this modification was not  clear, Malaysia sought an explanation from Brazil 
41. The delegate of Brazil
 pointed out that Article 9.1 had not established any limit in terms of 
time-frame but just established th at the measure would be applied in case a developing country would 
reach a share higher than 3 per cent in the total im ports of the subject product.  Since Malaysia had 
passed that threshold it was included in the list of countries subject to the measure. 
42. The representative of Malaysia  stated that was a systemic issu e, in respect of which Malaysia 
had prepared a non-paper for discussion under agenda item C. 
2. Bulgaria – Iron and Steel 
43. The Chairman  noted that Bulgaria had made a notif ication, in document G/SG/N/6/BGR/6, 
regarding the initiation of an investigation on iron and steel. 
44. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
3. Bulgaria – Steel 
45. The Chairman noted that in document G/SG/N/9 /BGR/2 Bulgaria had notified the termination 
of its measure on steel. 
46. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
4. China – Certain Steel Products 
47. The Chairman noted that China had made a numbe r of notifications regarding its investigation 
on certain steel products, as  contained in documents G/SG/N/6/CHN/1, G/SG/N/7/CHN/1, 
G/SG/N/11/CHN/1, G/SG/N/8/CHN/1, and G/SG/N /10/CHN/1.  The Chairman mentioned that 
although these notifications had already been review ed by the Committee at an  earlier meeting, they 
had been included in the present agenda because a Member had posed questions relating to this 
investigation, and had requested in writing that th ese notifications be included in the agenda for this 
meeting. 
48. The Chairman noted that the United States had posed questions regardi ng this investigation 
and that these questions could be found in docume nt G/SG/Q2/CHN/3.  He stated that China's 
responses to these questions could be  found in document G/SG/Q2/CHN/4. 
49. The representative of the United States  mentioned that they were reviewing the responses.  
The representative of the United States noted that ma ny of the responses referred to notices which the 
United States had not been able to obtain copies and to review.  The United States pointed out that  G/SG/M/24 
 Page 9 
 
 
 they would have follow-up questions based on a re view of those notices once they had seen them.  
The United States would return to this item at the next Safeguards Committee meeting. 
5. Czech Republic - Ammonium Nitrate 
50. The Chairman  noted that the Czech Republic had made  a number of notifications regarding 
its investigation on ammonium nitrate.  Thes e notifications were contained in documents 
G/SG/N/8/CZE/6, G/SG/N/10/CZE/6, and G/SG/N/11/CZE/7. 
51. There were no comments or questions regarding these notifications. 
6. Czech Republic - Certain Steel Products 
52. The Chairman noted that the Czech Republic  had made a notification regarding the 
termination of its investigation on certain steel pr oducts.  The notification was contained in document 
G/SG/N/9/CZE/4. 
53. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
7. Ecuador - Smooth Ceramics 
54. The Chairman noted that Ecuador had made  a number of notifications regarding its 
investigation on smooth ceramics, as c ontained in documents G/SG/N/6/ECU/4, 
G/SG/N/6/ECU/4/Suppl.1, and G/SG/N/7/ECU/2. 
55. The delegate of the European Communities  mentioned that the European Communities was 
very interested in this case, and that it was mon itoring the developments.  The European Communities 
reserved its rights to request consultations before Ecuador proceeded possibly to definitive measures. 
56. The European Communities also raised a system ic issue regarding this agenda item.  The 
representative of the European Communities  noted that  Ecuador had initiated three investigations in a 
very short time period.  The European Communiti es expressed its concern about this very frequent 
use of safeguard measures.  The European Comm unities had always maintained that safeguard 
measures were an exceptional instrument to be used in very extraordinary situations and this had to 
also apply to the initiation stage.  The Europ ean Communities  believed that the standards for 
initiating new cases had to be high according to th e high standards required for imposing measures.  
The European Communities  expressed its concern that  Ecuador might be resorting to this instrument 
too easily. 
57. The representative of Ecuador  stated that they had taken note of the comment made by the 
European Communities.  The representative of Ecuador  mentioned that Ecuador was prepared to enter 
into consultations as the European Communities sa w fit.  Ecuador's action was taken in strict 
compliance with all the requirements laid down in  the Safeguards Agreement and other additional 
rules of the WTO.  Ecuador considered, therefore,  that Ecuador was not placing itself outside the 
framework of WTO rules and regulations. 
58. The delegate of the United States  noted the EC's comment that Ecuador had initiated several 
safeguard investigations.  The delegate of the United States pointed out that the standard for 
initiations advocated by the European Communities was not necessarily contained in the Safeguards 
Agreement.  The United States would also be look ing at these investigations closely.  However, 
according to the United States, the mere fact that a country had initiated safeguard investigations 
could not necessarily mean that that country had somehow violated some provisions regarding the 
extraordinary nature of safeguard measures. G/SG/M/24 
Page 10  
 
 59. The delegate of the European Communities
 mentioned that the European Communities   
referred to this matter as a systemic issue and not as an issue which was referred to in the existing 
safeguard rules. 
8. Ecuador – Matches 
60. The Chairman  noted that in document G/SG/N/10/EC U/1 Ecuador had made a notification 
regarding its investigation on matches. 
61. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
9. Ecuador – Ceramics and Porcelains 
62. The Chairman noted that Ecuador had notified the initiation of an investigation on ceramics 
and porcelains, as contained in document G/SG/N/6/ECU/5. 
63. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
10. Ecuador – Medium Density Fibreboard 
64. The Chairman noted that in document G/SG /N/10/ECU/2/Suppl.1 Ecuador had made a 
notification regarding its investiga tion on medium density fibreboard.  The Chairman also noted that 
the Committee had received questions concerning th is investigation from two Members.  Chile had 
posed two sets of questions regarding this inves tigation, as set forth in documents G/SG/Q2/ECU/4 
and G/SG/Q2/ECU/7.  In document G/SG/Q2/ECU/5,  Ecuador had presented its answers to questions 
posed by Chile in document G/SG/Q2/ECU/4. 
65. The delegate of Chile  pointed out that they joined in th e systemic concerns raised by the 
European Communities.  Chile believed that the in itiation of three investigations in a very short 
period of time certainly deserved more concern.  The representative of Chile mentioned that Chile 
was particularly concerned by the quota applied by Ecuador on imports of fibreboard.  The delegate of 
Chile stated that Chile had handed to the mission of  Ecuador a series of questions the week before the 
meeting and that Chile would be grateful if Ec uador could provide Chile with replies during the 
meeting.  The delegate of Chile mentioned that in addition to these questions, Chile had a number of 
additional concerns to express. 
66. The representative of Chile observed that the no tification had come very late, as the date of 
the measure had been stated as 16 July, it had been  notified on 25 July and circulated on 8 October 
2003.  In this respect, the delegate of Chile recalle d the provisions of paragraph 3 of Article 12 of the 
Safeguards Agreement.  A Member  which intended to apply or ex tend a safeguards measure would 
provide for prior consultations.  According to Chile , when the notification was made 12 days after the 
measure had been taken and the circulation was made  so late, there was simply no way of making 
good that obligation. 
67. In addition, the information in the notification did not provide for the application of a measure 
under Article 2.1 of the Agreement.  The delegate of Chile stated th at their understanding was that the 
measures would be applied for two years.  Consider ing that the provisional measure would be in force 
for six months, there would be an additional period until total liberalization.  Regarding the manner in 
which the measure would be applied, mainly in cases where producers who are also importers decided 
not to use the quota or when the appointed importe rs did not use such quotas, the representative of 
Chile mentioned that this gave rise to the suspic ion that the quotas would not be fully used.  The 
representative of Chile mentioned that Chile wo uld be grateful if Ecuador could pass on these  G/SG/M/24 
 Page 11 
 
 
 concerns to their capital and to kindly answer Chile's  questions.  Finally, Chile  reserved its right under 
the Safeguards Agreement and under other WTO Agreements to revert to this issue. 
68. The representative of Ecuador  stated that they had taken due note of the concerns expressed 
by Chile with regard to the notification of the me asures and pointed out that the notification had been 
made 9 days after the measures had been taken.  Regarding the reas on why circulation came so late, 
the representative of Ecuador pointed out that they had made their notification on time but it had been 
circulated late. 
69. Ecuador then provided responses to the questions  posed in writing by Chile prior to the 
meeting.  Regarding the first group of questions put by Chile which related to the clarification of the 
questions/answers given at the pr evious meeting of the Committee, Ecuador stated that   the 
investigating authority had not reached the conclu sion that the eight measures fell under 4411 and that 
they were similar or competing products.  The i nvestigating authority had not reached the conclusion 
either that the eight sub-groups were similar or di rectly competing products  with imported products.  
The investigating authority had reached the conclu sion that the imported products classified in the 
eight sub-groups under section 4411 were similar or directly competing products with the 
domestically produced products based on a review of  the description of the imported product and the 
description of the domestically produced product. 
70. With regard to Chile's second question, Ecuador pointed out that the unforeseen 
circumstances referred to the sh arp increase of imports of products classified under section 4411.  
Although it was possible to foresee an increase as a result of the customs concessions granted under 
the Agreement on Economic Complementarity and the Reciprocal Protection of  Investments (AC-32) 
signed with Chile on 20 December 1999, it was certai nly not foreseen in that order of magnitude.  
Concerning the third question, Ecuador stated that  the increase in imports of such products was a 
consequence of the unforeseen evolution of circ umstances due to the trade concessions, customs 
concessions granted to Chile.  Regarding the fourth  question, Ecuador  mentioned that the critical 
circumstances which had resulted in  an injury to the domestic industry that would not have been 
surmountable was due to the increasing rate of imports .  The application of a provisional measure was 
therefore justified in view of the high level reached  by imports, mainly in 2003.  For the period of 
investigation before the adoption of the final safegua rds, this amounted to more than total imports for 
2002 in spite of the application of the provisional safeguard measure which was then in force.  
Regarding the fifth question, Ecuador pointed ou t that the domestic production sector had presented 
an adjustment plan and had sustained that its app lication would make the measure competitive.  This 
adjustment plan included a series of administrative and financial measures as well as a detailed 
investment plan which had been assessed by the co mpetent investigating authority.  Concerning the 
sixth question, Ecuador stated that Members of the ANDEAN Community were parties to the 
safeguards measures for the reason that during the investigation process none of the products 
identified under 4411 originating from these countri es had been found.  However, the relevant 
notification was made to the Secretariat Genera l of the ANDEAN Community which exempted such 
countries from the application of safeguard measures.   
71. With regard to the second group of questions, Ecua dor felt that the questions asked as part of 
a resolution of the ANDEAN Community, could be answ ered only by the Secretariat General of the 
Community who was responsible for such resoluti ons.  Regarding question ten, Ecuador mentioned 
that the notification made to the WTO by the inv estigating authority via the Permanent Representative 
of Ecuador to the WTO had been made on 11 December 2002 under Resolution No. 052 of the 
Foreign Trade Council of Ecuador.  The investiga tion had been started on 9 January 2003 and the 
provisional measure was imposed as of 8 January 20 03 and notified to the WTO.  Regarding question 
eleven, Ecuador mentioned that the Decree No. 3497 published in  the register on 14 January 2003 
unified the legislation of the Ministry for Fisheries and Competition which had incorporated the 
whole text Resolution No. 042 of the Council on Forei gn Trade.  This Resolution had been notified to G/SG/M/24 
Page 12  
 
 the WTO and could be found in the relevant document.  Regarding question twelve, Ecuador 
mentioned that the well-based observations followi ng on from the observations which had resulted in 
the safeguard measures could be found in the same  resolution which had been published and notified 
to all interested parties.  However the report presen ted to the Council for Foreig n Trade stated that the 
relevant parties had had access.  Regarding question thirteen, Ecuador mentioned that the quantitative 
restriction imposed by Ecuador equaled the average of imports for the previous three years.  The 
information on import averages was available in an  annex.  Regarding question fourteen, Ecuador 
pointed out that the investigating authority was b ased on Article 5.1 of the Safeguards Agreement to 
distribute quotas per importers amongst Ecuadorian enterprises who could import as the product in 
question had no importers.  The Ecuadorian enterp rises who could import could include enterprises 
related to importers, while e xporters of the relevant product.   Non-fulfilled quotas could be reassigned 
but they were not cumulable.  The investigating authority was based on Article 13 of the GATT 1994 to distribute the established quota.  Ecuador also r espected what had been established in the Safeguard 
Agreement and the Services Agreement.  When distributing the quota between importing countries 
and supplying countries, in no case did Ecuador discriminate between imports according to their 
origin, nor between importers, whether they be foreign or national.  Regarding question fifteen, 
Ecuador pointed out that the threat of injury was de termined on the basis of the level of effect on each 
one of the variables established according to WTO ru les.  Regarding question sixteen, Ecuador stated 
that safeguards were decided upon according to R esolution No. 193 published in the Gazette No. 126 
of July 2003.  The term of the measure w as counted from 28 August 2003, a date on which the 
Official Register 157 had been published which made the measure applic able according to the 
distribution of the quotas amongst countries and th e importing quotas amongst importers.  The first 
year of the measure would be completed on 27 A ugust 2004.  During the period of the safeguard 
application, Ecuador could revise it if such a propo sal was made.  The validity of this measure was 
two years and it could be shortened if the Council for Foreign Trade felt that this was the right step.  
The extension of the measure, while being possible, would only be applied in extreme cases.  At the 
moment it was certainly not believed to be appropriate .  In any case, Ecuador would act in conformity 
with the provisions of the Safeguard Agreemen t without any prejudice to imports.  Regarding 
question eighteen, Ecuador stated that the authority responsible for administrating the quotas was COMEXI and specifically the Sub-Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Industrialization, Fisheries and Competitiveness.  The Registered imports of the Central Bank of Export was a means of public information on the use of the quota.  Concerning question nineteen, Ecuador stated that 
safeguards were applied according to wooden fibr es under Customs Classification No. 44.1 and that 
similar or directly competitive products with t hose of national products were those which were 
imported under sub-chapters HS 4411.1900, 4411.2100, 4411.2900, 4411.3100, 4411.3900, 
4411.9100 and 4411.9900.  Regarding question twenty , Ecuador stated that detailed information had 
been asked for and that this could be found in th e report submitted by the record of the Foreign Trade 
Council and that there were copies of this on this  occasion.  Regarding question twenty-one, Ecuador 
stated that Resolution No. 193 of COMEXI describe d what had been analyzed by the investigating 
authorities in the investigating process.   In describing the visit to the Cotopaxi plants, the scope of the 
visit was described, namely what had been seen and analyzed on that visit which was not necessarily the grounds for the conclusion of the investigation bu t only part of those grounds.  The scope of the 
phrase "it would seem" is therefore limited in what ha d been seen and analyzed at the Cotopaxi plants 
as part of the investigation.  The conclusions of the investigation had been based on objective 
evidence.  Finally, regarding question twenty-two, Ec uador pointed out that the investigating authority 
and Ecuador considered that this  relation was necessary for imports because one of the lines was to 
generate added value to wood fibres for the Ecuadori an economy.  The others generated part of the 
prime material used in the production of these wood fibre tablets.  Other reasons had not been found 
for the reduction which was objectively establishe d for the capacity of the national branch. 
72. The representative of Chile
 stated that they would give a preliminary reaction with regard to 
four points.  The first point was the answer on si milar products amongst themselves or with regard to 
competing products.  The representative of Chile note d that Ecuador had said that there were similar  G/SG/M/24 
 Page 13 
 
 
 products to products of national produce.  The delega te of Chile asked what that exactly meant.  The 
representative of Chile asked whether there were eigh t separate investigations.  If there were separate 
investigations and they were a ll grouped together, according to the representative of Chile that was 
because it was assumed that they were similar produc ts amongst themselves or with national products.  
With regard to the question on "critical circumstanc es", according to the delegate of Chile that was 
only because the previous answer from Ecuador w as that such circumstances would facilitate the 
distribution of imported goods in the local market.  The delegate of Chile ment ioned that they did not 
believe that this constituted a critical circumstance.  The fourth point raised by the delegate of Chile 
related to the reassignment of quotas.  The delega te of Chile sought further explanations from the 
delegate of Ecuador on how quotas could be reassigne d.  Chile would be concerned that these import 
quotas would not be used, not because there were  not enough imports but because they were 
administered in such a way that the quota was actua lly less.  Finally, the representative of Chile noted 
that the delegate from Ecuador had said that the measure had been initiated on 28 August.  Thus it 
would end on 27 August 2004.  The representative of Chile recalled Ecuador's statement in the 
previous meeting that the period of imposition of the provisional measure would be counted towards 
the two years of period of application of the defi nitive measure.  The representative of Chile pointed 
out that they would continue to discu ss that with the delegation of Ecuador. 
73. The delegate of Ecuador  pointed out that Ecuador would continue to ensure that the 
information that Chile and Mexico had requested wo uld be submitted to them.  The representative of 
Ecuador stated that with regard to Chile the de legation of Ecuador did have the written answers and 
that perhaps a more analytical reading of the ques tions would enable the delegate from Chile to find 
her answers.  The representative of Ecuador pointed out  that they would not give answers to the four 
questions that had been put by Chile until they would be able to provide the delegate of Chile with the 
written answers to their written questions, which w ould clarify many of the doubts that had been 
raised. 
11. Estonia – Swine Meat 
74. The Chairman  noted that Estonia had notified the ini tiation of its investigation on swine meat, 
as contained in document G/SG/N/6/EST/1. 
75. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
12. European Communities – Mandarins 
76. The Chairman noted that the European Communities  had notified, in document 
G/SG/N/6/EEC/2, the initiation of its investiga tion on certain prepared or preserved mandarins. 
77. The delegate of the European Communities  stated that the European Communities  had 
initiated this investigation on 11 July 2003; a public notice of the investigation had been provided on 
the same date and the notification had been provided to the Committee.  The delegate of the European 
Communities  pointed out that the public notice and th e notification were rather  self-explanatory.  The 
investigation was ongoing and the European Co mmunities would respect all provisions of the 
Safeguards Agreement on notifi cations and consultations. 
78. The delegate of the United States  mentioned that they were in the process of preparing written 
questions that they intended to submit shortly but that they wanted to say that this was an area in 
which the United States had a commercial interest and that the notification raised some questions.  For 
example, it looked like they were notifying two separat e investigations.  First, it appeared to be a 
transitional product-specific mechanism investigation w ith respect to imports from China.  Second, it 
appeared to be an investigation relating to imports  from all sources under the Safeguards Agreement.  
The delegate of the United States stated that they were interested in the relationship between these G/SG/M/24 
Page 14  
 
 two investigations, including whether there would be  any sort of double protection that the European 
Communities representative was mentioning.  The re presentative of the United States mentioned that 
they were also interested in the issues that had been raised as a re sult of the EC’s announcement with 
respect to the expansion of the EU from 15 member s to 25 members, issues that had already been 
discussed in the ADP Committee.  The delegate of the United States asked whether the measures, if 
any, resulting from this investigation would cove r imports into the EU-15 or the EU-25.  The 
representative of the United States pointed out that th ey were considering to submit these questions in 
writing. 
79. The delegate of the European Communities
 mentioned that they would be waiting for the US 
written questions and that they would certainly re ply to them.  The representative of the European 
Communities also pointed out that they could explain some elements of these questions in this 
meeting.  The delegate of the European Commun ities pointed out that the European Communities  
was conducting a parallel investigation under the so-ca lled transitional product safeguard mechanism.  
The European Communities  doubted that prejudice could result from the final outcome of these two investigations.  The European Communities consid ered that the requirements for opening the two 
investigations were met.  If the European Commun ities finally adopted the measures, there would be 
either an ASG measure or a TPS measure, there woul d not be double protection.  As regards to the 
second issue that the United States had raised, the re presentative of the Europ ean Communities  stated 
that this was the part of the point already rai sed by Korea under "Other Business", thus it could 
perhaps be discussed in that context. 
13. European Communities  – Certain Steel Products 
80. The Chairman
 noted that Turkey had made a notification regarding the European 
Communities' investigation on certain steel products.  This notification was contained in document 
G/L/624 G/SG/N/12/TUR/1/Corr.1. 
81. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
14. Hungary- White Sugar 
82. The Chairman noted that Hungary had made  a number of notifications regarding its 
investigation on white sugar.  These notifications  were contained in documents G/SG/N/6/HUN/3, 
G/SG/N/7/HUN/3 and G/SG/N/11/HUN/3. 
83. There were no comments or questions regarding these notifications. 
15. Hungary – Ammonium Nitrate 
84. The Chairman noted that Hungary had made  a number of notifications regarding its 
investigation on ammonium nitrate, as contained in documents G/SG/N/8/HUN/2, G/SG/N/9/HUN/2, 
G/SG/N/10/HUN/2 and G/SG/N/11/HUN/2/Add.2. 
85. The delegate of Romania  pointed out that the Romanian producers and exporters of 
ammonium nitrate had been hugely affected by this  measure.  This was why Romania had asked for 
bilateral consultations during the entire process of th e investigation.  The representative of Romania 
stated that as of the time of the meeting, the information and an swers received from the Hungarian 
side did not satisfy Romania.  Romania urged the Hungarian side to complete the data requested 
during the meetings of October 2003 in Budapest.  The representative of Romania stated that Romania was hopeful that the spirit of these consulta tions would continue, with a view to identify a 
commonly acceptable solution.  G/SG/M/24 
 Page 15 
 
 
 86. The delegate of Hungary  mentioned that in recent bilateral consultations, Romania had 
provided a long list of questions and according to their information, the Hungarian authorities were 
still working on the answers to the list of questions.  The delegate of Hungary stated that they hoped 
to be able to soon send the answers to Romania. 
16. Jordan – Pasta 
87. The Chairman  noted that Turkey had made a notifica tion regarding Jordan's investigation on 
pasta, as contained in document G/L/625 & G/ SG/N/12/TUR/2.  There were no comments or 
questions regarding Turkey's notification. 
88. The Chairman noted that questions regarding this  investigation had been posed by Mexico, as 
contained in document G/SG/Q2/JOR/4, and that  Jordan had responded to these questions in 
document G/SG/Q2/JOR/5. 
89. The delegate of Jordan  made a correction to Jordan's repl y.  In the last line of the last 
paragraph of the reply to the first question, the phrase "as for the pasta case" would be replaced by "as 
for the magnetic tapes case". 
90. The delegate of Mexico  mentioned that Mexico still had doubt s with regard to the application 
of Article 9.1 of the Safeguards Agreement.  With  regard to the final safeguard measures imposed by 
Jordan, the representative of Mexi co stated that Mexico would like specific information from the 
delegation of Jordan.  The delegate of Mexico ask ed which Member developi ng countries would have 
a share of less than 3 per cent in total imports, a nd what was the share of Mexico, in each of the 
following investigations:  pasta;  all forms of sanitary apparatus;  and magnetic tapes. 
91. The delegate of Mexico pointed out that on the basis of the information that Mexico had 
received from Jordan, Mexico still had doubts about  the fact that developing countries which 
represented less than 3 per cent of imports would as a whole account for 61 to 91 per cent of total imports for each one of the investigations.  Accord ing to the delegate of Mexico at least for each 
investigation there would be between 20 and 30 de veloping countries Members of the WTO, which 
was a very higher number and a very high level of diversification of imports for these countries which 
were importing relatively low shares of total imports.  Mexico believed that Jordan was extending its 
regulations to all developing  countries regardless of the volumes which they had exported. 
92. The representative of Jordan
 stated that he did not have the figures at the time of the meeting.  
The delegate of Jordan mentioned that they would submit the relevant information to the Secretariat. 
17. Jordan's – Sanitary Ware Products 
93. The Chairman  noted that Turkey had made a notifica tion regarding Jordan's investigation on 
sanitary ware products, as contained in documen t G/L/626 G/SG/N/12/TUR/3.  There were no 
comments or questions regarding Turkey's notification. 
94. The Chairman noted that questions regarding this  investigation had been posed by Mexico, as 
contained in document G/SG/Q2/JOR/4 and that Jord an had responded to these questions in document 
G/SG/Q2/JOR/5. 
95. The representative of Mexico  stated that the questions Mexico had posed regarding Jordan’s 
previous investigation also applied to this  investigation.  The delegate of Jordan  mentioned that 
Jordan would be sending the data. G/SG/M/24 
Page 16  
 
 18. Jordan – Aerated Water 
96. The Chairman
 noted that in document G/SG/N/9/JOR/6 Jordan had notified the termination of 
its investigation on aerated water.  There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
19. Latvia – Live Pigs and Pork 
97. The Chairman noted that Latvia had made two notifications concerning its investigation on 
live pigs and pork, as contained in do cuments G/SG/N/10/LVA/3 and Add.1. 
98. There were no comments or questions regarding these notifications. 
20. Moldova – Sugar 
99. The Chairman noted that Moldova had made  a number of notifications regarding its 
investigation on sugar, as contained in documents G/SG/N/6/MDA/1, G/SG/N/8/MDA/1, 
G/SG/N/10/MDA/1, and G/SG/N/11/MDA/1. 
100. The representative of th e European Communities  pointed out that the European Communities  
was concerned with this case.  The European Comm unities  had a commercial interest in it, and had 
noted that Moldova had notified injury finding s and definitive measures all at once.  The 
representative of the European Communities  stated that  this was not consistent with the provisions of 
Article 12 of the Safeguards Agreement.  The European Communities had been informed of 
Moldova's decision after it had been adopted, with out having the possibility to participate in the 
proceedings and to have prior cons ultations.  According to the delega te of the European Communities, 
it appeared that the measures had been adopted but they would only enter into force later in 
January 2004.  The delegate of the Europ ean Communities asked Moldova whether Moldova 
considered that the time left until this deadline coul d be used for consultati ons under Article 12.3, and 
whether it was still possible to have this  measure modified in this time-lap. 
101. The Chairman  stated that Moldova was not represen ted at the meeting, and invited the 
European Communities to put these questions in writing. 
21. Philippines – Glass Mirrors 
102. The Chairman noted that the Philippines had ma de a number of notifications regarding its 
investigation on glass mirrors, as contained in documents G/SG/N/6/PHL/3, G/SG/N/7/PHL/3, 
G/SG/N/8/PHL/3 and G/SG/N/11/PHL/3.  
103. The delegate of the United States  stated that this was a produc t in which the United States had 
a commercial interest, and that the United States would be definitely following the investigation.  The 
delegate of the United States pointed out that they  had seen the notification with respect to the 
imposition of provisional measures and that there was no reference in the notification to the basis for 
findings for critical circumstances, which was a requirement under Article 6 for the imposition of a 
provisional safeguards measure.  The United States asked whether the Philippines had in fact made 
any sort of finding with respect to critical circumst ances.  The delegate of the United States also asked 
how Article 6 could otherwise be complied with. 
104. The delegate of the Philippines  asked the United States to put these questions in writing and 
stated that the Philippines would u ndertake to reply very quickly.  G/SG/M/24 
 Page 17 
 
 
 22. Philippines – Figured Glass 
105. The Chairman  noted that Philippines had made a num ber of notifications regarding its 
investigation on figured glass, as contained in  documents G/SG/N/6/PHL/4, G/SG/N/7/PHL/4, 
G/SG/N/8/PHL/4, and G/SG/N/11/PHL/4. 
106. There were no comments or questions regarding these notifications. 
23. Philippines – Float Glass 
107. The Chairman noted that in documents G/SG/N/6/PHL/5, G/SG/N/7/PHL/5, 
G/SG/N/8/PHL/5, and G/SG/N/11/PHL/5 the Phili ppines had made a number of notifications 
regarding its investig ation on float glass. 
108. There were no comments or questions regarding these notifications. 
24. Philippines – Cement 
109. The Chairman noted that the Philippines had made two notifications regarding its 
investigation on cement, as contained in docum ents G/SG/N/10/PHL/2 and G/SG/N/11/PHL/2. 
110. The representative of the United States  referred to the fact that as the notifications stated that 
the provisional measure imposed in December 2001 was to be applied for 200 days, and that 
subsequently there had been a court decision on the basis of which the provisional measure had 
remained in effect beyond 200 days.  The delegate  of the United States noted that the provisional 
measure was allowed to continue for approximately a year and a half.  According to the delegate of 
the United States, if this was correct, it would not be  in conformity with Article 6 on limitations for 
provisional measures to 200 days.  The delegate of  the United States sought clarification about the 
length of time that the provisional measure had been in force. 
111. Secondly, the delegate of the United States referred to the institutional arrangements for 
safeguard investigations in the Philippines between  the Department of Trade and Industry and the 
Tariff Commission.  The delegate of the United Stat es stated that according to the notification, the 
Tariff Commission originally had opened the safeguard  case but then after a certain court ruling there 
had been a later decision by the Department of  Trade and Industry on whether a safeguards duty 
would be imposed.  The delegate of the United St ates sought clarification as to whether there had 
been a determination by the competent authority, whichever authority that might be, that increased 
imports had caused serious injury or threat ther eof to the industry before the decision had been. 
112. The delegate of the Philippines  mentioned that with respect to  the first question by the United 
States, they would have to consult their capita l.  With respect to the second question, the 
representative of the Philippines stated that his unde rstanding was that there had been a determination 
by the Department of Trade and Industry lead ing for the imposition of the safeguard measure. 
113. The delegate of the Philippines requested the United States to provide these questions in 
writing so that they could convey them to their authorities. 
25. Philippines – Ceramic Tiles 
114. The Chairman  noted that Philippines had made two no tifications regarding its investigation 
on ceramic tiles, as contained in documents G/SG/N/10/PHL/1/Suppl.1 and 
G/SG/N/11/PHL/1/Suppl.1. G/SG/M/24 
Page 18  
 
 115. There were no comments or questions regarding these notifications. 
26. Poland – Matches 
116. The Chairman noted that in document G/SG/N /6/POL/5 Poland had notified the initiation of 
an investigation on matches. 
117. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
27. Poland – Certain Steel Products 
118. The Chairman noted that Poland had made a number of notifications regarding its 
investigation on certain steel products, as contained in documents G/SG/N/8/POL/1, 
G/SG/N/10/POL/1, and G/SG/N/11/POL/2. 
119. The Chairman also noted that questions rega rding this investigation had been posed by 
Mexico in document G/SG/Q2/POL/1, and that Po land had submitted its responses to these questions 
in document G/SG/Q2/POL/2. 
120. The delegate Mexico
 expressed Mexico’s concerns with regard to the principle used by 
Poland to qualify countries that were developi ng countries for purposes of Article 9.1 of the 
Safeguards Agreement.  In addition, the delegate of  Mexico pointed out that Mexico had questions on 
three of Poland’s four cases (certain steel products, calcium carbide and water heaters) listed in the 
agenda and that for procedural reasons Mexico would discuss all three investigations together. 
121. The representative of Mexico stated that Mexico  appreciated Poland’s explanations as to how 
Poland had implemented Article 6 of the Safe guards Agreement regarding the imposition of 
provisional safeguard measures in these three cases, and particularly regarding the evidence that had 
been used to find the existence of critical circ umstances that would justify the imposition of such 
measures. 
122. The representative of Mexico requested the Polis h Government to inform Mexico as to the 
evidence that had been taken into consideration to  find a causal relationship between the increase in 
imports and serious injury to the domestic produc tion, as well as the qualitative objective analysis of 
other factors, as provided for in Article 4 of the Sa feguards Agreement.  In addition, the delegate of 
Mexico asked for information regarding the adjust ment process that would take place during the 
period of the application of safeguard measures under Article 7 of the Safeguards Agreement.   
123. The delegate of Mexico repeated Mexico’s position that due regard should be given to 
Mexico’s developing country status as recognized by the WTO.  The delegate of Mexico pointed out 
that this status had not changed and therefore had to continue to apply. 
124. The delegate of Poland  pointed out that Poland had already given the replies to Mexico's 
questions concerning Article 9.1.  The delegate of  Poland noted that there was a clear divergence of 
views and that Poland's position re mained unchanged.  The representative of Poland stated that this 
applied not only to certain steel measures,  but to all Poland’s safeguard measures. 
125. As regards to the other questions, the representa tive of Poland stated that he would respond to 
them in the context of the steel investigation.  With regard to critical circumstances in the steel 
investigation, the delegate of Poland pointed ou t that they had been ta ken into account.  The 
representative of Poland stated that in the notifica tion concerning the provisional safeguard measure, 
there was some information concerning critical circum stances.  As to the causal link, the delegate of 
Poland submitted that Poland had done  research on the causal link.  The delegate of Poland underlined  G/SG/M/24 
 Page 19 
 
 
 that originally the investigation had been initiate d to cover twelve groups of products.  Among these 
twelve groups, ten were subjected to provisional me asures and only eight to final measures.  No final 
measure had been imposed regarding the remaining four groups because the competent authorities had 
not found a causal link for three of them, for the fourth one the Polish authorities had found that the 
final measure would not be benefi cial for the processing industry. 
126. Regarding Mexico’s question concerning adjustment under Article 7, the representative of 
Poland stated that the measure would expire on 1 May 2004 together with Poland’s accession to the 
European Communities.  Given that the measure woul d not be applied for more than one year, there 
would be no progressive liberalization. 
127. The representative of Argentina  intervened in order to make comments concerning Poland’s 
measures on steel, calcium carbide and water heaters.  Like Mexico, the delegate of Argentina also 
expressed concern that Argentina ha d not been excluded by  Poland from the scope of application of 
measures under Article 9.1, given that Argentine expo rts to the Polish market were below 3 per cent.  
The delegate of Argentina pointed out that wh en Poland had acted similarly when adopting the 
provisional safeguard measure Argentina had filed a complaint with the Polish authorities requesting 
the application of developing country status in a ll WTO matters and in view of the provisions of 
Article 9.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards.  On  that opportunity, the competent authorities had 
explained that in the absence of a WTO list of developing country Members, Poland had used two 
principles/criteria to define a developing country.  One criterion was to be a non-European country, 
and the other one was to have a GDP per capita lowe r than that of Poland, which Argentina had not 
met.  Argentina wished to express a systemic c oncern regarding Poland’s interpretation of the 
provisions of Article 9.1.  According to Argen tina, Article 9.1 was very clear; it referred to 
developing countries.  There could be no doubt that Argentina was one of such developing countries.  
Therefore, the non-exclusion of Argentina from the implementation of this measure did not comply with the provisions of that Article. 
128. The delegate of Poland
 stated that although Poland did not  change its position regarding the 
issue of the definition of a developing country for pu rposes of Article 9.1, after bilateral consultations 
with Argentina, Poland had received more accurate data concerning Argentina’s GDP per capita after 
the financial crisis.  According to the latest data , Argentina’s GDP per capita was lower than that of 
Poland.  The representative of Poland stated that Po land was therefore ready to include Argentina in 
the list of countries excluded for Article 9.1 purposes. 
129. The delegate of Poland repeated that Poland s till did not change its position on the systemic 
issue of this article and that since Mexico’s GDP per capita was higher than that of Poland, Poland did 
not intend to exclude Mexico from the scope of the measure. 
130. Regarding Article 7, the delega te of Poland clarified his previous response to the question 
concerning the liberalization of the measure.  The de legate of Poland stated that the response he had 
given applied to all measures other than steel becau se the steel measure had originally been imposed 
in July.  Since that measure had been imposed be fore the referendum in Poland about accession to the 
European Communities, the Polish authorities had not known for sure at the time of imposition 
whether Poland would join the European Communi ties on 1 May 2004.  Therefore, this measure 
would be liberalized after 8 March 2004.  The duties would be lower and the quotas free from the 
duties would be increased for the period 8 March - 30 April 2004.  However, for the other measures 
there would be no liberalization because these measur es would not be applied for more than one year. 
131. The representative of Argentina  stated that developing countries were intrinsically vulnerable 
to changes in GDP per capita and that this was one reason why it could not be used as a criterion.  The 
representative of Argentine mentioned that this criterion was not included in Article 9.1, which mentioned developing countries as such. G/SG/M/24 
Page 20  
 
 132. The delegate of Mexico
 supported Argentina’s comments.  The delegate of Mexico 
considered that GDP per capita was not a criterion th at was laid down in Article 9.1.  Therefore, the 
fact that Mexico’s GDP per capita was higher than that of Poland did not justify the non-exclusion of Mexico as a developing country. 
133. The delegate of Malaysia
 stated that Malaysia shared the systemic concerns raised by the 
delegations of Argentina and Mexico and repeated  that the GDP per capita should not be used as a 
criterion in the application of Article 9.1. 
134. The delegate of Poland  agreed that Article 9.1 applied to developing countries and that there 
was nothing in this article about GDP per capita.  Acco rding to the delegate of Poland, since there was 
no definition of a developing country in the WTO Agreements, the self-determination principle was 
not binding for purposes of Article 9.1 of the Agre ement on Safeguards.  The delegate of Poland 
recalled that there were some countries that used their GSP lists for purposes of Article 9.1.  For 
example, the delegate of Poland stated that Po land had been excluded from the US steel safeguard 
measure although Poland had never c onsidered itself a developing c ountry.  The delegate of Poland 
mentioned that the United States probably made this  determination on the basis of its list of GSP 
beneficiaries.  The delegate of Poland submitted that Poland had been excluded by the Philippines 
similarly on the basis of the Philippines’ GSP list or some other list.  The representative of Poland repeated that Poland had never self-determined itsel f in the WTO as a developing country, but still in 
some cases it had been excluded.  The delegate of  Poland stated that using the GSP list for purposes 
of Article 9.1 was also in conformity with the WT O rules because there were no rules on this matter 
in the WTO. 
135. The delegate of Mexico
 stated that Mexico did not agree with that interpretation and that 
Mexico had been reviewing the safeguards policy of Poland and would revert to that issue. 
28. Poland – Calcium Carbide 
136. The Chairman  noted that Poland had made a numbe r of notifications regarding its 
investigation on calcium carbide as contained in  documents G/SG/N/8/POL/2, G/SG/N/10/POL/3, 
and G/SG/N/11/POL/4. 
137. The representative of the Slovak Republic  expressed interest in the safeguard measure applied 
by Poland on calcium carbide.  The delegate of the Slovak Republic stressed that the Slovak Republic 
had some concerns on substantive as well as proce dural aspects of this safeguard measure.  The 
delegate of the Slovak Republic stated that the Sl ovak Republic would like Poland to reconsider this 
measure and stated that there was room for bilateral consultations. 
29. Poland- Water Heaters 
138. The Chairman  noted that Poland had made a numbe r of notifications regarding its 
investigation on water heaters, as contained in documents G/SG/N/8/POL/3, G/SG/N/10/POL/2 and 
Suppl.1, and G/SG/N/11/POL/3. 
139. There were no comments or questions regarding these notifications. 
30. United States – Certain Steel Products 
140. The Chairman noted that in document G/SG/N/13/USA/4 the United States had made a 
notification regarding its inves tigation on certain steel products.  G/SG/M/24 
 Page 21 
 
 
 141. The delegate of Japan  stated that he would make certain comments regarding the US measure 
on steel, which would also touch upon the safegua rd measures of other Members on steel products, 
some of which had already been discussed during the meeting. 
142. The delegate of Japan mentioned that Japan, in  coordination with others, had strongly argued 
that the United States safeguard measures violated  WTO rules and thus those measures had to be 
repealed.  The representative of Japan recalled th at the panel established with regard to these 
measures had concluded that those measures were in consistent with WTO rules and that they were 
waiting for the Appellate Body to ci rculate its report on this matter. 
143. Referring to the US notification regard ing the mid-term review in document 
G/SG/N/13/USA/4, the delegate of Japan noted that  the United States explained that the US President 
could take action to reduce, modify or terminat e a safeguard measure after receiving a mid-term 
report by the ITC, but that the President had not deci ded yet to take such actions with respect to this 
measure. 
144. The delegate of Japan stated that Japan woul d follow the developments on this matter in the 
near future very carefully.  The delegate of Japan  added that in case the Appellate Body Report found 
that these safeguard measures were inconsistent w ith WTO rules and if the United States did not 
repeal these measures despite such an Appellate Body decision, Japan would have to consider 
necessary steps including rebalancing measures. 
145. The delegate of Japan recalled that, as Japan had mentioned in the previous meetings of this 
Committee, a number of Member countries, such  as the European Communities and China, had 
resorted to provisional or definitive safeguard me asures on steel products as a consequence of the 
imposition of the US measures.  Japan had been strongly concerned with such series of chain 
reactions.  Therefore, the delegate  of Japan urged the United States to  repeal the safeguard measures 
on steel products as soon as possible.  The delegate  of Japan also urged other Members refrain from 
taking such measures. 
146. The representative of the United States  stated that this was a matter that was before the 
Appellate Body and that all Members were waiting for the Appellate Body report.  The representative 
of the United States stated that the United States would consider that report when it was circulated.  
The delegate of the United States pointed out that th e United States did not have anything to add to its 
notification. 
147. The representative of the European Communities  expressed support for the Japanese 
statement.  The representative of the European Communities  also repeated their commitment to 
reassure Japan that the European Communities  intended to repeal its own safeguard measure as soon 
as the United States removed theirs. 
31. Venezuela – Certain Steel Products 
148. The Chairman  noted that Venezuela had made two notif ications regarding its investigation on 
certain steel products, as contained in documents G/SG/N/7/VEN/1/Suppl.1 and 
G/SG/N/11/VEN/1/Suppl.1. 
149. The representative of the European Communities   noted that these notifications related to 
provisional safeguard measures that had been impo sed in December 2002 for a duration of 200 days 
and asked what the status of this case was. 
150. The delegate of Venezuela  stated that they did not have specific, accurate information to 
provide and that they would inform the European Communities  as soon as possible. G/SG/M/24 
Page 22  
 
 32. Venezuela – Paper for Writing or Printing, Sacks and Bags 
151. The Chairman
 noted that Venezuela had made a notif ication regarding its investigation on 
paper for writing or printing, sacks a nd bags in document G/SG/N/8/VEN/3. 
152. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
153. The Chairman recalled that any questions con cerning the notifications of actions taken for 
which written responses were requested, had to be submitted to the Member concerned and to the 
Secretariat no later than 10 November 2003.  Writte n answers had to be submitted to the Secretariat 
no later than 1 December 2003. 
C. APPLICATION  OF ARTICLE  9.1 
154. The Chairman noted that this item had been incl uded in the agenda at the request of Malaysia, 
and that Malaysia had submitted a non-pape r on this matter on Friday, 17 October 2003. 
155. The delegate of Malaysia  apologized for the late submission of this non-paper and stated that 
they would welcome any comments that could be made at this meeting. 
156. The delegate of Malaysia noted that at the meeting of the Committee on Safeguards on 
28 April 2003, there had been a discussion on the app lication of Article 9.1 under Agenda Item C of 
that meeting.  She also recalled that in addition to  the discussions in that meeting, similar discussions 
had also been held in previous meetings on the time period used for calculation of the negligible 
volume level ( de minimis  thresholds); the methodology to be em ployed for that calculation; treatment 
of Article 9.1 in the context of provisional measures; and the method by which investigating 
authorities identified developing countries.  The repr esentative of Malaysia recalled that at the April 
meeting, Members had been encouraged to circulat e papers or written contributions on Article 9.1 
issues in order to allow for more fru itful discussions in the Committee. 
157. The representative of Malaysia stated that Ma laysia's submission was meant to enable more 
focused discussion of the issue with a view towards greater transparency of Members' application of 
this provision.  It was also meant to facilitate a better understanding of Memb ers' application of the 
provision.  This could contribute to the implementa tion of the Safeguard Agr eement in a manner that 
would enable all Members to fulfill their obligations  and avail themselves fully of the rights granted 
under the Agreement. 
158. The representative of Malaysia noted that Article  9.1 of the Safeguards Agreement stated that 
safeguard measures should not be applied against a product originating in a developing country 
Member as long as its share of imports of the pr oduct concerned in the importing Member did not 
exceed 3 per cent, provided that developing country Members with less than 3 per cent import share 
collectively accounted for not more than 9 per cen t of total imports of the product concerned. 
159. According to the delegate of Malaysia Article  9.1 was a special and differential treatment 
provision accorded to all developing countries.  It was recognized and accepted that this special and 
differential treatment provision provided developing countries with  low-volume exports to be 
exempted from the application of a safeguard measure. 
160. The delegate of Malaysia focused on two aspects of the application of Article 9.1: "the time 
period for the calculation of the negligible volum e resulting in a post-safeguards redetermination 
under Article 9.1" and "the application of Article  9.1".  However, this did not mean that the 
application of Article 9.1 was confined to these el ements.  Rather, this submission mentioned these 
two issues just to facilitate the discussions on the application of Article 9.1.  The representative of  G/SG/M/24 
 Page 23 
 
 
 Malaysia also stated that this submission was w ithout prejudice to the position of Malaysia regarding 
the application of Article 9.1. 
161. The representative of Malaysia noted that Article  3.1 of the Safeguards Agreement stated that 
a Member could apply a safeguard measure following an investigation by the competent authorities of 
that Member pursuant to procedures previously established and made public.  Article 3.1 further 
stated that this investigation had to include reas onable public notice to all interested parties and to 
provide means where these parties could present th eir evidence and views and to respond to the 
presentations of other parties.  A published repor t had to provide information on the findings and 
conclusions. 
162. The representative of Malaysia thus noted that  before a safeguard measure was applied, 
several requirements had to be fulfilled: an inv estigation had to be conducted; there had to be 
reasonable public notice of the investigation; and opport unity had to be given to interested parties to 
present their views.  According to the delegate of  Malaysia, given these requirements, it would be 
expected that the time period to be taken into account  in the determination of serious injury, including 
the calculation of the negligible volume level for deve loping countries, i.e. the 3 per cent share, would 
be a period before the application of the measure.  Article 5.1 of the Agreement did not provide an 
indication that this representative period was a period prior to the imposition of the safeguard 
measure. 
163. However, the representative of Malaysia stated  that it was the experience of some Members 
that the special and differential treatment grante d to developing countries based on the calculation of 
negligible volume levels in te rms of an exemption from the application of the safeguard measure 
based on the provisions of Article 9.1 would not be maintained after the safeguard measure was 
applied.  The representative of Malaysia noted th at some Members imposing the safeguard measure 
had undertaken a recalculation of the negligible volum e level after the measure had been applied.  On 
the basis of this recalculation, based on a differe nt period, developing countries initially exempted 
from the measure under Article 9.1 had this exem ption withdrawn when their individual share 
increased to more than 3 per cent during th e period after the imposition of the measure. 
164. It was the view of the Malaysian delegation that it would be useful for Members to share their 
views regarding the following questions: 
(a) Is there justification for redetermination of the exemption granted under Article 9.1, 
based on a calculation using the post-impositi on time period, i.e. a period after the 
application of the safeguards measure is in place? 
(b) When redetermination is undertaken of th e measure based on trade volumes in the 
post-imposition period, what would prevent a Member from refraining from further redetermination, what would be the cut-off point and would this not create endless rounds of redetermination? 
(c) In any re-examination of the application of  Article 9.1, would it not require a new 
investigation that needs to fulfill the requirements of Articles 3 and 4?  Could a mere 
redetermination of Article 9.1 post safe guards imposition measure, also not require 
the fulfillment of full re-evaluation of Article 4? (especially the causal link). 
(d) In just undertaking a mere redetermin ation under Article 9.1 post-safeguards 
imposition, would it not deny the aff ected developing country Member the 
opportunity to present its views?  If there is a redetermination under Article 9.1 and 
no opportunity is provided to defend one's  interest, would it not undermine the 
principles of fairness and justice? G/SG/M/24 
Page 24  
 
 (e) Is it not more appropriate for the competent authority to demonstrate that the 
developing countries exempted in the origin al investigation have caused a surge in 
their imports post imposition causing serious injury that warrants a redetermination 
under Article 9.1? 
(f) Would such an action violate the spirit a nd letter of this special and differential 
treatment provision and circumvent  the intent of Article 9.1? 
165. The representative of Malaysia recalled that  at previous meetings the Committee had 
discussed the discriminatory application of Article 9.1.  Some developing countries fulfilling the 
negligible volume level requirements under this ar ticle had been exempted from the measure.  Yet 
others had not been exempted.  According to th e representative of Malaysia, such arbitrary and 
discriminatory application of Article 9.1 frustrated th e intent of this Article and denied the rights of 
developing countries under this provision. 
166. The representative of Malaysia noted that the parameter for exclusion or inclusion of a 
developing country from the application of this artic le was based on the low volume of trade.  Hence, 
it was inconsistent with the Agreement to use ot her parameters and would be a violation of the 
Agreement to deny developing countries  their rights under this provision. 
167. The delegate of Malaysia welcomed views on these issues and invited Members that would 
like to share their national experiences regarding the application of Article 9.1.  This would assist 
Member countries in the proper implementation of th e rights and obligations under this Agreement on 
Safeguards. 
168. The delegate of Thailand
 pointed out that the content of Malaysia's non-paper was thought-
provoking and could provide a good basis for further discussions.  The delegate of Thailand noted that 
the gist of this non-paper was confined to two el ements, i.e. the time-period selection and method by 
which the investigating authorities identified developi ng countries.  The delegate of Thailand noted 
that certain aspects had been highlighted such as th e special and differential treatment of the provision 
designed to contribute to the proper implementation of  the Agreement.  The delegate of Thailand also 
noted that during the discussions in the Committee a number of delegations had already indicated the 
same interest and careful consideration of this i ssue.  The delegate of Thailand stated that their 
delegation associated itself with Malaysia and welcomed the views from Members on the issues 
raised as well as any other issues that were rela ted to the application of Article 9.1.  The 
representative of Thailand encouraged Malaysia to submit their contribution as a formal document at 
a later date and pointed out that Thailand would co ntinue to work closely with Malaysia and other 
Members as discussions would continue. 
169. The delegate of China  made preliminary comments on the submission by Malaysia.   As a 
developing country Member, China associated itsel f with other developing country Members’ 
opinions to make more fruitful discussions in th is Committee on Article 9.1 of the Agreement on 
Safeguards in the April meeting.  According to the delegate of China, the arguments for the relative 
issues contained in Malaysia's submission were legiti mate in light of the recent increase in the use of 
safeguard measures by Members.  The representa tive of China mentioned that Article 9.1 was a 
special and differential treatment provision for all deve loping Members.  This provision stated that a 
safeguard measure should not be applied agains t a product originating in a developing country 
Member as long as its share of imports of the prod ucts concerned in the importing Member did not 
exceed 3 per cent and collectively did not exceed 9 per cent of imports.  The delegate of China 
asserted that a number of WTO Members had been a pplying their national criteria as opposed to the 
WTO criteria  in identifying developing country Members mentioned for purposes of Article 9.1.  The 
delegate of China stated that some developing count ry Members, when they decided to take safeguard 
measures, would exclude some developing country Members under special and differential treatment  G/SG/M/24 
 Page 25 
 
 
 provisions of Article 9.1 on a unila teral and discriminatory basis.  The representative of China also 
mentioned that some investigating authorities had a ttempted to rationalize their decision either on the 
basis of their own GSP scheme or on the basis of me mbership of regional agreements.  According to 
the delegate of China, the parameter of the volume of the trade had to be obeyed strictly or this would 
be a violation of WTO Members’ obligations under the WTO Agreements and would deny the 
developing Members' rights under Article 9.1.  Th e representative of China asserted that China had 
faced some unfair determinations by some WTO Members on this issue.  Therefore, the delegate of China pointed out that it was very important a nd necessary for the Members of the Committee to 
clarify the provisions of Article 9.1 and to discuss so me technical issues related to Article 9.1 in this 
Committee. 
170. The representative of Colombia
 expressed gratitude to Malays ia for their submission on the 
implementation of Article 9.1 of the Safeguards Ag reement and made some preliminary comments.  
Colombia considered that the period for the appli cation of Article 9.1 of the Safeguards Agreement 
had to match the period used for the investigation.  However, the delegate  of Colombia noted that 
some countries applied a representative period, wh atever that period might be.  Other countries 
applied the last three representative years for whic h they had statistics.  Some Members applied 
different periods depending  on the product under investigation.  Th e delegate of Colombia argued that 
it would be ideal to have a means to enable the Me mbers to establish the period to be considered in 
this context.  According to the representative of Colo mbia, this had to be prio r to the application of 
the safeguard measure.  However, if it were not possible to create an exclusive period for all Members, it would be important to have some ki nd of indication from each individual country about 
their own practice in order to avoid changes in th e time period in individual investigations.  The 
delegate of Colombia finished by stating that  dur ing the period that the measure was in force, it was 
not possible to calculate the participation of deve loping countries.  The measure had to remain as it 
had been applied originally without new devel oping countries being excluded regardless of the 
changes which occurred in  the share of these countries’ total imports. 
171. The representative of Australia
 considered Malaysia's comments to be a very useful 
contribution to the discussion on the application of Article 9.1.  The delegate of Australia also 
considered that these comments were a constructive way to facilitate discussions and to encourage 
exchanges on the implementation of this provision.   Regarding the time-period for calculation of 
negligible volume, the delegate of Australia stated  that the comments made by Malaysia had caused 
Australia to examine the text of Article 9.1 closel y and carefully.  Firstly, the delegate of Australia 
noted that Malaysia had not reflected  some key points in the language of Article 9.1, which, according 
to Australia, also required examination.  For exam ple, Article 9.1 provided that safeguard measures 
should not be applied against a product originating in a developing country as long as its share in the 
imports of the subject product did not exceed 3 per cent.  However, according to the representative of 
Australia, the use of "as long as" suggested that there could be an inherent requirement or justification 
to redetermine the application of the safeguard measu re.  Secondly, regarding the actual point of when 
to look at or apply or factor-in the negligible volum e threshold, the delegate  of Australia noted that 
Article 9.1 related to the application of safeguard measures.  Australian practice was to factor-in this 
negligible volume threshold at the application of the measure.  In this regard, the representative of 
Australia stated that they had a couple of questions  for Malaysia.  First, the delegate of Australia 
asked whether Malaysia was suggesting that in accordance with Article 5.1 of the Safeguards 
Agreement there had to be a representative period  used for the Article 9.1 calculation which was 
based on the period prior to the imposition of the safeguard measure.  The second question was 
whether Malaysia was suggesting that if in orde r to impose safeguard measures an investigation 
needed to be conducted and causation established, th en the calculation of the negligible volumes was 
required at that stage of the safeguard proceeding, that  is at the injury stage.  Another point that the 
delegate of Australia referred to was the WTO case dealing with the relationship between the injury 
investigation and the remedy through the applica tion of safeguard measures, that is the implied 
symmetry or parallelism arguments which had been confirmed and upheld by the Appellate Body.  G/SG/M/24 
Page 26  
 
 The delegate of Australia noted that the United States in its appeal in the United States – Definitive 
Safeguard Measures on Imports of Wheat Gluten from the European Communities case had challenged 
the argument that there was an implied symmetry be tween the safeguard investigation and the scope 
of the application of the safeguard measures.  Acco rding to the delegate of Australia, in that case the 
United States had argued that this was inconsistent with Article 9.1 which, in the United States view, 
excluded developing countries from safeguard measures but did not provide for their exclusion from 
the investigation.  The delegate of Australia men tioned that under Australia's safeguard procedures, a 
product originating in a developing country was in cluded in the injury investigation assessment.  
Safeguard measures were applied to a product importe d irrespective of source with the application of 
the negligible volume thresholds factored in the app lication of the measure.  The delegate of Australia 
asked whether Malaysia considered that the Article  9.1 special and differential treatment provision 
was an exception to the concurrence or paralle lism argument between the investigation and the 
application of the measures.  Finally, the delega te of Australia asserted that the issue of the 
application of Article 9.1 raised by Malaysia app eared to be closely related to the issue of how 
developing country status was determined by an investigating authority.  The representative of 
Australia noted that some WTO Members applied their own national criteria to identify developing 
country status for purposes of a safeguard investigati on.  The delegate of Australia asserted that this 
could lead to outcomes that were neither transpar ent or predictable for WTO Members, nor intended 
by the Safeguards Agreement.  The representative of Australia welcomed further discussions on WTO 
Members' current practice in this regard. 
172. The representative of Cuba
 stated that they had already expressed their interest in an 
amendment to Article 9.1.  This would provide for a significant improvement in terms of market 
access for developing countries.  The representative of  Cuba pointed out that during the negotiation of 
the Safeguards Agreement participa tion of developing countries was not as significant as today.  The 
delegate of Cuba therefore stated that they fa vored an amendment of Article 9.1 and urged WTO 
Members not to make their own free interpretation of  the definition of developing countries but rather 
to adhere to the provisions of Article 9.1 in this regard. 
173. The delegate of Argentina  expressed their interest in the review of the issue presented by 
Malaysia.  According to the delegate of Argent ina, focusing on this issue would improve the 
transparency and efficiency of pr ovisions foreseen in Article 9.1. 
174. The delegate of Mexico  pointed out that it would be useful to have a discussion on the 
implementation of Article 9.1.  This would be in the interest of all.  The delegate of Mexico referred 
to the issue of the time period to  be taken into account for the de minimis  provisions that applied to 
safeguards.  The delegate of Mexico also refe rred to the issue of arbitrary and discriminatory 
treatment.  The delegate of Mexico argued that this was an issue of extreme concern to developing countries, certainly to Mexico.  According to the re presentative of Mexico, this issue of the definition 
of a developing country could not be left up to th e arbitrary decisions of investigating authorities. 
175. The representative of Egypt
 stated that they had received Malaysia's submission only a few 
days before the meeting, and sought clarifi cation regarding the legal basis of the proposal. 
176. The representative of Venezuela  pointed out that further discussion of Malaysia’s submission 
in this Committee would be appropriate once it w ould have been circulated and digested by 
delegations.  According to the delega te of Venezuela, issues of rights and obligations of Members as 
set down in Article 9.1 were directly related to th e discussions in the Committee meeting.  Like other 
delegations, Venezuela believed that the definiti on of a developing country and the rights stemming 
from it, had to be defined more specifically by th e Committee.  The representative of Venezuela also 
echoed the proposal made by the Colombian delega tion.  The Colombian delegation had suggested 
that the Committee explore the issue of the periods of  time to be taken into account for purposes of 
implementing Article 9.1.  The delegate of Venezu ela noted that the Colombian delegation had been  G/SG/M/24 
 Page 27 
 
 
 very active in discussing Article 9.1, including th e suggestions resulting from the Doha Ministerial 
Declaration.  The delegate of Venezuela pointed out that this draft proposal would be useful for 
further discussions in this Committee. 
177. The delegate of the Philippines  noted that Malaysia was not proposing an amendment to 
Article 9.1.  According to the delegate of th e Philippines, the points raised in the Malaysian 
contribution were nevertheless helpful.  The delega te of the Philippines mentioned that the Philippines 
would be eager to participate in future discussions on this issue. 
178. The representative of Malaysia  noted that Malaysia had raised two points regarding the 
application of Article 9.1.  The delegate of Mala ysia noted the encouragement given by many of the 
Members who had taken the floor and who mentione d that they would like to have a greater 
examination and discussion of these two issues in the Committee.  Regarding Thailand's point, the 
delegate of Malaysia mentioned that perhaps discu ssions about Article 9.1 did not need to be limited 
to these two issues but any issues Members would ra ise.  Regarding Egypt's question concerning the 
legal basis of this proposal, the representative of Ma laysia stated that Malaysia was not proposing an 
amendment of Article 9.1, but was suggesting that the Members of the Committee have a discussion 
that would help the Members in the implementation of this Article. 
179. The delegate of Malaysia stated that Australia ’s questions regarding th e issue of parallelism 
and the issue of the representative period were very useful.  According to the delegate of Malaysia, 
these  questions would become very useful once Members of the Committee got into the discussions 
at the following meeting.  The representative of  Malaysia pointed out that, putting aside a few 
exceptions, in their view most WTO Members had implemented Article 9.1 in a very uniform and 
acceptable manner.  The delegate of Malaysia stated that Malaysia was raising some of the issues for 
discussion in order to prevent this from turning into  a systemic problem.  The delegate of Malaysia 
pointed out that Malaysia would come back to this  issue at the next meeting of the Committee with 
more substantive replies to what had been aske d by delegations and would perhaps also revise its 
submission. 
180. The delegate of the European Communities  expressed the EC's full interest in this issue. 
181. The Chairman  stated that given the nature of Members’ discussion at the meeting, Members 
could need more time to reflect further on this ag enda item.  He therefore encouraged those Members 
who wanted to submit any document to do so in adva nce of the next regular meeting, so that other 
Members could have time to consider it appropriately.  The Chairman stated that the Committee would revert to this agenda item at the following meeting. 
D. OTHER
 BUSINESS 
182. The Chairman noted that in the morning sessi on three issues had been included under this 
agenda item. 
1. Andriessen Commitment 
183. The delegate of Argentina  mentioned that at the last meeting of this Committee Argentina had 
made a statement under other business on the so-called “Andriessen Commitment”.  The concern of 
Argentina related to what could amount to a voluntar y export restraint agreement or similar measures 
under Article 11.  The representative of Argentina recalled that although the European Communities  
had said that they would come forward with a res ponse to this question, no such response had been 
received from the European Communities  as of the date of this meeting.  For that reason, the delegate 
of Argentina asked whether the Eu ropean Communities  intended to co me up with such a response as G/SG/M/24 
Page 28  
 
 they had pledged in reaction to the concerns voice d by Argentina in the previous meeting of the 
Committee. 
184. The representative of the European Communities
 asserted that the European Communities  
had in fact replied to the intervention made by Ar gentina at the previous meeting of the Committee.  
The delegate of the European Communities  recalled th at at that time, the delegate of Argentina had 
implied that there would be a measure, the so-called “Andriessen Commitment”, by which the 
European Communities  would refrain from selling s ubsidized meat to certain countries of south-east 
Asia and according to Argentina, as it had been rep eated in this meeting, this would possibly amount 
to a voluntary export restraint and be inconsiste nt with Article 11(b) of the WTO Agreement on 
Safeguards.  The delegate of the European Co mmunities  pointed out that Article 11(b) had no 
relevance to this case and that, contrary to Argen tina’s assertion, there was no measure applied by the 
European Communities  to restrict exports of b eef.  The delegate of the European Communities  
asserted that European exports of beef meat were not subject to any limitation whatever their destination, including the south-eastern Asian countri es.  According to the delegate of the European 
Communities, therefore, the question of consistenc y with Article 11(b) of the Safeguards Agreement 
did not arise. 
185. The representative of Argentina
 stated that there were still a number of points on which they 
would need clarification. 
2. India – Industrial Sewing Machine Needles 
186. The delegate of the United States  posed a question to the delegation of India.  The 
representative of the United States referred to an in vestigation initiated by India in August 2002 with 
respect to industrial sewing m achine needles, as notified to the Committee in document 
G/SG/N/6/IND/14.  The understanding of the United States was that this was a transitional product-
specific safeguard mechanism investigation with resp ect to imports from China.  The representative of 
the United States mentioned some press accounts in  the spring of 2003 that had suggested that an 
import relief measure had been imposed after that investigation.  The representative of the United 
States asked whether in fact there had been a reme dy imposed in this case.  If so, what was it, had it 
been notified to this Committee, and when had it been imposed? 
187. The Chairman  noted that the Indian delegation was not present at the meeting and asked the 
United States delegation to submit its questions in writing so that the Indian delegation could respond 
to them. 
3. Extension of the EC Safeguard Me asure on Certain Steel Products 
188. The delegate of Korea  raised some questions on the propo sed extension of the EC safeguard 
measure on certain steel products contained in document  G/SG/N/10/EEC/1.  The delegate of Korea 
mentioned that they had found some information on the EC’s website under the title of “What is the 
impact of enlargement on trade defense?”  The dele gate of Korea stated that there was very brief 
information on uniform EU-wide application of trade policy instruments including safeguard 
measures by the 10 new acceding Member states as of 1 May 2004. 
189. The delegate of Korea pointed out that the main elements of this information were 
summarized into two points: one, from 1 May 2004 none of the 25 Member States could use trade defense instruments against each other; all trade defe nse measures that the current EU Member States 
had against imports from any of the new Member States would be dropped automatically and vice 
versa.  The second key point was that the single set of laws and measures currently applicable in the 
current 15 Member States would be automatically applicable in the new Member States.  The  G/SG/M/24 
 Page 29 
 
 
 representative of Korea mentioned that they  were concerned about these developments vis-à-vis  the 
application of safeguard measures. 
190. First, with regard to the automatic terminati on of the safeguard measures against imports from 
the new acceding Member States, the delegate of Korea asked whether the safeguard measures on certain steel products in force in the European Communities would no longer be applied to the 10 new 
member countries after enlargement entered into  force.  Second, if this was the case, the 
representative of Korea asked whether the European  Communities  would conduct a new investigation 
or review given the substantive change in circ umstances concerning imports and causation.  If the 
European Communities  decided to conduct a review ra ther than an investigation, the delegate of 
Korea asked what would be the legal basis in the WTO Agreement on Safeguards for doing so given 
that the Agreement did not have provisions for such  a review.  The representative of Korea also asked 
when the investigation or review would begin. 
191. Thirdly, the delegate of Korea noted that the European Communities' notification of its 
safeguard measure on certain steel products showed th at the injury determination for various products 
was explicitly based on imports from the acceding new member countries.  In a number of instances, 
these countries had been allocated shares of the ta riff quota established under this safeguard measure.  
If the safeguard was no longer applied to imports from the 10 new member countries, the delegate of 
Korea asked how the European Communities  consider ed the continued application of this safeguard 
measure to third countries to be consistent with the parallelism doctrine which the WTO panels and 
Appellate Body had developed.  The delegate of Korea asked whet her the European Communities  
presumed without investigation or review that im ports from other sources alone would be a sufficient 
cause for serious injury to the entire dom estic industry in the enlarged EC-25. 
192. Regarding the second point with regard to the automatic extension of a safeguard measure to 
a third country, the delegate of Korea asked whethe r the safeguard measure on imports of certain steel 
products into the European Communities would au tomatically be applied by the new acceding 
member countries.  If this was the case, the dele gate of Korea recalled that footnote 1 of the 
Safeguards Agreement provided that when a custom s union applied a safeguard measures as a single 
unit to the EC-25, all the requirements for the determination of a serious injury or threat thereof under the Safeguards Agreement had to be based on the cond itions existing in the EC-25 instead of EC-15.  
The delegate of Korea therefore asked when the European Communities  had conducted this 
investigation for automatic extension in order to fu lfill this legal requirement, and how the European 
Communities  had calculated the increase of total vol ume of the current level of the quota given the 
enlarged market in the EC-25 and what data or materi al had been used as the basis for this calculation.  
The delegate of Korea also asked how the Europ ean Communities had adjusted  the existing allocation 
of quotas among countries having a substantive interest in supplying the product concerned. 
193. Assuming that the extension would not be auto matically applied to new member countries, 
the delegate of Korea sought clarification as to  how the European Communities would deal with 
imports from third countries to the new acceding member countries. 
194. As a third point, regarding notification, the de legate of Korea noted that Article 12 of the 
Safeguards Agreement, especially paragraph 1(c) and paragraph 3, required immediate notification 
upon taking a decision to apply or extend a safegua rd measure and adequate opportunity for prior 
consultations with those members having a substantia l interest.  The delegate of Korea asked when 
the European Communities would notify the propo sed extension of safeguard measures on certain 
steel products to the new acceding member countries and when it would have a prior consultations 
with other Members having substantive interest. 
195. Finally, the representative of Korea stated th at Korea would submit these questions to the 
Secretariat as an official document. G/SG/M/24 
Page 30  
 
 196. The delegate of the European Communities
 stated that the European Communities would 
provide an appropriate reply in writing to the que stions posed by Korea.  The delegate of the 
European Communities pointed out th at it would hopefully not be necessary to consider this issue 
upon the accession of the new member states of the EU because, as the European Communities  had 
already stated earlier in the meeting, the Europ ean Communities  would remove its measures before 
1 May 2004 if the United States removed its own Secti on 201 measures.  However,  the delegate of the 
European Communities mentioned that the Europ ean Communities  was also preparing for the 
scenario which was envisaged by the Korean de legation.  The representative of the European 
Communities  mentioned that this was a scenario in  which the steel safeguards measure could become 
applicable also at the level of the new members, i.e. the EU-25, and the new members of the union 
would not any more be subject to the safeguard measures which were at the time of the meeting 
applied at the level of the EU-15. 
197. The delegate of the European Communities  poi nted out that the modalities upon which this 
would be realized in terms of procedure and in te rms of substantive criteria to be applied were still 
under consideration.  In this context, the  repr esentative of the European Communities  pointed out 
that the European Communities would ensure that  WTO rules were fully respected and whatever 
decision was made it would be fully compatible with  the safeguard rules of the WTO, in particular 
Article 19 in the Agreement on Safeguards. 
198. The representative of Korea  stated that aside from the US measures, Korea still had a 
substantive concern regarding the extension of  the European Communities safeguard measures on 
steel products to trade of third member countries. 
199. The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
E. TRANSITIONAL  REVIEW  UNDER  PARAGRAPH  18 OF THE  PROTOCOL  OF 
ACCESSION  OF THE  PEOPLE'  S REPUBLIC  OF CHINA  TO THE  WTO 
200. The Chairman  recalled that paragraph 18 of the Pr otocol of Accession of the People's 
Republic of China to the World Trade Organization pr ovided that all subsidiary bodies, including this 
Committee, "which have a mandate covering Ch ina's commitments under the WTO Agreement or 
[the] Protocol shall, within one year after accession, review, as appropriate to their mandate, the implementation by China of the WTO Agreement and of the related provisions of [the] Protocol."  
China was to provide relevant information in adva nce of the review, including information specified 
in Annex 1A to the Protocol.  China could also  raise issues relating to any reservations under 
Section 17 or to any other specific commitments made by other Members in the Protocol, in 
subsidiary bodies which had a relevant mandate. 
201. The Chairman stated that the Committee had to report the results of the review promptly to 
the Council for Trade in Goods.  Review was to take  place after accession in each year for eight years, 
with a final review in year 10 or at an earlier da te decided by the General Council.  The Chairman 
noted that there were no procedures set out for the conduct of the transition review in the Protocol, 
except that China was to provide relevant informatio n in advance of the review.  In accordance with 
section IV.6 of Annex 1A to the Protocol, Ch ina was required to notify the Committee of its 
Regulation on Safeguards.  In this context, the Chairman recalled that China had sent a fax on 
17 October 2003 concerning the implementation of its legislation on safeguards.  This fax had then 
been sent to the Members of the Committee on the same day. 
202. The representative of China
 made an introduction on China’s implementation of the WTO 
Safeguard Agreement and its releva nt Committees since the transitional review by this Committee in 
the preceding year and responded to some questi ons of common concern posed by some Members 
prior to the meeting.  G/SG/M/24 
 Page 31 
 
 
 203. The delegate of China pointed out that no ne w case of safeguard investigation had been 
initiated by China since the previous transitional review.  So far China had initiated one safeguard 
investigation only.  Upon petition by domestic  steel industries, MOFTEC had decided on 
20 May 2002 to initiate a safeguard s investigation on certain imported steel products.  The delegate of 
China mentioned that China had already notified th e progress of the investigation in the transitional 
review of 2002.  The delegate of China mentioned that subsequently the investigating authority of 
China had continued the investigation according to  law and had issued a notice on 19 November 2002 
announcing the decision to apply safeguard measur es for a duration of three years (including the 
implementation period of the provisional safeguard measure) on five imported steel products such as 
non-alloy hot-rolled sheets and coils etc.  China had notified the findings of the investigation and the 
details of the safeguard measure to the Committee on Safeguards. 
204. The delegate of China then responded to ques tions.  First, concerning the legality of the 
safeguard measures on certain steel products, the representative of China mentioned that China’s 
safeguard investigation on certain imported steel products had been carried out in full compliance 
with the WTO Agreement on Safeguards and in strict conformity with the regulations of the People’s 
Republic of China on safeguards.  Regarding th e provisional and definitive safeguard measures on 
certain imported steel products, the delegate of Ch ina stated that the Chinese Government had notified 
the Committee on Safeguards of the findings of this investigation with regard to serious injury and 
threat thereof caused by increased imports as well as th e authority’s decisions to apply such measures.  
Thus, China had fully fulfilled its notification oblig ations under the Agreem ent on Safeguards.  The 
delegate of China stated that China’s investiga ting authorities had also made adequate information 
disclosures regarding findings of the investigati on and notified disclosed information to Members 
having a substantial interest, including Japan.  More over, pursuant to the rules set out in Article 12.4 
and Article 12.3 of the Agreement on Safeguards, China had held consultations with those Members 
having a substantial interest, including Japan; furn ished the relevant info rmation; and exchanged 
views on the measures.  The delegate of China point ed out that China’s safeguard measures on certain 
imported steel products had been, and would continue to be, app lied according to the timetables 
stipulated in the official bulletin on definitive measures.   
205. Second, with regard to the results of the injury investigation, the delegate of China stated that 
Article 16 of the Chinese regulations on safeguard s provided that in a case where a preliminary 
determination established the existence of an in crease in the quantity of an imported product and 
injury and a causal link between the two, MOFTEC and the SETC would continue with their 
investigations and, on the basis of the findings of  such investigations, make a final determination 
which would be published by MOFTEC.   Regarding the final determin ation, the delegate of China 
referred to the notice published by MOFTEC on 19 November 2002. 
206. The delegate of China reiterated China’s position with regard to transitional product-specific 
safeguard mechanism contained in paragraph 16 of China’s Accession Protocol.  The delegate of 
China pointed out that the mechanism was discrim inatory in nature and ran against the basic 
principles of the WTO.  Experience over the years had revealed the fact that impacts endured by 
domestic industries were attributable in most cas es to imports from several Members invoking the 
product-specific safeguard measures which targeted sole ly imports originating in China.  The delegate 
of China pointed out that this was not only discrim inatory in means but also incapable of achieving 
ends of counteracting the impacts upon domestic industr ies.  In that spirit, it was China’s belief that 
trade remedies within a framework of the WTO had al ways to be the resort of priority in the case of 
domestic injuries.  The delegate of China expressed their hope that all WTO Members would abide by 
the fundamental principles of the WTO and exercise  maximum caution in considering the application 
of the transitional product-specific safeguard mechanism. 
207. The delegate of Japan  made some preliminary remarks on the statement of China.  Regarding 
the legality of the Chinese measures, the delegate of Japan stated that Japan had had several occasions G/SG/M/24 
Page 32  
 
 in the past, including the previous year’s transiti onal review mechanism in the Committee and also the 
bilateral consultations held under Ar ticle 12 of the Safeguards Agreement,  to discuss with China.  The 
delegate of Japan pointed out that Japan still di d not think that the measures by China were in 
conformity with the Safeguards Agreement and re quested that China provide the Committee with 
more detailed explanations about the legality of these measures.  In connection with China’s response 
to Japan's second question, the delegate of Japan posed  a question for clarification.  The delegate of 
Japan noted that on 19 November the Chinese Gove rnment had announced its definitive safeguard 
measure but at the same time some of the pr oducts which were subject to the preliminary 
determination had been found not to have contributed to injury.  The delegate of Japan asked what the 
status of these safeguard measures was regarding the products that had been found not to have 
contributed to injury.  If these measures had not been  repealed, the delegate of Japan asked what was 
the schedule for repealing them, because Japan belie ved that there was no ground to maintain these 
safeguard measures on these products. 
208. Regarding the legality of the measures that China had taken, the delegate of China
 stated that 
China would be pleased to continue its cooperati on in order to provide more information to the 
Japanese side.  On the second question,  the delegate of China stated that this question had already 
been covered by the statement just made by the head of the Chinese delegation.  The delegate of 
China stated that accord ing to the Chinese regulations on safe guards the definitive safeguard measure 
could be found in the Official Notice published by the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation, now the Ministry of Commerce, and s uggested that the Japanese delegates refer to those 
notices for the answers. 
209. The delegate of Japan
 stated that Japan was looking forward to a very constructive and 
positive exchange of information on these matters.  Regarding China's response to Japan's second 
question, the delegate of Japan stated that the Japanese delegation would con tinue to examine this 
issue on the basis of the notice that th e Chinese delegation had just referred to. 
210. The delegate of the United States  stated that as China’s sec ond year of WTO membership 
came to a close the United States appreciated th e transitional review mechanism which provided a 
venue to conduct a thorough and m eaningful review both to highlight China’s successes and to 
identify areas where more work needed to be do ne.  As China was already applying its safeguards 
law, it was important that its practices conform to the WTO commitments.  The delegate of the United 
States noted that as could be seen by the questi ons that the United States and other Members had 
raised, both in the TRM and under the other agenda items of the Committee meeting, there were some 
serious concerns about China’s safeguard prac tices and its progress and meeting some of its 
commitments.  The representative of the United St ates pointed out that the United States appreciated 
China’s prompt written responses to the US questions and viewed this as an important indication of China’s efforts to play a constructive role in th is Committee.  After reviewing those responses in 
detail, the United States would follow up with addition al questions in the Committee in order to better 
understand China’s rules and practices.  The United St ates  recognized and appreciated China’s effort 
to promulgate implementing rules.  The representative  of the United States noted that additional rules 
had been notified to the WTO both in February and April 2003, and thanked China for the responses to the questions that the United States had submitted w ith respect to those notifications.  Nonetheless, 
the representative of the United States mentioned that  they were concerned about the delay in China’s 
notifying these and other rules to the WTO in light of China’s having undertaken a safeguard 
investigation before all the necessary rules had been  issued and notified.  Such a delay could cause 
confusion and uncertainty for the parties affected by the safeguard proceedings. 
211. The representative of the United States pointed out that in the previous year the United States 
had raised some concerns about a lack of tran sparency in China’s decision-making process for the 
safeguard measures, and that such lack of transpar ency appeared to have carried forward into some 
aspects of China’s implementation of the measure.  By way of example, the representative of the  G/SG/M/24 
 Page 33 
 
 
 United States mentioned that some US exporters had complained that China’s process for allocating 
quotas under the measures was unclear, making it very difficult for them to gain a fair share, if any share at all, of the available quotas.  The United States also had concerns about such issues as the 
criteria China had used in determining which WT O Members would be accorded the status of a 
developing country or region for purposes of Article 9.1 of the Agreement, and in particular whether 
those criteria were clear and transparent.  Secondl y, the United States had c oncerns regarding China’s 
treatment of non-WTO Members under Article 9.1.  Th e delegate of the United States noted that this 
provision provided for non-application of safegua rd measures to developing country WTO Members 
where the import share criteria were met but it di d not provide for exclusion of countries who were 
not WTO Members.  Thirdly, the representative of  the United States raised a concern as to how 
confidential data submitted during the course of  a safeguard investigation would be protected 
especially when outside experts were employed.  Fourthly, the representative of the United States 
raised a concern as to access to non-confidential information about safeguard investigations by 
interested parties and by the general public, in terms of the procedural requirements for, and 
limitations on, such access.  Fifth, the representativ e of the United States raised a concern as to the 
refunding of safeguard duties collected pursuant to provisional measures when definitive measures 
were not imposed on those products.  Finally, th e representative of the United States touched upon the 
terms and conditions covering the exte nsion of the safeguard measure. 
212. The representative of the United States pointed out that they were not taking issue with 
China’s use of safeguard remedies but mentioned that the United States had concerns as it had noted 
certain aspects where there had been a lack of transparency that had accompanied China’s 
implementation.  The representative of the United States stated that they would follow up with 
additional questions in the Committee to better understand China’s rules and practices on these and 
other issues. 
213. The representative of the European Communities
 stated that they shared most of the views 
expressed by Japan and the United States.  The Euro pean Communities had several concerns with the 
Chinese steel safeguard measures.  The representativ e of the European Communities pointed out that 
they had expressed these concerns on several occa sions in the past, including in the context of 
Article 12.3 consultations and that they we still believed that there were a number of inconsistencies 
in these measures.  The European Communities th erefore ideally would like these measures to be 
repealed as soon as possible. 
214. The representative of the Europ ean Communities focused on the possibility that China could 
review its measures before their three-year expi ry.  The representative of the European Communities 
noted that the mid-term review provision of the Sa feguard Agreement only provided that the mid-term 
review was mandatory if the measure lasted for mo re than three years, wh ich was not the case for the 
Chinese measure.  Since the expected duration of th is measure was three years the obligation to carry 
out a mid-term review would not exist.  Howeve r, the representative of th e European Communities 
noted that under Article 7.1 of the Safeguards Ag reement a Member could a pply a safeguard measure 
only for such a period of time as may be necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury.   According to 
the delegate of the European Communities this provi sion seemed to indicate that there was at least a 
possibility that a Member would carry out a review befo re the expiry of this measure and that this was 
a suitable development.  The European Communities believed that the circumstances in the Chinese 
market had changed very substantially and very ra pidly over the preceding one and a half years since 
the Chinese measure had been fi rst introduced.  Therefore, this alone could provide a good 
opportunity for China to carry out a review to de termine whether the measure was still necessary.  
The representative of the European  Communities asked China whether they were ready to consider 
this option at this stage.  Alternatively, the repr esentative of the European  Communities invited China 
to explain whether China was read y to consider these options if th e US and the EC steel safeguard 
measures were removed over the next month.  Th e representative of the European Communities 
recalled that China had explicitly stated the Chinese measures were in response to the US and the EC G/SG/M/24 
Page 34  
 
 safeguard measures.  Therefore, the representa tive of the European Communities asked whether 
China would be ready to consider reviewing its own measure with a view to removing it in case the 
United States and the European Communities removed their own measures. 
215. The representative of China
 pointed out that China had always been very faithfully and 
sincerely implementing the commitments and obligat ions that it had undertaken for its accession to 
the WTO and that this had been reflected not only in  the legislations that China had put in place but 
also in the practices that China had heretofore  been engaged in.  The representative of China 
mentioned that regarding some of the questions, in cluding some of the questions raised by the United 
States, answers had already been given in the Chin ese responses that had already been provided to the 
Committee and suggested that the US delegates review those replies. 
216. With regard to the more specific questions and the delay of the notifications, the delegate of 
China pointed out that the for the most part this de lay was attributable to the government restructuring 
China had been engaged in starting from March or April 2003.  The delegate of China stated that 
China would make the necessary modifications a nd changes to its legislations because of the 
restructuring of the Chinese government departments and then would notify these legislations to the 
Committee as soon as possible. 
217. With regard to other questions, for example, th e standards or criteria th at China had used for 
defining developing countries, the representative of China pointed out that at least for the purpose of China’s safeguard investigations, and other issues  such as the treatment of non-WTO Members, these 
were actually questions that had already been cove red by China's replies to the relevant questions.  
Regarding the question raised by the EC delegate concerning the early termination of the safeguard 
measure that China had imposed on certain imported st eel products, the delegate of China stated that 
this question needed further consideration on their part .  The delegate of China repeated that whatever 
decision China was going to take, it would be in conf ormity with the WTO rules, the obligations that 
China had undertaken, as well as China’s domestic law. 
218. Regarding the Committee's report on the review, the Chairman
 noted that there were no 
guidelines for the report contained in the Protocol.  In the previous year in the Committee, the 
Committee had agreed that the Chairman, acting on his own responsibility, could prepare a brief, 
factual report, with references to the documents c oncerned, and attaching the portion of the minutes of 
the meeting which related to the transition revi ew.  The Chairman asked the Members of the 
Committee whether the Committee shoul d follow the same procedure this  year.  It was so decided . 
F. ANNUAL  REPORT  TO THE  COUNCIL  FOR  TRADE  IN GOODS 
219. The Chairman  noted that pursuant to Article 13.1(a) of the Agreement, the Committee was to 
monitor the general implementation of the Agreem ent, and report on this annually and make any 
recommendations toward its improvement to the Council for Trade in Goods. 
220. Concerning the preparation and adoption of the Committee's annual report, the Chairman also 
noted that at its special meeting of 24 February 1995, the Committee had decided to follow the same 
procedure as in the Tokyo Round Committees on Anti-Dumping Practices and Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures.  In accordance with this pro cedure, a draft of the report, in the form of a 
factual summary of the Committee's activities during 2003,  had been prepared by the Secretariat.  A 
preliminary draft of this report, with two tabl es contained in Annexes 1 and 2, had been made 
available to Members by fax on 10 October. 
221. The Chairman stated that following some initial reactions from one Member in particular, the 
Secretariat had attempted to make the table containe d in Annex 2 of the preliminary draft report more 
useful by producing two additional tables, which had been sent to Members by fax on 15 October.   G/SG/M/24 
 Page 35 
 
 
 The Chairman proposed to use these additional ta bles instead of the table initially sent out on 
10 October.  The first table, Attachment I, iden tified safeguard actions since the previous annual 
report.  The second table, Attachment II, set out th e investigations then underway, and the measures 
then in force. 
222. The Chairman suggested that the Committee consid er the draft report paragraph by paragraph, 
with an opportunity for comments on each one.  Members would also have an opportunity to 
comment on the format of the tables to be incl uded in Annex II to the report.  The Chairman 
suggested that the Committee proceed with this work  in informal mode, although the Chairman would 
ask Members to subsequently confirm any changes to the factual data contained in the Annex 2 tables, 
formally. 
223. The Chairman confirmed that the following in formation had been provided by the Members 
concerned regarding the status of investiga tions and/or safeguard measures in force: 
_ With regard to Bulgaria, the provisional safe guard measure imposed in the context of the 
investigation on ammonium nitrate had been terminated and that this also meant a de facto  
termination of the investigation, 
 
_ With regard to Chile, the only safeguard measure in force was that relating to steel and that the 
measures on man-made socks and fluid milk had e xpired automatically at the end of the second 
year or their application, 
 _ With regard to Argentina, the safeguard meas ure on footwear had expired on 21 July 2003 and 
that the investigation on toys had been terminated without any measure on 21 February 2001, 
 _ With regard to Korea, the safeguard meas ure on garlic had expired on 31 December 2002. 
 224. The Committee adopted the annual report as amended. 
G. DATE
 OF THE  NEXT  REGULAR  MEETING 
225. The Chairman recalled that regular meetings norma lly would be held in the last week of April 
and the last week of October, in conjunction with  the regular meetings of the Committees on Anti-
Dumping Practices and Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.  The Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices and subsidiary bodies would meet between 20-23 April 2004, and the Committee on 
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures would meet in the following week along  with the Negotiating 
Group on Rules.  Accordingly, the Chairman su ggested that the Safeguards Committee meet on 
Monday, 19 April 2004. 
226. The Committee so agreed
. 
__________