. /.  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SG/Q2/ECU/11 
4 October 2004 
 (04-4139) 
Committee on Safeguards Original:   English 
   
NOTIFICATION UNDER ARTICLE 12.4 OF THE AGREEMENT ON 
SAFEGUARDS BEFORE TAKING A PROVISIONAL SAFEGUARD 
MEASURE REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 6 
 
Follow-Up Questions Posed by the EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
 
Regarding the Definitive Safeguard Measures on Import of Ceramic Tiles from ECUADOR1 
 
  The following communication, dated 16 July 2 004, is circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of the European Commission.  
_______________ 
 
   On 30 March 2003, Ecuador imposed provisional measures on glazed ceramic flags and paving, hearth or wall tiles.  On 18 February 2004, Ecuador notified to the WTO Committee on 
Safeguards its decision to impose definitive safegua rd measures on the said product.  The procedure 
followed a complaint launched by three Ecuadoria n producers who requested the replacement of the 
safeguard measures imposed in 2002 by Ecuador, with  respect to Colombia and Peru within the 
framework of the Andean Community.  The defi nitive measures were adopted on the basis of 
Ecuadorian safeguard legislation, Decree 3497/2003 (published in the Official Journal No. 744 of 
14 January 2003). 
 1. Article 12.4 of the WTO Agreement on Safeguards states that " A Member shall make a 
notification to the Committee on Safeguards before
 taking a provisional safeguard measure referred 
to in Article 6.  Consultations shall be initia ted immediately after the measure is taken".  Can Ecuador 
explain why it notified the WTO Committee on Safeguards on 24 September 2003, 
(G/SG/N/7/ECU/2) when the measures were applied on 2 September 2003?  How can this be 
consistent with the requirement to notify before  the measure is taken? 
2. Article 12.3 of the WTO Agreement on Safeguards states that:  " A Member proposing to 
apply or extend a safeguard measure shall provide adequate opportunity for prior consultations with 
those Members having a substantial interest as expor ters of the product concerned, with a view of,  
inter alia, reviewing the information provided  under paragraph 2, exchanging views on the measure 
and reaching an understanding on ways to achieve the obj ective set out in paragraph 1 of Article 8".  
Can Ecuador explain why it notified the WT O Committee on Safeguards on 18 February 2004 
(G/SG/N/8/ECU/2, G/SG/N/10/ECU/3), i.e. four days  after the imposition of the definitive measures?  
How can this be consistent with the requirement to offer prior  consultations? 
                                                      
1 G/SG/N/8/ECU/2 – G/SG/N/10/ECU/3. G/SG/Q2/ECU/11 
Page 2  
 
3. Article 331 of Decree 3497/2003 states that " La autoridad investigadora efecturará las 
siguientes notificaciones : 
Al gobierno del país exportador a tra vés de su respectiva representación 
diplomática: 
[...] 
b)  Una vez adoptada la medida provisional" 
[...] 
Does Ecuador consider that complying with this pr ovision is sufficient to respect the requirement of 
prior notification established in Article 12 .4 of the WTO Agreement on Safeguards? 
 
4. Article 12.6 of the WTO Agreement on Safeguards states that " Members shall notify promptly 
the Committee on Safeguards of their laws, regulat ions and administrative procedures relating to 
safeguard measures as well as any modifications made to them ".  In the reply to question number one 
of the complementary questions posed by the EC  on 10 November 2003 (G/SG/Q2/ECU/9), Ecuador 
explained that Decree 3497/2003 "contained" Resolution No. 52 of COMEXI and therefore as the 
latter had been duly notified to the WT O Committee on Safeguards on 26 May 2000, 
(G/ADP/N/1/ECU/2 – G/SCM/N/1/ECU/2 – G/SG/N/1/ECU/3), any further notification was not needed.  Can Ecuador confirm that Decree 3497/ 2003 contains neither new provisions nor any 
modification vis-à-vis Resolution No. 52 of COMEXI? 
5. In the reply to question number  three of the complementary questions posed by the EC on 
10 November 2003 (G/SG/Q2/ECU/9) on whether Ec uador had analysed and made a finding on 
unforeseen developments, Ecuador replied that th is analysis was made, and that the notified 
documents showed that the increase in imports was no t foreseen.  The EC considers that this is not 
sufficient to comply with GATT Article XIX.  Un foreseen developments refer to circumstances that 
lead to the increase in imports – whether or not the in crease in itself was expected is irrelevant in this 
context.  GATT Article XIX requires an analysis of the circumstances that lead to the import increase.  
Can Ecuador please indicate if this analys is was made and where it can be found? 
__________