RESTRICTED  
  
G/SG/M/56  
 
31 March 2020  
(20-2632) Page: 1/20 
Committee on Safeguards    
 
MINUTES OF THE REGUL AR MEETING  
HELD ON 18 NOVEMBER 2019  
CHAIRPERSON: MS KATHERINE DELLAR (AUSTRALIA)  
1.  The Committee on Safeguards (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 18  November  2019.  
2.  At the outset, the Chair drew to the attention of the Members that the draft agenda was contained 
in document WTO/AIR/SG/10, and that this document was subsequently adjusted by a corrigendum 
(WTO/AIR/SG/10/Corr.1).  
3.  Turkey  stated that it wished to make a statement under "Other Bus iness" regarding a safeguard 
("SG") measure by the European Union ("EU") on certain steel products. Switzerland  stated that it 
wished to make another statement under "Other Business" regarding the same measure.  
4.  The Committee adopted the following agenda:  
1   NATIONAL LEGISLA TION  ................................ ................................ ..............................  4 
1.1   Review of Notifications of New or Amended Legislation or Regulations  
Not Previously Reviewed by the Committee (Including Supplemental Notifications  
of Existing Provisions Not Previously Reviewed)  ................................ ................................ ....... 4 
 Canada – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/SG/N/1/CAN/3/Suppl.2)  ....................  4 
 Kenya – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/SG/N/1/KEN/2)  ................................ .. 4 
1.2   Contin uing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications  ................................ ....................  4 
 Afghanistan – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications  
(G/SG/N/1/AFG/1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  4 
 El Salvador – Continuing Review of  Previously Reviewed Notifications 
(G/SG/N/1/SLV/3/Suppl.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 4 
 Cameroon – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notificati ons 
(G/SG/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 5 
 Liberia – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications  
(G/SG/N/1/LBR/1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  5 
 United Arab Emirates – Continuing Revi ew of Previously Reviewed Notifications 
(G/SG/N/1/ARE/2/Suppl.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 5 
 Viet Nam – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications  
(G/SG/N/1/VNM/2)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  5 
2   NOTIFICATIONS OF  ACTIONS RELATED TO SAFEGUARD MEASURES  ............................  6 
2.1   Canada – Certain Steel Products (G/SG/N/8/CAN/3/Suppl.1 –  
G/SG/N/10/CAN/1 – G/SG/N/11/CAN/1/Suppl.1 and G /SG/N/10/CAN/1/Suppl.1)  .......................  7 
2.2   Costa Rica – Sugar in Solid Form, Granulated (G/SG/N/6/CRI/5)  ................................ ....... 7 
2.3   GCC Member States – Chemical Plasticizers (SG/N/10/SAU/2/Suppl.1)  ...............................  7 
2.4   GCC Member States – Certain Steel Products (G/SG/N/6/ARE/3  - G/SG/N/6/BHR/4  - 
G/SG/N/6/KWT/4  - G/SG/N/6/OMN/3  - G/SG/N/6/QAT/3  - G/SG/N/6/SAU/3)  .............................  7 G/SG/M/56  
 
- 2 - 
 
  2.5   Egypt – Semi-finished products of iron or non -alloy steel and steel rebar (Bars,  
Rods and Coils) for construction purposes (G/SG/N/8/EGY/9  - G/SG/N/10/EGY/9)  ......................  8 
2.6   Eurasian Economic Union – Certain Flat -Rolled Steel Products (G/SG/N/10/RUS/4)  ..............  8 
2.7   Eurasian Economic Union – Microwave Ovens (G/SG/N/9/ARM/1 and  
G/SG/N/9/KAZ/1 and G/SG/N/9/KGZ/1 and G/SG/N/9/RUS/1) ................................ ..................  8 
2.8   European Union – Certain Steel Products (G/SG/N/10/EU/1/Suppl.2)  ................................ . 8 
2.9   Guatemala – Flat-Rolled Products of Other Alloy Steel, of a Width of  
600 MM or more (G/SG/N/6/GTM/1) ................................ ................................ .......................  9 
2.10   India – Single Mode Optical Fibre (G/SG/N/6/IND/46)  ................................ .....................  9 
2.11   India – Phenol (G/SG/N/6/IND/45)  ................................ ................................ .............. 10 
2.12   Indonesia – Evaporators (G/SG/N/6/IDN/30 and G/SG/N/8/IDN/22 -  
G/SG/N/10/IDN/22)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 10 
2.13   Indonesia – Fabrics (G/SG/N /6/IDN/31 and G/SG/N/7/IDN/2 -  
G/SG/N/11/IDN/18)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 10 
2.14   Indonesia – Yarn (Other than Sewing Thread) of Synthetic and  
Artificial Staple Fibres (G/SG/N/6/IDN/32 and G/SG/N/7/IDN/3  - G/SG/N/11/IDN/19)  ............... 10 
2.15   Indonesia – Curtains (Including Drapes), Interior Blinds, Bed Valances, and  
Other Furnishing Articles (G/SG/N/6/IDN/33 and G/SG/N/7/IDN/4  - G/SG/N/11/ID N/20)  ........... 11 
2.16   Indonesia – Aluminium Foil (G/SG/N/10/IDN/21/Suppl.1  - G/SG/N/11/IDN/21)  ................ 11 
2.17   Jordan – Aluminium Bars, Rods and Profiles (G/SG/N/6/JOR/18/Suppl.1 and 
G/SG/N/8/JOR/10/Suppl.4 - G/SG/N/10/JOR/10/Suppl.2 - G/SG/N/11/JOR/6/Suppl.7 and 
G/SG/N/8/JOR/1 0/Suppl.5 - G/SG/N/10/JOR/10/Suppl.3 - G/SG/N/11/JOR/6/Suppl.8)  .............. 11 
2.18   Jordan – Potato Chips and Potato Prepared or Preserved Otherwise than by  
Vinegar or Acetic Acid, Not Frozen (G/SG/N/6/JOR/19) ................................ ............................ 11 
2.19   Madagascar – Soap (G/SG/N/6/MDG/5  - G/SG/N/7/MDG/5  - G/SG/N/11/MDG/5  
and G/SG/N/7/MDG/5/Suppl.1  - G/SG/N/11/MDG/5/Supp.1)  ................................ ................... 11 
2.20   Madagascar – Detergent Powder (G/SG/N/8/MDG/3 - G/SG/N/10/MDG/3 - 
G/SG/N/11/MDG/3/Suppl.2)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .11 
2.21   Madagascar – Lubricat ing Oils (G/SG/N/6/MDG/6 - G/SG/N/7/MDG/6 -  
G/SG/N/11/MDG/6 and G/SG/N/7/MDG/6/Suppl.1 - G/SG/N/11/MDG/6/Suppl.1)  ...................... 12 
2.22   Madagascar – Edible Vegetable Oils and Margarines (G/SG/N/6/MDG/7 -  
G/SG/N/7/MDG/7 - G/SG/N/11/MDG/7 and G/SG/N/7/MDG/7/Suppl.1 - 
G/SG/N/11/MDG/7/Suppl. 1) ................................ ................................ ................................ .12 
2.23   Madagascar – Pasta (1) (G/SG/N/8/MDG/1 - G/SG/N/10/MDG/1 - 
G/SG/N/11/MDG/1/Suppl.2 and G/SG/N/8/MDG/1/Suppl.1 - G/SG/N/ 10/MDG/1/Suppl.1 - 
G/SG/N/11/MDG/1/Suppl.3)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .12 
2.24   Madagascar – Pasta (2) (G/SG/N/6/MDG/4 - G/SG/N/7/MDG/4 -  
G/SG/N/11/MDG/4)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 13 
2.25   Madagascar – Blankets and Traveling Rugs (G/SG/N/8/MDG/2 -  
G/SG/N/10/MDG/2 - G/SG/N/11/MDG/2/Suppl.2)  ................................ ................................ ...13 
2.26   Morocco – Hot Rolled Sheets (G/SG/N/6/MAR/11 and G/SG/N/7/MAR/4 -  
G/SG/N/11/MAR/7)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 13 
2.27   Morocco – Welded Pipes and Tube s of Iron or Steel (G/SG/N/6/MAR/12 -  
G/SG/N/7/MAR/5 - G/SG/N/11/MAR/8) ................................ ................................ .................. 13 
2.28   Morocco – Paper in Rolls and Reams (G/L/1327 - G/SG/N/13/MAR/1)  .............................. 13 
2.29   Morocco – Coated Wood Board (G/SG/N/8/MAR/6 - G/SG/N/10/MAR/6 -  
G/SG/N/11/MAR/6 and G/SG/221)  ................................ ................................ ........................ 14 
2.30   Panama – Pork (G/SG/N/6/PAN/2)  ................................ ................................ ............... 14 G/SG/M/56  
 
- 3 - 
 
  2.31   Philippines – Ceramic Floor and Wall Tiles (G/SG/N/7/PHL/10 -  
G/SG/N/8/PHL/11 - G/SG/N/11/PHL/12 and G/SG/N/6/PHL/12/Suppl.1)  ................................ ...14 
2.32   Philippines – Cement (G/SG/N/8/PHL/11/Suppl.1 - G/SG/N/10/PHL/9  - 
G/SG/N/11/PHL/11/Suppl.1 and G/SG/224)  ................................ ................................ ........... 14 
2.33   Philippines – Rice (G/SG/N/6/PHL/14 and G/SG/N/9/PHL/3)  ................................ ........... 14 
2.34   Philippines – Float Glass (G/SG/N/7/PHL/11 - G/SG/N/8/PHL/12 -  
G/SG/N/11/PHL/13)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 14 
2.35   South Africa – Threaded Fasteners of Iron or Steel (G/SG/N/7/ZAF/4 -  
G/SG/N/11/ZAF/5)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 14 
2.36   Turkey – Certain Steel Products (G/SG/N/7/TUR/13/Suppl.1)  ................................ ......... 14 
2.37   Turkey – Toothbrushes (G/SG/N/8/TUR/16/Suppl.1 -  
G/SG/N/10/TUR/16/Suppl.1 - G/SG/N/11/TUR/22/Suppl.1)  ................................ ..................... 15 
2.38   Turkey – Yarns made of Nylon or other Polyamides (G/SG/N/8/TUR/17 -  
G/SG/N/10/TUR/17 - G/SG/N/11/TUR/24 and G/SG/225)  ................................ ........................ 15 
2.39   Ukraine – Certain  Nitrogen Fertilizers (G/SG/N/6/UKR/14)  ................................ ............. 15 
2.40   Ukraine – Complex Fertilizers (G/SG/N/6/UKR/13)  ................................ ........................ 16 
2.41   Ukraine – Flexible Porous Plates, Blocks and Sheets of Polyurethane Foams 
(G/SG/N/8/UKR/5/Suppl.1 - G/SG/N/10/UKR/5/Suppl.1 and G/SG/N/8/UKR/5/Suppl.2 - 
G/SG /N/10/UKR/5/Suppl.2 - G/SG/N/11/UKR/3/Suppl.2)  ................................ ........................ 16 
2.42   United States – Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells (G/SG/N/8/USA/9/Suppl.5 - 
G/SG/N/10/USA/7/Suppl.2 - G/SG/N/11/USA/6/Suppl.1)  ................................ ........................ 16 
2.43   United States – Large Residential Washers (G/SG/N/8/USA/10/Suppl.4 - 
G/SG/N/10/USA/8/Suppl.2 - G/SG/N/11/USA/7/Suppl.1)  ................................ ........................ 16 
2.44   Viet Nam – Diammonium Phosphate and Monoammonium Phosphate Fertilizers 
(G/SG/N/8/VNM/6 – G/SG/N/10/VNM/5 – G/SG/N/11/VNM/7)  ................................ ................. 17 
2.45   Viet Nam – Certain Semi -Finished and Finished Products of Alloy and Non -Alloy  
Steel (G/SG/N/8/VNM/3/Suppl.1 - G/SG/N/10/VNM/2/Suppl.1 - G/SG/N /11/VNM/4/Suppl.1)  ......17 
3   US MEASURES ON S TEEL (G/L/1242/SUPPL .2 - G/SG/N/12/TUR/6 /SUPPL.2)  
(ITEM REQUESTED BY T URKEY)  ................................ ................................ ......................  17 
4   COLOMBIA'S SAFEG UARD INVESTI GATION ON SHEETS OF PAPERBOARD  
AND POLYETHYLENE (G/ SG/N/6/COL/8) (ITEM REQUESTED BY BRAZIL)  .....................  18 
5   NOTIFICATIONS OF  RECOMMENDATIONS  TO IMPOSE A MEASURE  (RD/SG/34)  ....... 18 
6   DISCUSSIONS GROU P REGARDING SAFEGUAR D PROCEEDINGS (ITEM  
REQUESTED BY AUSTRAL IA, CANADA, THE E UROPEAN UNION, ISRAE L, JAPAN,  
KOREA, NEW ZEALAND, NORWAY, CHINESE TAIP EI, SINGAPORE, UKRAI NE AND THE 
UNITED  STATES)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  18 
7   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 19 
7.1   Statemen t by Turkey – SG Measure by the EU on Certain Steel Products  ........................... 19 
7.2   Statement by Switzerland – SG Measure by the EU on Certain Steel Products  .................... 19 
8   ANNUAL REPORT TO  THE COUNCIL FOR TRA DE IN GOODS (RD/SG/3 5) ....................  19 
9   DATE OF NEXT REG ULAR MEETING  ................................ ................................ .............  20 G/SG/M/56  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1  NATIONAL LEGISLATION  
1.1  Review of Notifications of New or Amended Legislation or Regulations Not Previously 
Reviewed by the Committee (Including Supplemental Notifications of Existing Provisions 
Not Previously Reviewed)  
1.1.1   Canada  – Review of New Legislative Not ification (G/SG/N/1/ CAN/3/Suppl.2 ) 
5.  Brazil  was of the view that the amendments were not in conformity with Articles 7.5 and 7.6 of 
the Safeguards Agreement ("Agreement"). These amendments would allow Canada to impose a 
SG measure before the grace period expired. Even though the amendments were applied on a 
temporary basis and would expire within two years, they were incompatible with the Agreement, 
and Brazil requested Canada to immediately revoke the amendments.  
6.  Turkey  noted that these amendments were introduced shortly after concluding the investigation 
on certain steel products. The SG measure was advertised by the government of Canada as steps 
taken to "stand up for Canada's steel industry and its workers". The notified amendments amounted 
to a repeal, together with an eventual re -introduction, of provisions of Canadian law preventing 
imposition of SG measures on the same product before two years had lapsed. This repeal was 
effective immediately, while the re -introduction of the same provisions w ould take effect two years 
later. Through these amendments, Canada temporarily repealed the provisions of the Canadian law 
preventing imposition of SG measures on the same products before two years had lapsed. Article  7.5 
of the Agreement imposed a cooling  off period of at least two years prior to the application of a new 
SG measure on the same product. Thus, Canada's legislative amendments were incompatible with 
the Agreement.  
7.  Canada  explained that this was a temporary amendment effective for two years onl y. In drafting 
the amendments, it had carefully considered its rights and obligations under the relevant trade 
agreements. Canada further explained that there was currently no process underway to impose any 
further SG measure on Canadian steel products.  
1.1.2   Kenya – Review of New Legislative Notification  (G/SG/N/1/KEN/2)  
8.  The Chair stated that written questions had been received from the United  States ("US") in 
document G/SG/Q1/KEN/3, and Kenya had submitted its responses on 15  November  2019, and 
would be circula ted shortly.  
9.  Kenya  explained that the current notification was only the legislation. The institution provided in 
the law to implement trade remedies was still to be established.  
1.2  Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications  
1.2.1   Afghanistan – Continuin g Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications 
(G/SG/N/1/AFG/1)  
10.  The Chair noted that written questions received from the US in document G/SG/Q1/AFG/1 were 
left unanswered. The  legislative notification was first reviewed at the April  2017 meeting.  
11.  Afghanista n explained that its capital had provided the responses. They would be notified 
shortly.  
12.  The US stated that it would review the responses and follow -up if necessary.  
1.2.2   El Salvador – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications 
(G/SG/N/1/SLV/3/Suppl .1) 
13.  The Chair stated that follow -up written questions had been received from the US in document 
G/SG/Q1/SLV/ 11. This legislative notification was first reviewed at the spring 2017 meeting. The 
Chair noted that the US suggested that review of these question s be taken up in the Anti -Dumping 
Committee meeting.  G/SG/M/56  
 
- 5 - 
 
  14.  El Salvador  stated that it had responded to th e follow -up questions on 29  October  2019.  
1.2.3   Cameroon – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications 
(G/SG/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1)  
15.  The Chair stated that wr itten questions received from the US in document G/SG/Q1/CMR/3 
were still left unanswered. This legislative notification was first reviewed at the autumn 2014 
meeting.  
16.  Cameroon  responded that the capital was considering the questions and would revert in due 
course.  
1.2.4   Liberia – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications 
(G/SG/N/1/LBR/1)  
17.  The Chair stated that written questions received from the US in document G/SG/Q1/LBR/ 1 were 
left unanswered.  
18.  The delegation of Liberia was not present  at the meet ing. 
1.2.5   United Arab Emirates – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications 
(G/SG/N/1/ARE/2/Suppl.1)  
19.  The Chair stated that written questions had been received from the US in document 
G/SG/Q1/ARE/3, and that the United Arab Emirates had submitted wri tten responses to those 
questions in document G/SG/Q1/ARE/4.  
20.  The US stated that it would review the responses and submit written follow -up questions.  
1.2.6   Viet Nam – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications 
(G/SG/N/1/VNM/2)  
21.  The Chair stated that written questions had been received from the European Union ("EU") in 
document G/SG/Q1/VNM/5, and that Viet Nam had submitted written responses to those questions 
in document G/SG/Q1/VNM/7. Follow -up written questions had been received from th e US in 
document G/SG/Q1/VNM/6, and Viet Nam had submitted written responses to those follow -up 
questions in document G/SG/Q1/VNM/8.  
22.  No delegation took the floor on this item.  
23.  The Chair recalled that the deadline for written questions concerning any new le gislation 
reviewed at this meeting was 9  December  2019. The deadline for written answers to all written 
questions, including questions submitted in writing prior to this meeting, was 6  January  2020.  
24.  The Chair informed the Committee that 20 Members had not yet made a legislative notification.1 
This notification was one of the important obligations of the Agreement. Members that did not yet 
have any legislation need only submit a simple "nil" notification. The Chair also noted that Lao had 
submitted its first  legislative notification on 15  November  2019. It would be taken up for review at 
the spring  2020 meeting.  
25.  The US stated that many Members had not yet submitted a notification. For nearly all of those 
who had not made a notification, their Trade Policy Rev iew reports indicated whether they did or did 
not have any SG legislation. The US reiterated that the notification was simple if there was no 
legislation and encouraged Members who had not yet made their legislative notifications to review 
their situations  and to make the applicable notification. The US encouraged Members to think 
creatively how to improve compliance with notification requirement s. It noted that the Council for 
 
1 These Members were: Antigua and Barbuda, Cabo Verde, Central African Republic, 
Democratic  Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Eswatini, Grenada, Guinea -Bissau, Mauritania, Mozambique, Niger, 
Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tajikistan, 
Tanzania, Tonga and Yemen.  G/SG/M/56  
 
- 6 - 
 
  Trade in Goods  continued to consider a proposal regarding enhancing transparency  and 
strengthening notification requirements.2 The co -sponsors continued outreach efforts, and t he US 
was willing to discuss this proposal bilaterally.  
26.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
2  NOTIFICATIONS OF ACT IONS RELATED TO SAFE GUARD MEASURES  
27.  Japan remained concerned over the increas ed use of trade restrictive measures including SG s 
in the steel and relevant sectors, by developing and developed Member countries. Adopting 
retaliatory measures to respond to trade restrictive measures would depress  world trade, and would 
harm both exporters and importers. Members should avoid implementing trade restrictive measures 
that were inconsistent with WTO Agreements, and should avoid imposing SG measures unless the 
conditions set out in the WTO Agreements we re met. Japan urged Members to abide by the relevant 
rules.  
28.  The Republic of Korea  ("Korea") was concern ed with the  sharp increase in SG measures, 
particularly in the steel sector. Korea noted Members were reacting to SG measures taken by other 
countries, and as a result the number of countries taking such measures had grown rapidly. Many 
of the measures failed to meet the stringent procedural and substantive requirements set out in the 
Agreement. Given that steel was a vital input in the supply chain of various industries, such measures 
would significantly impact downstream producers. Korea requested Members to exercise restraint in 
applying such measures.  
29.  Switzerland  was also concerned with the increasing number of SG in vestigations and measures 
in the steel sector. SG measures were emergency measures affecting fair trade. Switzerland 
understood that certain Members resorted to SG measures to deal with trade diversions arising from 
(a) excess capacities in global steel or  (b) trade restrictive measures taken by some major Members. 
Even though Switzerland was not the key target of such measures, its steel industry was affected 
by the SG measures applied. Switzerland had not increased its steel production capacity for at lea st 
10 years, nor had it resorted to SG measures in the past. Switzerland was collateral damage in the 
current world steel market situation, with Members resorting to SG measures and export markets 
being closed one after the other. Switzerland urged Members  to avoid resorting to SG measures 
unless the requirements were strictly met.  
30.  Australia  echoed the concern s raised. While SG  measures were emergency actions subject to 
strict conditions , the number of initiations of investigations and imposition of measure s remained 
high. In fact, the number of agenda items of this meeting was a record high of 45. While Australia 
understood that Members' practice of conduct ing investigations varied, it was concerned about, for 
example, notifications of initiations of invest igations being made at the same time as proposals to 
impose provisional SG measures.  
31.  The US also noted that the number of agenda items of this meeting was a record high of 45 . 
Twenty -seven SG investigations had been initiated in the calendar year 2019, amo unting to the 
second highest number in the history of the WTO. The US noted that several Members had raised 
concern about the recent proliferation of SG investigations and measures. The US had in fact noted 
certain questionable practices in recent investig ations, and asked Members to abide by the 
obligations provided in the Agreement.  
32.  China  was concerned with the frequent use of SG as a protectionist tool. SG was an emergency 
measure subject to strict requirements. China urged Members not to resort to SG me asures unless 
those strict requirements were truly met.  
 
2 Circulated as document JOB/CTG/1 4/Rev. 2. G/SG/M/56  
 
- 7 - 
 
  2.1  Canada – Certain Steel Products (G/SG/N/8/CAN/3/Suppl.1 – G/SG/N/10/CAN/1 – 
G/SG/N/11/CAN/1/Suppl.1 and G/SG/N/10/CAN/1/Suppl.1)3 
33.  Japan  regretted the imposition of this measure. Japan highlighted the fact that Article 2.2 of 
the Agreement obliged Members to apply SG measures "irrespective of its source", and so adopting 
measures in a targeted manner was not permissible.  
34.  Canada  explained that the measure was imposed following an inquiry conducted by the  
Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT). The SG measure was imposed in the form of tariff 
rate quotas subject to liberalisation each year. Though SG measures were generally intended to 
apply to all sources, some of the Free Trade Agreements required preferential treatment, and 
therefore, those countries were excluded from the measure. The CITT also found that imports from 
these countries were not the principal cause of serious injury to the steel industry.  
2.2  Costa Rica – Sugar in Solid Form, Granulated (G/SG/N/6/CRI/5)  
35.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
2.3  GCC4 Member States – Chemical Plasticizers ( SG/N/10/SAU/2/Suppl.1)5 
36.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
2.4  GCC Member States – Certain Steel Products (G/SG/N/6/ARE/3 - G/SG/N/6/BHR/4 
- G/SG/N/6/KWT/4 - G/SG/N/6/OMN/3 - G/SG/N/6/QAT/3 - G/SG/N/6/SAU/3)  
37.  Ukraine  was concerned with this investigation. This investigation was initiated by the authority, 
and not by the d omestic industry. In this context, Ukraine sought clarification on (i) how the domestic 
industry participated in the investigation, and (ii) how interested parties could access the data on 
which the decision to initiate the investigation was based. Ukraine  expected to receive substantial 
and complete information on the reasons for initiating the investigation and hoped that the 
investigation would be conducted in compliance with WTO rules.  
38.  Japan  was paying close attention to this investigation, and requeste d the GCC member states 
to conduct the investigation in a WTO -consistent manner.  
39.  Korea  was concerned with this investigation. The investigation did not meet the procedural and 
substantive requirements of the Agreement. Neither the increasing global product ion of steel, nor 
the protectionist trade restrictive measures could be considered as unforeseen developments. In 
addition, the investigating authority had not provided objective evidence regarding the existence of 
a "sudden, sharp and significant" increas e in imports, nor of the injury incurred by the domestic 
industry. Korea requested the GCC member states to terminate this investigation.  
40.  The EU requested a non -confidential version of the application for this investigation. If it did not 
exist, the EU nee ded any other basis for the decision of the initiation in order to exercise its right of 
defence.  
41.  Switzerland  stated that this investigation was the latest example of measures being taken in 
response to persistent overcapacity in the global steel market, u nfair/questionable trade practices 
by certain Members, and a proliferation of SG actions in the world. Switzerland was affected by 
global excess capacity in the steel sector and the ensuing tension between certain WTO Members. 
Switzerland strongly supporte d multilateralism and believed that the issue of excess steel capacity 
should be addressed collectively, with a multilateral approach. Regarding this specific investigation, 
Switzerland requested trade data that justified the initiation of the investigatio n. Switzerland's own 
 
3 For the symbols of all the documents placed under this agenda item, see document WTO/AIR/SG/10.  
4 Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf.  
5 The full symbol of the document is: G/SG/N/10/ARE/2/Suppl.1 - G/SG/N/10/BHR/2/Suppl.1 - 
G/SG/N/10/KWT/2 /Suppl.1 - G/SG/N/10/OMN/2/Suppl.1 - G/SG/N/10/QAT/2/Suppl.1 - 
G/SG/N/10/SAU/2/Suppl.1 - G/SG/N/11/ARE/3/Suppl.1 - G/SG/N/11/BHR/3/Suppl.1 - 
G/SG/N/11/KWT/3/Suppl.1 - G/SG/N/11/OMN/3/Suppl.1 - G/SG/N/11/QAT/3/Suppl.1 - 
G/SG/N/11/SAU/3/Suppl.1.  G/SG/M/56  
 
- 8 - 
 
  data suggested a different picture. Switzerland asked all WTO Members to abide by the WTO rules, 
and more specifically, asked that the measures be introduced "only to the extent necessary".  
42.  Norway  stated that this investigation was the  latest example of measures being taken by 
Members to deal with persistent overcapacity in the global steel market, unfair trade practices and 
proliferation of SG measures. While Norway only had a limited production capacity, it was affected 
by the global excess capacity in this sector, and by the ensuing trade tension  among the larger 
trading partners . 
43.  Oman  requested that the comments and questions be submitted in writing.  
2.5  Egypt – Semi -finished products of iron or non -alloy steel and steel rebar (Bars, Rod s 
and Coils) for construction purposes (G/SG/N/8/EGY/9  - G/SG/N/10/EGY/9)  
44.  Ukraine  considered that this investigation had been conducted in violation of certain 
WTO obligations. First, the time -period used in the investigation was inappropriate. Second, the  
product investigated was ill defined. While this investigation covered two product types, namely, 
semi-finished products and steel rebars, the former products were an input to the latter product. 
The finding of an absolute import increase was not substant iated due to these two problems. Ukraine 
asked Egypt to follow the relevant WTO rules.  
45.  Egypt  noted that Ukraine had raised these issues several times during the investigation and 
during the consultations. Egypt had responded to these questions. Ukraine cou ld resend these 
questions in writing, if necessary.  
2.6  Eurasian Economic Union – Certain Flat -Rolled Steel Products (G/SG/N/10/RUS/4)6 
46.  Japan  regretted the imposition of this measure. The adoption of import -restrictive measures in 
response to other trade restr ictive measures would depress global trade and would harm both the 
exporters and the importers. In addition to asking that the investigation be conducted in a WTO -
consistent manner, Japan raised concerns about the management and monitoring of the tariff -rate 
quotas. Japan would carefully monitor the process.  
47.  The Russian Federation  ("Russia") stated that it would take the comments into consideration . 
2.7  Eurasian Economic Union – Microwave Ovens (G/SG/N/9/ARM/1 and 
G/SG/N/9/KAZ/1 and G/SG/N/9/KGZ/1 and G/SG/N/9/RUS/1)  
48.  There were no questions or comments raised at this meeting.  
2.8  European Union – Certain Steel Products (G/SG/N/10/EU/1/Suppl.2)7 
49.  The EU explained that on 14  August  2019, it notified the findings of the review. The EU also 
held consultations wi th the relevant Members. The adjustments as a result of the review came into 
effect on 1  October  2019. The adjustments were directed at ensuring better protection of traditional 
trade flows and diversity of supply.  
50.  Japan  stated that in the consultatio ns, it had submitted comments on the product category and 
on the management of tariff -rate quotas. Japan noted that product "category 16 " should be divided 
into two groups of alloy and non -alloy. This was because alloy wire rods were used for the automotive 
sector while non -alloy wire rods were used  for construction or machinery sector. In terms of 
management of tariff -rate quotas, Japan noted that some countries which had exhausted their 
country quotas could access the global quotas. This review investigation h ad introduced caps on 
 
6 The full s ymbol of the document is: G/SG/N/8/ARM/3 - G/SG/N/8/KAZ/1 - G/SG/N/8/KGZ/5 - 
G/SG/N/8/RUS/4 - G/SG/N/10/ARM/3 - G/SG/N/10/KAZ/1 - G/SG/N/10/KGZ/5 - G/SG/N/10/RUS/4 and 
G/SG/N/8/ARM/3/Suppl.1 - G/SG/N/8/KAZ/1/Suppl.1 - G/SG/N/8/KGZ/5/Suppl.1 - G/SG/N/8/RUS/ 4/Suppl.1 - 
G/SG/N/10/ARM/3/Suppl.1 - G/SG/N/10/KAZ/1/Suppl.1 - G/SG/N/10/KGZ/5/Suppl.1 - 
G/SG/N/10/RUS/4/Suppl.1 - G/SG/N/11/ARM/3 - G/SG/N/11/KAZ/1 - G/SG/N/11/KGZ/3 - G/SG/N/11/RUS/4.  
7 For the symbols of all the documents placed under this agenda item, see document WTO/AIR/SG/10.  G/SG/M/56  
 
- 9 - 
 
  access to global quota s. Under the new system, countries were allowed to exceed their traditional 
export amount. Japan wondered what the rationale of such arrangement was.  
51.  Korea  was disappointed that the growth rate of annual quota ha d been lowered. Such a 
backward step in liberalisation was unprecedented, and was against the reasonable expectation of 
the exporters. Korea requested the EU to reinstate growth rate of annual quota to the original value 
of 5%.  
52.  Russia  was disappointed with  the result of the review. In Russia's view, this review investigation 
was not WTO -consistent. The measure was made more trade -restrictive than before, especially by 
the decrease in the liberalization rate. While the decision to decrease the liberalization  rate was 
based on import data of 2018, the EU did not consider data of 2018 for the determination of quota 
volumes despite numerous such requests. The trade -restrictive effects of the measure were 
compounded by the emerging challenges in administration of  the measure. For instance, when the 
country -specific quota for product "category 25" was replaced by a global quota, the EU authorities 
failed to allocate the unused volumes of country -specific quotas to the residual quota, resulting in 
Russian exporters having to pay duties for some of their shipments. Russia asked for a refund. While 
Article  7.4 of the Agreement required an increase in the pace of liberalization, this review had led to 
opposite results. Russia urged the EU to correct all the problems and  to promptly refund the duties 
paid. 
53.  Switzerland  also had concerns. An escalation of SG and other trade defence measures in the 
steel sector as well as in other sectors had to be avoided. Existing trade flows which were clearly 
not contributing to the inju ry to the domestic industry should not be restricted by the introduction 
of SG measures. Switzerland asked all Members to ensure that the WTO requirements were met, 
and that measures were applied only to the extent necessary.  
54.  The EU acknowledged the rapidl y evolving nature of the steel industry and noted that it was 
ready to respond quickly to market situations within the limits allowed by WTO rules. In imposing 
definitive measures, the EU was committed to reviewing measures at least at the end of each year . 
The EU noted that it was too early, at this stage, to give exact dates for potential future reviews, 
and it was important to give time for the latest adjustments to work. The EU was open to considering 
future adjustments of the measure.  
2.9  Guatemala – Flat-Rolled Products of Other Alloy Steel, of a Width of 600 MM or more 
(G/SG/N/6/GTM/1)  
55.  While Korea  appreciated the bilateral consultations with Guatemala, it was concerned with this  
investigation. Korea was not convinced that the domestic industry was injured , since most of the 
imported products were not produced by domestic producers. Given that SG measures target fair 
trade, such measures could only be justified if the substantive and procedural requirements of the 
Agreement were strictly met. Korea requeste d Guatemala to terminate the investigation.  
56.  Guatemala  stated that it would convey the comments to the investigating authority, and 
reiterated that the investigation was still ongoing.  
2.10  India – Single Mode Optical Fibre (G/SG/N/6/IND/46)  
57.  Japan  noted that the Official Gazette of India explained that global oversupply in the optical 
fibre industry had resulted in the increase in imports. Japan was of the view that the global 
oversupply problem was merely a result of long -term supply and demand con ditions and would not 
qualify as unforeseen developments. The adoption of import -restrictive measures in response to 
other trade restrictive measures would depress global trade and would harm both exporters and 
importers. Japan noted that the overwhelming majority of optical fibre imported to India was from 
a certain country and therefore, India should carefully determine the product scope and properly 
exclude products from countries such as Japan which do not directly compete with India's domestic 
industry . Japan asked India to ensure that the relevant determinations would be WTO -consistent.  
58.  India explained that its investigating authority proposed the imposition of a preliminary 
determination. The findings were available on the website of its investigating  authority, and a G/SG/M/56  
 
- 10 - 
 
  notification was recently filed8 as well. The Standing Committee on Safeguards and the Ministry of 
Finance would consider this recommendation. Comments from the interested parties would be 
considered, and oral hearings would be held.  
2.11  India – Phenol (G/SG/N/6/IND/45)  
59.  Korea  saw several problems with this investigation. First, there was no recent, sudden or sharp 
increase in imports. Second, the initiation of this investigation was justified on the basis of factors 
such as: (i) China's imposi tion of anti -dumping measures on this product, which diverted the exports 
of this product to India; (ii) global excess supply of this product; and (iii) "trade war" between the 
two major Members. However, in Korea's view, these factors did not constitute " unforeseen 
developments". In addition, there was no clear causal link between increase of imports and injury. 
Furthermore, India's domestic industry had demonstrated a stable and positive record of 
performance during the investigation period, and therefore , there was no serious injury or threat 
thereof. Korea requested India to terminate the investigation.  
60.  Japan  stated that it was paying close attention to this investigation, and requested India to 
conduct the investigation in a WTO -consistent manner.  
61.  India noted the concerns. Since the investigation was still ongoing, India requested interested 
Members to provide comments to the investigating authority.  
2.12  Indonesia – Evaporators (G/SG/N/6/IDN/30 and G/SG/N/8/IDN/22  - 
G/SG/N/10/IDN/22)  
62.  There were no questions or comments raised at this meeting.  
2.13  Indonesia – Fabrics (G/SG/N/6/IDN/31 and G/SG/N/7/IDN/2  - 
G/SG/N/11/IDN/18)  
63.  Chinese Taipei  expressed concern with the conduct of the hearing. One issue was that the date 
of the hearing was too close to the initiation of the investigation. In particular, given that Indonesia 
had requested that documents be submitted in Indonesian, the time for preparation was 
unreasonably short. Another issue was that Indonesia had not provided the applicants' views in 
advance and therefor e, the exporters could not make an effective defense. This was a violation of 
Article 3.1 of the Agreement. Chinese Taipei was also concerned with the product scope of the 
investigation. There were two different products concerned in terms of production pr ocess: machine 
manufactured fabrics and skilled -labour manufactured fabrics. The inclusion of two different products 
in the same investigation did not meet the requirements of Article 2.1 of the Agreement. 
Chinese  Taipei asked Indonesia not to take any fin al measure, and stated that it would monitor the 
investigation closely.  
64.  Indonesia  noted that while Chinese Taipei was treated as a developing Member, imports from 
Chinese Taipei w ere more than 3%, and so it was  subject to the measure in accordance with 
Article 9.1 of the Agreement.  
2.14  Indonesia – Yarn (Other than Sewing Thread) of Synthetic and Artificial Staple 
Fibres (G/SG/N/6/IDN/32 and G/SG/N/7/IDN/3  - G/SG/N/11/IDN/19)  
65.  The US wished to seek clarification from Indonesia in relation to the investigation tak en up in 
this agenda item as well as the investigation taken up in the next agenda item (item 2.15). More 
specifically, both notifications described the proposed provisional SG measure as being "in the form 
of a specific tariff as much as …" and then provid ed a per kg amount. In this context, the US asked 
(i) for an explanation on the language chosen and the exact measure applied; (ii) whether the use 
of "as much as" signified that Indonesia could impose a lower measure; and if so, (iii) what criteria 
would be used by Indonesia to identify instances of where a lower tariff level may be applied.  
 
8 Subsequently circulated in document G/SG/N/8/IND/32 . G/SG/M/56  
 
- 11 - 
 
  66.  Indonesia  explained that the tariff was expressed both in specific terms and in ad valorem  
terms.  
2.15  Indonesia – Curtains (Including Drapes), Interior Blinds, Bed Valances, and Other 
Furnishing Articles (G/SG/N/6/IDN/33 and G/SG/N/7/IDN/4  - G/SG/N/11/IDN/20)  
67.  There were no comments or questions raised under this specific item.  
2.16  Indonesia – Aluminium Foil (G/SG/N/10/IDN/21/Suppl.1 - G/SG/N/11/IDN/21)  
68.  There were no comm ents or questions raised in the meeting.  
2.17  Jordan – Aluminium Bars, Rods and Profiles (G/SG/N/6/JOR/18/Suppl.1 and 
G/SG/N/8/JOR/10/Suppl.4  - G/SG/N/10/JOR/10/Suppl.2  - 
G/SG/N/11/JOR/6/Suppl.7 and  G/SG/N/8/JOR/10/Suppl.5  - 
G/SG/N/10/JOR/10/Suppl.3  - G/SG/N/11 /JOR/6/Suppl.8)  
69.  There were no comments or questions raised in the meeting.  
2.18  Jordan – Potato Chips and Potato Prepared or Preserved Otherwise than by Vinegar 
or Acetic Acid, Not Frozen (G/SG/N/6/JOR/19)  
70.  There were no comments or questions raised in the meeti ng. 
2.19  Madagascar – Soap (G/SG/N/6/MDG/5  - G/SG/N/7/MDG/5  - G/SG/N/11/MDG/5 
and G/SG/N/7/MDG/5/Suppl.1  - G/SG/N/11/MDG/5/Supp.1)  
71.  The US clarified that its statement related to systemic issues, and so would cover Madagascar's 
investigations taken up in agenda items 2.21, 2.22 and 2.24  as well . The US was doubtful whether 
interested parties were given sufficient opportunity to defend their interests in the course of 
Madagascar's investigations. According to the notification made in this investigation, Madagascar  
initiated the investigation on soap on 14  August  2019, and asked interested parties to make 
themselves known by 13  September  2019, and to provide responses to the questionnaire  by 
30 September  2019. During this period, Madagascar notified that a provisional measure would be 
imposed on 1  September  2019, which was 12 days before the deadline for interested parties to 
make themselves known, and 29 days before the responses to the questionnaires we re due. The US 
had two systemic concerns. First, the US asked Madagascar to explain how its determination to 
impose provisional measures was consistent with Article 3.1 of the Agreement, when a provisional 
measure was imposed even before the interested par ties were making themselves known to the 
competent authorities. Second, the provisional measure was imposed 18 days after initiation. The 
US doubted whether it allowed sufficient time for the competent authorities to make a determination 
based on the infor mation gathered. More specifically, the US was concerned  how Madagascar 
determined that there was "clear evidence".  
72.  Madagascar  explained that the measure was applied in accordance with the provisions of the 
Agreement. There was urgency, since many companie s were on the verge of being closed. However, 
based on the comments from various interested parties, Madagascar had decided to withdraw the 
provisional measures in this investigation as well as in the investigations taken up in items 19, 21 
and 23.  Madagas car would continue the investigations.  
73.  The US welcomed the termination of the provisional measures. This did not, however, negate 
the systemic concerns in terms of imposing provisional measures before the parties could even make 
themselves known and withou t any analysis as to whether there was clear evidence to justify 
imposition of SG measures. US requested Madagascar to take due care in conducting its 
investigations.  
2.20  Madagascar – Detergent Powder (G/SG/N/8/MDG/3  - G/SG/N/10/MDG/3  - 
G/SG/N/11/MDG/3/Suppl.2 ) 
74.  There were no comments or questions raised under this specific item.  G/SG/M/56  
 
- 12 - 
 
  2.21  Madagascar – Lubricating Oils (G/SG/N/6/MDG/6  - G/SG/N/7/MDG/6  - 
G/SG/N/11/MDG/6 and G/SG/N/7/MDG/6/Suppl.1  - G/SG/N/11/MDG/6/Suppl.1)  
75.  There were no comments or questions raised under this specific item.  
2.22  Madagascar – Edible Vegetable Oils and Margarines (G/SG/N/6/MDG/7  - 
G/SG/N/7/MDG/7  - G/SG/N/11/MDG/7 and G/SG/N/7/MDG/7/Suppl.1  - 
G/SG/N/11/MDG/7/Suppl.1)  
76.  There were no comments or questions raised under this specific item.  
2.23  Madaga scar – Pasta (1) (G/SG/N/8/MDG/1  - G/SG/N/10/MDG/1  - 
G/SG/N/11/MDG/1/Suppl.2 and G/SG/N/8/MDG/1/Suppl.1  - 
G/SG/N/10/MDG/1/Suppl.1  - G/SG/N/11/MDG/1/Suppl.3)  
77.  The Chair noted that Mauritius had submitted written questions relating to this agenda item  and 
the next agenda item (item 2.24), but they were submitted to o recently to be included in the agenda 
for this meeting.9 
78.  Madagascar  explained that the product coverage of this investigation, notified on 22  July 2019, 
was different from that of the investigation taken up in the next item (item 2.2 4), initially notified 
in October  2018.  
79.  Egypt  wished to comment on this investigation as well as on the investigation taken up in the 
next agenda item (item 2.24). Regarding this investigation, Madagascar notified in spring 2019 of a 
provisional measure, and then in July  2019 Madagascar terminated the SG investigation without 
imposing any definitive measure, on the grounds that the  domestic industry had withdrawn the 
application. Subsequently, Madagascar notified to the Committee the initiation of an investigation 
into imports of the same product. Egypt had already submitted its views on the second investigation. 
Egypt requested that the second investigation be terminated without any measure.  
80.  Mauritius  also addressed this investigation as well as the investigation taken up in the next 
agenda item (item 2.24) . During the April  2019 meeting, Mauritius highlighted the problems 
regarding t he provisional measure. The provisional measure was not justified under GATT or the 
Agreement, and the inconsistencies included failure to notify, retroactive aspect of the scope of the 
measure, failure to establish serious injury or threat thereof, and th e issue of like products. 
Madagascar notified in July  2019 that it would terminate the investigation, and in so doing, implicitly 
acknowledged that the provisional measure was not justified. However, subsequently, within a 
period of 10 days from the date o f termination of the previous investigation, Madagascar submitted 
a new notification to launch an investigation on the same product , and immediately imposed a 
provisional measure. This was in contravention of Article 7.6 of the Agreement which requires an 
interval of at least one year before re -applying a measure on the same product. Also the new 
provisional measure was adopted despite the fact that the local industry had withdrawn the 
complaint. There were a number of irregularities and inconsistencies. Fi rst, Madagascar had failed 
to include all pertinent data. Second, the public hearing originally announced was cancelled, and it 
was not certain whether there would be a new public hearing. SG actions needed to be in strict 
compliance with the Agreement. Ma uritius requested a written response from Madagascar.  
81.  Madagascar  explained that the withdrawal of the complaint was done with the intention of 
covering a group of products which were not covered in the initial investigation. Madagascar had 
notified a widen ing of the scope of the original investigation in February  2019, but this 
communication triggered significant reactions from trading partners, resulting in Madagascar's 
decision not to proceed on that basis. Thus, the products covered by the new investigat ion were 
different from those of the original investigation. The domestic industry's injuries were not only 
attributed to increased imports of spaghetti and macaroni, but also to other products as specified in 
the new initiation notification. The provision al measure taken under the first investigation was not 
implemented, and the new provisional measure concerned the new product coverage. Madagascar 
would provide detailed written responses as soon as possible.  
 
9 Subsequently circulated in document G/SG/Q2/MDG/3 . G/SG/M/56  
 
- 13 - 
 
  2.24  Madagascar – Pasta (2) (G/SG/N/6/MDG/4 - G/SG/N/7/MDG/4 - 
G/SG/N/11/MDG/4)  
82.  There were no comments or questions raised under this specific item.  
2.25  Madagascar – Blankets and Traveling Rugs (G/SG/N/8/MDG/2  - 
G/SG/N/10/MDG/2  - G/SG/N/11/MDG/2/Suppl.2)  
83.  There were no comments or questio ns raised at the meeting.  
2.26  Morocco – Hot Rolled Sheets (G/SG/N/6/MAR/11 and G/SG/N/7/MAR/4  - 
G/SG/N/11/MAR/7)  
84.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
2.27  Morocco – Welded Pipes and Tubes of Iron or Steel (G/SG/N/6/MAR/12  - 
G/SG/N/7/MAR/5  - G/SG/N/11/MAR/8)  
85.  The US had systemic concerns with this investigation, similar to those raised in relation to 
Madagascar's investigations. Specifically, the US was concerned whether interested parties were 
given sufficient opportunity to defend their interes ts. Morocco initiated the investigation in 
October  2019, giving interested parties 30 days to make themselves known to the competent 
authorities and to provide comments. The notification indicated that the provisional measure would 
come into effect b efore this 30 -day deadline . First, the US requested for an explanation how the 
determination to impose a provisional measure was consistent with Article 3.1. A provisional 
measure was being put in place even before the parties made themselves known. Second, the US 
was doubtful whether Morocco had sufficient time to draft and send questionnaires to the interested 
parties, analyse and assess the information and make the determination based on the information 
gathered. The US asked Morocco to exercise due care in co nducting its investigations.  
86.  The EU reiterated its concern on the continuous use of the SG instrument by Morocco. The SG 
instrument was intended for exceptional circumstances and was to be used only when all the strict 
criteria were met. This was particula rly true in the case of extension of measures. With regard to 
this particular investigation, the domestic industry did not appear to suffer serious injury and a 
causal link was doubtful. The problematic imports seemed to be originating in one or two countr ies 
and such imports would better be targeted with country -specific solutions. The EU asked Morocco to 
take these comments into account and refrain from imposing unwarranted measures.  
87.  Ukraine  had requested for an explanation of the methodology used by the investigation 
authority to determine whether a country was a developing country under Article 9.1 of the 
Agreement. Ukraine had posed a set of questions10, which were yet to be answered.  
88.  Morocco  understood that the Agreement provided an option for the autho rities to apply 
provisional measures at the initiation stage of the investigation where a delay would cause 
irreparable injury, provided that the authority continued the investigation in accordance with the 
Agreement. Referring to the EU's statement, Moroc co reminded that no mention of an extension of 
a measure had been made this time. Referring to the questions posed by Ukraine, Morocco 
understood that it had submitted responses.11 Morocco was open to discussing this matter with 
Ukraine.  
2.28  Morocco – Paper in Rolls and Reams (G/L/1327  - G/SG/N/13/MAR/1)  
89.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
 
10 See document G/SG/Q2/MAR/2.  
11 Subsequently circulated in document G/SG/Q2/MAR/3 . G/SG/M/56  
 
- 14 - 
 
  2.29  Morocco  – Coated Wood Board (G/SG/N/ 8/MAR/6 - G/SG/N/10/MAR/6 - 
G/SG/N/11/MAR/6 and G/SG/221)  
90.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
2.30  Panama – Pork  (G/SG/N /6/PAN/2)  
91.  Panama  explained that this investigation was terminated with no measure applied.  
92.  The US stated that such notification had not yet been circulated.  
93.  Panama  stated that the notification was sent recently.12 
2.31  Philippines  – Ceramic Floor and Wall Tiles (G/SG/N/7/PHL/10 - G/SG/N/8/PHL/11 
- G/SG/N/11/PHL/12 and G/SG/N/6/PHL/12/Suppl.1)  
94.  Chinese Taipei  stated that the tiles exported from Chinese Taipei were different  from the 
products produced in the Philippines and therefore, could not be considered as like or directly 
competitive products, nor did they cause serious injury to the domestic industry of the Philippines. 
On the other hand, Chinese Taipei was happy that its exports were excluded from the provisional 
measure and asked for a comparable exclusion from the final measure as well.  
95.  The EU expressed concern with the Philippines' continued use of SG measures on the same 
product. Before the current measure, the Phi lippines maintained a SG measure on this product 
between 2002 to 2012.  The EU recalled that SG measures were exceptional and temporary reliefs, 
and were not meant to become permanent measures. The reported findings indicated that there was 
no increase in i mports, in absolute or relative terms. Accordingly, the investigation should be 
terminated. The domestic industry had already benefitted from imposition of measures for a period 
of 10 years and therefore, additional measures were not justified.  
96.  The Philipp ines requested Chinese Taipei and the EU to submit the statements in writing.  
2.32  Philippines – Cement (G/SG/N/8/PHL/11/Suppl.1 - G/SG/N/10/PHL/9  -
G/SG/N/11/PHL/11/Suppl.1 and G/SG/224)  
97.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
2.33  Philippines – Rice (G/SG/N/6/PHL/14 and G/SG/N/9/PHL/3)  
98.  The Philippines  noted that the investigation was terminated in mid -October and there was 
currently no ongoing investigation for rice.  
2.34  Philippines – Float Glass (G/SG/N/7/PHL/11 - G/SG/N/8/PHL/12 - 
G/SG/N/11/PHL/13)  
99.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
2.35  South Africa  – Threaded Fasteners of Iron or Steel (G/SG/N/7/ZAF/4 - 
G/SG/N/11/ZAF/5)  
100.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
2.36  Turkey – Certain Steel Products (G/SG/N/7/TUR/13/Sup pl.1)  
101.  Turkey  explained that the investigation was terminated.  
 
12 This notification was submitt ed on 18 November  2019. See document G/SG/N/9/PAN/1.  G/SG/M/56  
 
- 15 - 
 
  2.37  Turkey – Toothbrushes (G/SG/N/8/TUR/16/Suppl.1 - 
G/SG/N/10/TUR/16/Suppl.1 - G/SG/N/11/TUR/22/Suppl.1)  
102.  Turkey  explained that its customs tariff schedule, during the investigation, had classified 
toothbrushes and interdental brushes under a specific code. However, a separate tariff code was 
created for interdental brushes and therefore, Turkey decided to remove interdental brushes from 
the scope of the measure, while maintaining the measure for the  other toothbrushes.  
2.38  Turkey – Yarns made of Nylon or other Polyamides (G/SG/N/8/TUR/17 - 
G/SG/N/10/TUR/17 - G/SG/N/11/TUR/24 and G/SG/225)  
103.  Turkey  explained that the SG duty would enter into force on 21  November  2019.  
104.  The US, referring to the section on developing countries excluded from the measure, noted 
that despite these developing countries being "excluded" from the measure, each excluded count ry 
was also subject to a tariff rate quota (TRQ). The TRQ amounted to  3% of imports of Turkey in the 
year 2018 , and the total amount of tariff quota shall not exceed 9% of total imports of Turkey 
in 2018.  In this context, the US requested for clarification  on the following: (i) why did Turkey 
impose TRQs for countries that should be excluded from the measure; and (ii) how Turkey planned 
to administer this measure. The US asked Turkey to consider the Appellate Body's finding in 
DS202  United States – Definiti ve Safeguard Measures on Imports of Circular Welded Carbon Quality 
Line Pipe from Korea . 
105.  The EU stated that the criteria for imposing a SG measure were not met. The EU made this 
same point during the Committee meeting of April 2019 . More specifically, unfo reseen developments 
did not exist, imports were fluctuating rather than increasing, and the domestic industry was not 
suffering serious injury. The EU was disappointed with the decision to impose the unwarranted 
SG measure.  
106.  Chinese Taipei  continued to have  serious concerns about this investigation. First, recent, sharp 
or sudden increase in imports did not exist. Second, in the injury determination, Turkey should have 
considered the fact that the products concerned were already subject to additional customs  duties. 
Further, it was possible that other factors could have contributed to serious injury, such as the 
depreciation of the Turkish lira. Third, the measure in question was clearly targeting low -priced 
imports from specific countries. Such problems shou ld be addressed by an anti -dumping 
investigation and not by a SG investigation. The methodology used by Turkey violated Article XIX of 
GATT 1994. Fourth, there were no unforeseen developments. Fifth, TRQ would have been the most 
suitable form of the measur e, as it would enable traditional trade flows to continue while preventing 
an increase in imports. Chinese Taipei urged Turkey to act in compliance with its WTO obligations. 
Chinese Taipei reserved its right to request for trade compensation under Article 8.1 of the 
Agreement.  
107.  Turkey  responded that excluded developing countries were listed in the related 
Presidential  Decree and they would be subject to TRQs. Turkey was prepared to consult with 
Members having substantial interest as exporters of this product . Turkey noted that consultations 
had been held with Chinese Taipei on this matter and Turkey had noted the concerns raised.  
108.  The US stated that the response failed to address the concerns raised. Article 9.1 of the 
Agreement provided that all countries exp orting 3%, and collectively not exceeding 9% of imports, 
were to be excluded. Turkey was not able to impose any measure, given that such countries should 
be excluded, and yet imposed the measure in the form of a TRQ. Given that Article 9.1 of the 
Agreement  deals specifically with "exclusion", it was not clear how imposing another measure was 
consistent with the provision.  
109.  Turkey  noted the concerns raised by the  US and would forward these questions to the capital.  
2.39  Ukraine – Certain Nitrogen Fertilizers (G/SG /N/6/UKR/14)  
110.  There were no comments or questions raised under this specific item . G/SG/M/56  
 
- 16 - 
 
  2.40  Ukraine – Complex Fertilizers (G/SG/N/6/UKR/13)  
111.  The EU wished to comment on this notification as well as on the notification taken up in the 
previous agenda item (item 2.39). The EU reiterated that SG measures were only to be used in 
exceptional circumstances and were subject to strict requirements. In this co ntext, the EU had 
concerns with this investigation. First, regarding the product subject to the investigation taken up in 
the previous agenda item (i.e. certain nitrogen fertilizers) , imports actually decreased. For complex 
fertilizers, imports recorded on ly a slight increase  and did not qualify as significant, sharp or sudden. 
Second , the domestic industry did not seem to have suffered serious injury. Any difficulty faced by 
the industry could be attributed to other factors. Third, the causal link was missing in both cases. 
More specifically, factors such as government's strategy to increase raw material prices or the 
significant increase in wages seem to have played a major role in the evolution of events covered 
by these two investigations. Effects of  these factors should not be attributed to imports. The EU 
requested Ukraine to provide a more meaningful summary of injury indicators and to refrain from 
imposing any unjustified measure.  
112.  Kazakhstan  also expressed concern with this investigation. Kazakhst an pointed out that the 
non-confidential version of the application did not demonstrate any sharp increase of imports. 
Kazakhstan referred to the panel's findings  in Argentina  - Footwear, upheld by the Appellate Body,  
regarding the requirements for finding  increased imports. An analysis of the rate and amount of 
increase in imports was required. Failure to fulfil one of the mandatory requirements resulted in the 
violation of the Agreement. Kazakhstan requested Ukraine to abide by the relevant WTO rules.  
113.  Ukraine stated that it had already provided and would continue to provide opportunities for 
interested parties to submit comments. Such comments would be taken into account when taking 
the final decision.  
2.41  Ukraine – Flexible Porous Plates, Blocks and Sheets of  Polyurethane Foams 
(G/SG/N/8/UKR/5/Suppl.1 - G/SG/N/10/UKR/5/Suppl.1 and 
G/SG/N/8/UKR/5/Suppl.2 - G/SG/N/10/UKR/5/Suppl.2 - G/SG/N/11/UKR/3/Suppl.2)  
114.  The EU regretted the continued imposition of this measure. The EU had found that the original 
measure was already questionable, and the criteria for extending a measure, as set out in the 
Agreement, were not met. The Agreement required that the measure could be extended only if the 
measure continued to be necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury and there  was evidence that 
the industry was adjusting. Here, that was not the case. There were other factors responsible for 
the difficulties faced by the domestic industry. In addition, there was no evidence that the industry 
was adjusting. The EU would continue to closely monitor the situation.  
115.  Ukraine  explained that during the review, all interested parties had been given opportunities 
to express their points of view. The review investigation found that the SG measure continued to be 
necessary to prevent or reme dy serious injury and there was evidence that the domestic industry 
was adjusting.  
2.42  United  States – Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells (G/SG/N/8/USA/9/Suppl.5 - 
G/SG/N/10/USA/7/Suppl.2 - G/SG/N/11/USA/6/Suppl.1)13 
116.  There were no comments or questions rais ed at this meeting.  
2.43  United  States – Large Residential Washers (G/SG/N/8/USA/10/Suppl.4 - 
G/SG/N/10/USA/8/Suppl.2 - G/SG/N/11/USA/7/Suppl.1)14 
117.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
 
13 For the symbols of all the documents placed under this agenda item, see document WTO/AIR/SG/10.  
14 For the symbols of all the documents placed under this agenda item, see document WTO/AIR/SG/10.  G/SG/M/56  
 
- 17 - 
 
  2.44  Viet Nam – Diammonium Phosphate and Monoammonium Phospha te Fertilizers 
(G/SG/N/8/VNM/6 – G/SG/N/10/VNM/5 – G/SG/N/11/VNM/7)  
118.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
2.45  Viet Nam – Certain Semi -Finish ed and Finished Products of Alloy and Non -Alloy Steel 
(G/SG/N/8/VNM/3/Suppl.1 - G/SG/N/10/VNM/2/Sup pl.1 - 
G/SG/N/11/VNM/4/Suppl.1)  
119.  Japan  understood  Viet Nam's measure to be an anti -circumvention measure. Japan noted that 
though it had been a topic of discussion in the field of anti -dumping , there was no direct textual 
basis in the WTO Agreements for add ressing circumvention. Circumvention was generally considered 
to be a business behaviour to escape from the imposition of anti -dumping duties, and was not 
directly applicable to SGs, which was supposed to be applied "irrespective of its source". Accordingl y, 
a new SG investigation or review of the product scope of the original SG measure needed to be 
conducted in order to cover products that were out of the scope of the original SG measure. 
Introduction of a circumvention investigation in the context of SGs  could undermine the basic 
principle of SGs as an emergency action.  
120.  Viet Nam  responded that the measure applied was consistent with Vietnamese regulations and 
WTO rules, and that it was open to discussions with other Members.  
121.  The Chair recalled that agenda  item 2.46, which was previously announced in document 
WTO/AIR/SG/10,  was subsequently removed by WTO/AIR/SG/10/Corr.1 . 
122.  The Chair reminded delegations that any questions for which written responses were 
requested  should be submitted to the Member concerned and to the Secretariat no later than 
9 December  2019. Written responses to questions, including questions submitted in writing p rior to 
this meeting, should be submitted to the Secretariat no later than 6  January  2020. As with legislative 
notifications, any unanswered questions would be indicated in the draft annotated agenda of the 
next meeting.  
123.  The Committee took note  of the stat ements made.  
3  US MEASURES ON STEEL  (G/L/1242/SUPPL.2  - G/SG/N/12/TUR/6/SUPP L.2) (ITEM 
REQUESTED BY TURKEY)  
124.  Turkey  stated that following the US imposition of measures on imports of steel and aluminium 
on 23  March  2018 it had requested for consultations under  the Agreement, but this request was 
rejected. As a result, Turkey decided to suspend substantially equivalent level of concessions 
referred to in Article 8.2 of the Agreement. Since then, Turkey had been acting in parallel with the 
US. Most recently, foll owing the US reduction made in May 2019 of the additional duties on steel 
from Turkey, Turkey reduced its duties  as well.  
125.  The US did not agree with the characterisation of the US measure as a SG measure. The 
President issued the steel and aluminium proclam ations pursuant to Article 232 of the Trade 
Expansion Act of 1962 after determining that tariffs were necessary to adjust imports of steel and 
aluminium articles that threatened to impair US national security. Measures taken under Article 232 
were not acti ons taken pursuant to Article 201 of the Safeguards Act of 1974, i.e. the US domestic 
law for SG measures, and therefore, there was no basis for Members to justify their retaliation under 
the Agreement. As could be seen from its notifications with respect to solar cells and large residential 
washers, the US was well aware of what constitutes a SG, and what the notification requirements 
were under the Agreement. The US declined to make any further comments on the issue, as it was 
actively engaged in dispute settlement proceedings in response to retaliatory measures by 
WTO Members including Turkey.  
126.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  G/SG/M/56  
 
- 18 - 
 
  4  COLOMBIA'S SAFEGUARD  INVESTIGATION ON SH EETS OF PAPERBOARD A ND 
POLYETHYLENE (G/SG/N /6/COL/8) (ITEM REQU ESTED BY BRAZ IL) 
127.  While it congratulated Colombia for not applying a provisional measure in the investigation, 
Brazil  was concerned with this investigation. First, import data should be analysed by packaging 
units, which was the means for marketing this product. An anal ysis by packaging units demonstrated 
that there was no recent, sudden or significant increase in imports. Second, on the issue of 
unforeseen developments, given the Agreement signed between Colombia and Mercosur in which 
tariff reductions were negotiated, it was natural that trade flows could be amplified. Further, 
decisions of private companies related to the increase in sales should not be taken as unforeseen 
developments. Third, Brazil doubted whether products imported from Brazil and products produced 
in Colombia were like products. In a recent anti -dumping investigation on the same products, the 
Colombian authorities had found that Brazilian and Colombian products were not like products. 
Fourth, regarding serious injury, most of the indicators of the do mestic industry demonstrated 
positive or neutral evolution; and indicators with negative evolution were not related to imports, but 
related to commercial decisions taken by the Colombian companies. Fifth, data was excessively 
designated as confidential. La ck of data hampered the right of defence. Brazil hoped that there would 
be no definitive SG measure.  
128.  Colombia  explained that interested parties were invited to express their views, and Colombia 
had even extended the time frame to do so. Colombia had decide d against imposition of a provisional 
SG measure, but the investigation would continue. Colombia would continue to provide parties with 
opportunities to express their concerns, and would also continue the consultations with Brazil.  
129.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
5  NOTIFICATIONS OF REC OMMENDATIONS TO IMPO SE A MEASURE (RD/SG/ 34) 
130.  The Chair recalled that the discussion on the issue of notifications of recommendations to 
impose a measure was initiated in 2018, and that most recently, she held an informal meeting on 
this issue on 27  September  2019. As she promised at the end of that informal m eeting, she sent a 
revised draft15 to all Members before the current meeting. She wished to seek the views of the 
Members on that latest draft in informal mode.  
131.  The Committee discussed the latest draft in informal mode.  
132.  The Chair noted that some Members had specific comments on the wording , while others 
needed some more time to consider. She stated that she would hold another informal meeting on 
this issue  in spring  2020. 
133.  The Committee took note  of the statements  made . 
6  DISCUSSIONS GROUP REGARDING SAFE GUARD PROCEEDINGS (I TEM REQUESTED BY 
AUSTRALIA, CANADA, T HE EUROPEAN UNION, I SRAEL, JAPAN, KOREA,  NEW ZEALAND, 
NORWAY, CHINESE TAIP EI, SINGAPORE, UKRAI NE AND THE UNITED  STATES)  
134.  The US informed the Members that the discussion held after the spring  2019 Committee 
meeting covered topics relating to (i) duration of the measure; and (ii) mid -term reviews. 
Participating Members had actively provided their perspectives on how these issues were treated in 
their respective systems. For example, r egarding duration of measures, Members discussed what 
kind of conditions of competition were examined by authorities in determining the length of a 
measure, and what opportunities were provided to the interested parties to comment on the duration 
of the me asure. These discussions were intended to be informative sessions for all Members, but 
especially for those who may be new users of SGs, regarding what kind of issues to consider before 
imposing a measure.  
135.  Canada  explained that the objective of the discuss ion group was to provide a broader 
perspective on SG proceedings. More specifically, the discussion was intended to move away from 
discussions of individual cases as was done during Committee meetings, and instead  to focus on 
 
15 See d ocument RD/SG/34 . G/SG/M/56  
 
- 19 - 
 
  general experiences, to unders tand how other Members handled the various requirements of the 
Agreement, and to learn from one another and share best practices. The topics for the discussion to 
be held after the present Committee meeting were: (i) process in making a final determination  
regarding whether to impose a measure ; and (ii) gathering and verifying data and other information 
from domestic producers.  
136.  The US further stated that Members were welcome to make suggestions regarding topics to 
be address in future discussions . The US suggested that the Secretariat circulate a point of contact 
where Members could send their suggestions.  
137.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
7  OTHER BUSINESS  
7.1  Statement by Turkey – SG Measure by the EU on Certain Steel Products  
138.  Turkey  referred to the  definitive SG measure on certain steel products imposed by the EU on 
2 February  2019. Turkey had pointed out in past Committee meetings that this investigation was 
not conducted in compliance with the relevant provisions of the Agreement. On 27  September  2019, 
the EU revised the measure by introducing a  30% cap on the global quota for certain products and 
also reduced the liberalization rate of quotas from 5% to 3%. SG measures were intended to provide 
temporary import relief and should be liberalized progressively. Therefore, at the very least, the EU 
should not make the measure even more restrictive after the review. Turkey reserved its rights 
under Article 8 of the Agreement and under other relevant WTO Agreements.  
7.2  Statement by Switzerland – SG Measure by the EU on Certain Steel Products  
139.  Switzerland  also referred to the EU's SG measure on certain steel products. Although this 
measure was currently applied by all EU member states, the United Kingdom ("UK") was planning 
to leave the EU. Switzerland wished to clarify what effects the UK's leaving the EU wo uld have on 
this measure.  
140.  The EU responded that it was unable to comment on the UK's future trade policy, which would 
come into effect when the EU policy stops applying to the UK. The EU encouraged Members to 
engage in bilateral discussions with the UK on this matter.  
141.  Japan  stated that it was keen to know the impact that the UK's leaving the EU would have on 
the EU trade remedy measures, including SGs.  
142.  Australia  noted that if the UK was no longer a member of the EU, the conditions and 
justifications for imp osing SG measures could change. Australia wished to know how the EU would 
deal with such a change in its membership.  
143.  The EU acknowledged the rapidly evolving nature of the steel sector and affirmed that it was 
ready to react quickly, as necessary. This als o included an assessment of the situation in case the 
UK left the EU. Given that the terms of a potential departure of the UK from the EU were still 
unknown, the EU was not in a position to amend the measure. The EU understood that anything else 
would amou nt to mere speculation.  
144.  The Committee took note  of all the statements made  under Other Business . 
8  ANNUAL REPORT TO THE  COUNCIL FOR TRADE I N GOODS (RD/SG/35)  
145.  The Committee adopted  its annual report  (see document G/L/1346  - G/SG/226).  G/SG/M/56  
 
- 20 - 
 
  9  DATE OF NEXT REGULAR  MEETING  
146.  The Chair suggested that the Committee meet in the week of 27  April 2020. The exact date 
would be confirmed later.  
147.  The Committee so decided . 
 
__________