RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SG/M/11
29 July 1998
(98-3010)
Committee on Safeguards
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
HELD ON 22 APRIL 1998
Chairman:  Mr. S. Nagatsuka (Japan)
1. The Committee on Safeguards held a regular meeting on 22 April 1998
2. The following agenda was adopted:
Page
A. Observers - Intergovernmental Organizations 2
B. National Legislation 3
(i) Examination of new or amended legislations not previously
reviewed by the Committee (Article 12.6)
(a) Bolivia - G/SG/N/1/BOL/1/Suppl.1
(b) Bulgaria - G/SG/N/1/BGR/1
(c) Cyprus - G/SG/N/1/CYP/1
(d) Ecuador - G/SG/N/1/ECU/2
(e) Honduras - G/SG/N/1/HND/2
(f) India - G/SG/N/1/IND/2(g) Korea - G/SG/N/1/KOR/3
(h) Mongolia - G/SG/N/1/MNG/1
(i) Slovak Republic G/SG/N/1/SVK/2
(j) Turkey - G/SG/N/1/TUR/2/Rev.1 & Corr.1
(ii) Status of legislative notifications
C. Notifications of actions related to safeguard measures 4
(i) Notifications of initiation of an investigation and the reasons
for it (Article 12.1(a)) - G/ SG/N/6/ARG/2, G/SG/N/6/IND/1,
G/SG/N/6/IND/2, G/SG/N/6/IND/3 and G/SG/N/6/USA/4
(ii) Notifications of findings of serious injury or threat caused by
increased imports (Article 12.1(b)) - G/SG/N/8/USA/2/Rev.1 & Suppl.1
(iii) Notifications regarding the non-application of safeguard
measures to developing countries (Article 9.1 and Footnote 2
to Article 9) - G/SG/N/11/BRA/1/Suppl.1G/SG/M/11
Page 2
D. Notifications concerning pre-existing measures (G/SG/N/2/NGA, 16
G/SG/N/5/CYP/Rev.1/ Suppl.1, G/SG/N/5/SVN/Suppl.1 and
G/SG/N/5/SVN/Suppl.2) and questi ons and answers relating thereto
(G/SG/Q2/NGA/1, G/SG/Q2/NGA/2 and G/SG/Q2/NGA/3)
E. Other Business 17
F. Date of next regular meeting 17G. Election of officers 18
A. Observers:  International Intergovernmental Organizations
3. The Chairman recalled that, when the Committee had previously taken up the issue of regular
observer status for the OECD, a number of Members had raised questions regarding reciprocity and,
in particular, the issue of observer status for the WTO in the Group of Participants to the Arrangement
on Officially-Supported Export Credits and Export Credit Guarantees.  The Committee had
accordingly decided to defer action on the OECD's request to allow time for consultations.
Meanwhile, the OECD continued to be invited to attend Committee meetings on an ad hoc  basis.  The
issue of observer status for the WTO had been considered again that day by the Participants' Group,and the WTO had been granted observer status on an ad hoc  basis, i. e., the Participants' Group would
reach a judgement as to whether a particular meeting contained items of interest to the WTO.  The
WTO would be given access to most documents, but the Group had reserved the right to refuse access
in particular cases.  The results achieved in the Participants' Group appeared to represent a significant
movement in the right direction, but did not appear to justify extending regular observer status to theOECD at this point.
4. The Chairman therefore proposed that the Comm ittee invite the OECD to continue to attend
meetings on an ad hoc   basis.  With respect to documents, most Committee documents were in fact
issued unrestricted.  Regarding those that were issued restricted, the Chairman proposed that the
Committee grant the OECD full access, subject to objection by a Member in particular cases.  The
Chairman further suggested that these decisions be taken on a preliminary basis, to be confirmed at
the Committee's next meeting, following receipt of full details of the decision of the Participants'Group.
5. The Committee so decided.
6. Turning to the ACP Group's request for regular observer status, the Chairman recalled that, at
its last meeting, the Committee had agreed to in vite the ACP Group to attend its meetings on an ad
hoc basis.  This decision was taken pending reso lution of the horizontal process underway at the
Council level regarding requests for observer status by the ACP Group and other international
intergovernmental organisations.  To date, no horizontal resolution of the ACP Group's request had
been achieved, and the Chairman would report back to the Committee as the situation developed.  The
Chairman suggested that, meanwhile, the Committee continue with the same arrangement as before.
7. The Committee so decided.G/SG/M/11
Page 3
B. National legislation
(i) Review of New or Amended Notif ications not Previously Reviewed
8. The Chairman recalled that questions concerning newly notified legislations were to have
been submitted to the Member concerned and to the Secretariat no later than 6 April 1998.  He also
noted that all written questions were submitted by the established deadline.
9. The Chairman reminded Members that follow-up questions could be asked orally at the
meeting, and that if written answers to such questions were desired, the questions should be submitted
in writing to the Member whose notification was be ing reviewed, and to the Secretariat, no later than
20 May 1998.  Written answers to all questions submitted in writing should be submitted to the
Secretariat no later than 17 June 1998.
10. The Committee proceeded to the substantive review of the legislation on the agenda.
11. The Chairman recalled that at its last meeting the Committee agreed to postpone the review of
the notification of Honduras.  Since then, Honduras had provided written answers to the written questions
posed in connection with the Committee's last meeting.
12. The questions concerning the legislation of  Honduras can be found in the following
documents:
G/SG/Q1/HND/1 (Subm itted by Mexico)
G/SG/Q1/HND/2 (Submitted by the US)
Answers to these questions can be found in the following document:G/SG/Q1/HND/3
13. The questions concerning the legislation of India can be found in the following documents:
G/SG/Q1/IND/1+ Corr.1  (Submitted by Korea)
G/SG/Q1/IND/2 (Submitted by Canada)
G/SG/Q1/IND/3 (Submitted by Japan)
Answers to questions from Korea and Canada  can be found in the following document:
G/SG/Q1/IND/4+ Corr.1
14. The questions concerning the legislation of Korea can be found in the following documents:
G/SG/Q1/KOR/3 (Submitted by Canada)
Answers to these questions can be found in the following document:
G/SG/Q1/KOR/5
15. No questions were posed concerning the legislative notifications of Bolivia, Bulgaria,  Cyprus
Ecuador, Mongolia , Slovak Republic  or Turkey .
16. The Chairman reminded Members that for previously reviewed legislations to be placed on
the agenda for the Committee's Autumn meeting, written questions would need to be received by theG/SG/M/11
Page 4
Member in question, and by the Secretariat, by 11 September 1998.  The deadline for written answers
to those questions would be 9 October 1998.
17. The Chairman reminded Members of the importance of providing written answers to written
questions posed. The exchange of written questions and answers constitutes the Committee's only record
of the review of legislations.  Thus, the Committee's records are left incomplete when questions are notanswered, or only answered long after the meeting where the review took place.  The Chairman urged all
Members to abide by the deadlines set by the Committee for the provision of written answers to
questions.  The Chairman also noted that the following two Members -- Côte d'Ivoire and Fiji -- had not
yet provided written answers to questions concerning their legislative notifications which were reviewed
at previous meetings.  The Chairman urged these Members to provide their answers as soon as possible.
18. The Committee took note of the statement made.
(ii) Status of Legislative Notifications
19. The Chairman reported that there were still a large number of Members who had yet to make
the required legislative notification.  In particular, notifications had not been received from the
following 40 Members: Angola, Antigua & Barbuda, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Burkina
Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo,Djibouti, Dominica, Gabon, the Gambia, Grenada, Guinea Bissau, Guyana, Jamaica, Kuwait, Lesotho,
Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda,
Saint Kitts & Nevis, Saint Vincent & Grenadines, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Swaziland,
Tanzania, and Togo.
20. This situation continued to create a very unfortunate gap in transparency with respect to
legislative notifications. The Chairman once again urged all Members who had not yet done so to
make the required notification.  He similarly urged all other Members to encourage those that had notyet notified to do so.
21.  The delegation of Poland stated that as notified in document G/SG/N/1/POL/1 of
27 March 1995, Poland had undertaken a review of the relevant domestic legislation and
administrative regulations with the aim to ensure consistency with the Agreements of Safeguards.
Poland informed that this process had now been co mpleted and as a result Poland had introduced the
Act of 11 December 1997 on protection against increased imports of goods into the Polish customs
territory, which came into force on 1 January 1998.  This new legislation was undergoing translation
from Polish into English and would be notified to the Committee as soon as the translation was
completed.
22. The Committee took note of the statements made
C. Notifications of actions related to safeguard measures
(i) Notifications of initiation of investigations (Art. 12.1(a))
(ii) Notifications of findings of serious injury or threat caused by increased imports
(Article 12.1(b))
23. The Chairman noted that since the Committee’s last meeting, initiation of an investigation
pertaining to serious injury or threat thereof and the reasons for it had been notified, by Argentina,
concerning toys (G/SG/N/6/ARG/2), from India on acetylene black (G/SG/N/6/IND/1), from India oncarbon black (G/SG/N/6/IND/2), from India on slabstock polyol (G/SG/N/6/IND/3), and from the
United States on wheat gluten (G/SG/N/6/USA/4).  Th ere was also one notification pertaining a findingG/SG/M/11
Page 5
of serious injury or threat caused by increased imports from the United States on wheat gluten
(G/SG/N/8/USA/2/ Rev.1 & Suppl.1).
24. Regarding Argentina's notification, the representative of Malaysia stated that it was among
the WTO Member countries that had a trade interest in the export of toys to Argentina and would be
affected, should the on-going investigation into the import of toys result in an eventual safeguardaction.  Malaysia recognized that it is within the legal rights of Argentina to invoke the Agreement on
Safeguards, and trusted that the Argentine Government would adhere to the spirit and provisions of
the Agreement on Safeguards.  Malaysia sought clarification from Argentina as regards page 4 of its
notification which states that "Chapter XII Transitional provisions" of the Regulation concerning the
application of safeguard measures to imports from non-members of Mercosur establishes a transition
period lasting up to 31 December 1998 during which Mercosur members will continue to apply their
domestic legislation where safeguard measures to be applied by just one of them are concerned.Malaysia sought to clarify what would happen when this transitional period ended on
31 December 1998, in the event that there was a decision to impose safeguard action on the imports of
toys, and as to the consistency of the Regulation with the provisions of the WTO Agreement on
Safeguards.  In this regard, Malaysia requested a copy of the Regulation and of the Decision of the
Mercosur Council No. 17 of 17 December 1996.  Mala ysia would closely monitor the developments
on this subject, as Argentina was an important and growing market and was Malaysia's third
 largest
trading partner in Latin America.
25. The delegate of the United States noted that the notification was not circulated to the
Members until 17 April 1998.  The United States asked Argentina why even though the investigation
was initiated on 3 February 1998, the notification was not submitted to the Secretariat until30 March 1998.  The United States also requested an update on the status of the investigation whether
a public hearing had been held and if not, when was the Argentine Foreign Trade Commission
expected to hold its hearing, conclude the investigation and make a determination on serious injury or
threat thereof.  The United States joined Malaysia 's question to Argentina regarding the notification of
the transitional provisions of the Mercosur Council Regulation. Lastly, the United States requestedArgentina to provide the applied duty rates and bound duty rates for the tariff items within the scope
of the investigation.
26. The European Community noted, as was remarked by the United States, that the decision to
initiate was taken on 3 February 1998 at the latest and was notified on 30 March 1998 and circulation
of this notification to Members was done on 15 April, meaning a total delay of over two months.  It
was the European Community's opinion that this did not comply with the provisions of Article 12 of
the Safeguards Agreement which established that initiations had to be notified immediately.Secondly, the European Community referred to Mercosur's legislations on safeguards which had not
been notified to the Committee.  The European Community called on Argentina or the Presidency of
Mercosur to notify this legislation to the Committee.  This had already been requested during the last
regular meeting of the Committee in the context of the review of Argentina's notification on the
adoption of a safeguard measure on footwear.
27. The delegate of Argentina stated that it would provide answers to any written questions in
writing at the earliest time possible, according to the agreed procedures.
28. The European Community representative stated that there were no written question and
answer procedures for review of notifications of safeguard actions, such as applied for the review of
legislation.  As far as he understood, oral quest ions posed on review of a safeguard action did not
need written confirmation.G/SG/M/11
Page 6
29. The Chairman stated that there was no procedural requirement to pose written questions on
the review of a safeguard action, and called on Argentin a to make every effort to answer orally to the
questions raised.
30. On the first question the delegate of Argentina  answered that the notification of initiation had
been done in conformity with the Agreement.  The public hearing was to be conducted by the Foreign
Trade Commission when the investigation neared it s culmination, before issuing a determination on
serious injury or threat.  What had already taken place was the hearing conducted by the Secretary of
Trade, Investment and Mining.  On the question of when the Foreign Trade Commission was
expected to issue a final determination, the regulation established a maximum duration for the
investigation which would be respected.  On the question pertaining to the duty rates, Argentina
would forward these to the United States delegation as requested.  On the notification of the Mercosur
regulation of Safeguards, Argentina stated that it had informed the Committee that this regulation wasnotified to the WTO and discussed in the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements.
31. The delegate of Malaysia requested that all documents to be provided by Argentina to the
United States also be provided to Malaysia.
32. The United States representative requested clarification from Argentina on how a safeguard
measure adopted by Argentina would apply after 31 December 1998, pursuant to the Mercosur
regulation.
33. The delegate of Argentina responded that Mercosur was presently drafting the regulation
framework on safeguards.  Thus, it was not possible to add any further commentary on the issue of
how the measure would be applied after 1 January 1999.
34. The delegate of Brazil pointed out that on the issue of the notification of the Mercosur
regulation the same questions were raised by the European Community at the last regular meeting of
the Committee, and at that time it was explained that the final text of the decision and the final format
of the measures that would apply after the tran sition period were still under discussion within
Mercosur.  Mercosur countries felt that it was pointless to notify something that was transitory, so
they were waiting to notify the final regulations once they were approved.  He also explained thatwhat was applied was the national legislation of each Mercosur member, which had already been
notified.
35. The delegate of the European Community stated that even if the Mercosur transitional rules
simply established that the national legislation of each country was applicable, they still had to be
notified to the Committee in the interest of transparency.  A notification to the Committee on
Regional Trade Agreements did not cover the obligation to notify safeguards legislation to this
Committee.
36. Regarding the notifications by India, the delegate of Japan noted that in addition to the two
safeguard investigations referred to in Agenda item C. 1, with respect to acetylene black and carbon
black, the Government of India had initiated safeguard investigations with respect to flexible
slabstock polyol, propylene glycol and styrene bu tadiene rubber in January and February 1997.  The
investigation relating to styrene butadiene rubber had been suspended upon initiation of ananti-dumping investigation. Japan was concerned about this situation.  By their nature, safeguard
measures are taken exceptionally, in response to an emergency and in accordance with certain
requirements.  Accordingly, only 14 investigations had been initiated in the world during the past
three years.  However, of these, the Government of India had initiated as many as five investigations
in just three months.  Thus, Japan would be look ing closely at any future action by India with a
particular concern about its consistency with the WTO Agreement and its reasonableness as Indian
trade policy.G/SG/M/11
Page 7
37. The delegate of Japan noted that India had established Customs Tariff Rules with respect to
safeguards as of 29 July 1997, and had notified them to the Committee on 18 December 1997, as
document G/SG/N/1/IND/2.  Immediately before th is notification, India had initiated its first
safeguard investigation at the end of November 1997, after which four other investigations had been
initiated so far.  Japan asked what the changes were in India's safeguard policy which had led to therecent initiation of so many investigations in such a short period of time.
38. In the investigation on acetylene black, Japan considered it extremely questionable that
serious injury had been caused or threatened to the domestic industry, because domestic consumption
had increased.  In addition, production of three of the four applying domestic producers had also
increased compared with imports.  Japan considered extremely questionable that such serious injury
or threat of serious injury, if any, had been caused by the alleged import increase.  Furthermore, the
preliminary finding of injury by India did not refer to the requirement of injury "as a result ofunforeseen developments", because the Indian law did not require this test.
39. The delegation Japan also asked whether India had notified the Committee of its initiation of
investigations with respect to propylene glycol and styrene butadiene rubber.
40. The representative of Singapore expressed serious concerns over the recent safeguard
investigations initiated by India on imports of acetylene black, carbon black and flexible slabstock
polyol of molecular weight 3,000-4,000.  These invest igations, however, were only three of the five
that Singapore was aware of, that had been launched in the last six months.  Singapore's concerns on
these investigations related to both their procedural and substantive conformity with the Agreement
on Safeguards.  Under Article 12.1(a) of the Safeguards Agreement, a Member is required to
"immediately notify the Committee on Safeguards upon initiating an investigatory process relating toserious injury or threat thereof and the reasons for it".  India launched an investigation on imports of
propylene glycol in February which still had not been formally notified to this Committee.  Singapore
sought clarification on the status of this investigation and the reasons for the delay in notification.
Singapore also noted that, as the notifications co ntained in documents G/SG/N/IND/1 to 3 indicated,
the investigations on acetylene black, carbon black and flexible slabstock polyol were launchedsometime in advance of their notification to the Committee.  The representative of Singapore urged
the Government of India in the conduct of these investigations to adhere strictly to its procedural
obligations under the Safeguards Agreement, including notification and consultation.  Singapore also
reserved its right to come back on this and other issues relating to whether the investigations and their
subsequent findings satisfy India's procedural obligations under the Agreement.
41. On the substantive issues, Singapore, restricted its comments to the case on acetylene black,
as Singapore's assessment of the cases relating to carbon black and flexible slabstock polyol was stillongoing.  The investigation on acetylene black had moved ahead with the circulation of the
preliminary findings of the Indian Safeguard Author ity in January of this year.  The preliminary
findings argued that the claims of serious injury lodged by domestic producers were substantiated and
recommended that a provisional safeguard duty be imposed for a period of 200 days pending a final
determination.  Although, no final decision had yet been made on this recommendation Singapore hadserious reservations regarding the findings of the Indian Safeguard Authority.  The operative
provision here would be Article 6 of the Safegu ards Agreement on provisional safeguard measures,
Article 6 states, inter alia , "In critical circumstances where delay would cause damage which would
be difficult to repair, a Member may take a provisional safeguard measure pursuant to a preliminary
determination that there is clear evidence that increased imports have caused or are threatening tocause serious injury".  In Singapore's view, neither the critical circumstances criterion nor the causal
link criterion of Article 6 had been clearly met by the preliminary findings on acetylene black.  It was
doubtful that the phrase "critical circumstances" correctly described the situation of Indian producers
of acetylene black, for two reasons.  First, the stat istics clearly showed that for most of the period of
investigation, India's domestic producers of acetylene black had reported an increase in production.G/SG/M/11
Page 8
Domestic production declined slightly, only towards the tail end of the period of investigation.
Second, there was evidence that domestic producers were facing an increase in market demand during
the period of investigation.  These market conditions negated the critical circumstances justification
for a provisional safeguard duty.
42. Singapore stated that Article 6 also clearly requires clear evidence of a causal link between a
surge in imports and domestic injury.  A simultaneous increase in imports and growing domestic
impairment is insufficient to demonstrate and prove this causal link.  This was because domestic
impairment may also be a function of a host of other factors.  There were reasons to believe that this
had been the case in respect of India's production of acetylene black.  Frequent power failures, labour
problems and a high cost method of production had be en cited as major negatives by various quarters
as preventing domestic producers from adequately satisfying market demand.  These factors may have
underpinned the reported fall in the sales, production and capacity utilisation of domestic producers.Article 4(b) of the Safeguards Agreement clearly stipulates that "When factors other than increased
imports are causing injury to the domestic industry at the same time, such injury shall not be
attributed to increased imports."  Although the preliminary findings of the Indian Safeguard Authority
cited some of these factors, they had not been adequately addressed.  Singapore reserved its rights on
this and other matters relating to the Indian investigations on acetylene black, carbon black andflexible slabstock polyol.
43. Singapore subscribed to the view that safeguards are often critical to the existence and
operation of the GATT, as they function as both safety valves and insurance mechanisms.  But given
that they represent a derogation of GATT commitments, they should only be condoned under careful
scrutiny.  This was precisely why the Safeguards Agreement and Article XIX of the GATT stipulatestrict procedural and substantive obligations that have to be met before safeguard measures can be
invoked.  A failure to meet these obligations not only raised doubts over the legitimacy of these
measures but more importantly it also violated the rights of the affected trading partners. Singapore
appealed to the Indian Safeguard Authority to reconsider its recommendations on acetylene black.
The proposed measure was not only detrimental to the legitimate interests of Singapore producers butalso to Indian interests, including those of dry cell manufacturers and consumers, and vitally affected
the international competitiveness of Indian products.
44. Singapore also viewed with concern the recent proliferation of safeguard actions initiated by
India, and urged the government of India to consider and evaluate carefully each safeguard action to
ensure compliance with the letter and spirit of the WTO Safeguard Agreement.  Such actions have
important impacts on both bilateral trade flows and the security engendered by the rule-based
multilateral trading system.
45. The representative of South Africa expressed his delegation's recognition of India's right to
resort to Safeguard Measures in the event that certain imports cause serious injury to domestic
production.  South Africa was among the top six supplie rs of acetylene black to India. South Africa's
first concern related to India's non-compliance with the provisions of Article 12.1(a) of the Agreement
regarding the procedures for notifications.  The second concern related to substantive issues;  theimposition of the provisional safeguard duty on acetylene black by India was not justified by the
prevailing circumstances.  After having looked at the documentation, the available statistical
information showed that Indian suppliers of acety lene black had more than 97 per cent market share
up until 1996 and 85 per cent in 1997.  Thus, domestic production only declined towards the end of
the period of the investigation;  therefore the a ssumption that the domestic producers would lose the
bulk of the local market during 1998 had not been sufficiently tested nor justified.  Additionally, the
causal link requirement of Article 6 of the Agreement had not been satisfactorily addressed. Loss of
market share by Indian suppliers could have been ascribed not only to the surge in imports but to
other factors, such as hikes in electricity tariffs together with erratic electric supplies and frequent
drops, as well as labour relations problems and others .  South Africa stated that the Indian safeguardG/SG/M/11
Page 9
authority and domestic industry had already recognized these points as the causes for their
predicament; or what Singapore had termed "simultaneous increase in imports and growing domestic
impairment".  South Africa appealed to the Indian safeguard authority to review their
recommendations on acetylene black.
46. The representative of Korea stated that after th e introduction of safeguard legislation in India
last year, several applications for safeguard investigations were filed and the decisions by the Indian
Government to initiate investigations followed.  Although one might expect some trials and errors at
the initial stage of the operation of the safeguard regime, in Korea's view, the Indian Government's
decisions were taken without a thorough review of the seriousness of the injury and of the causality
between the injury and the increase in imports, as required by the provisions of the Safeguards
Agreement.  The Indian Government had decided to initiate an investigation on styrene butadiene
rubber (SBR) on 19 January 1998, although it seemed th at imports of SBR had not caused or were not
threatening to cause serious injury to the do mestic industry.  About one month later, on
26 February 1998, the Indian Government suspended the investigation and transferred the case to the
anti-dumping authority for the reason that an application for an anti-dumping investigation had been
filed.  Considering that the pace of India's trade lib eralization had been rather slow and recent, such
decisions to initiate safeguard investigations on the grounds of a temporary increase in imports ofliberalized items would undermine the Indian Government's commitment to continued trade
liberalization.
47. Another concern of Korea was the lack of information and transparency in the process.  The
Indian Government had failed to notify the WTO of both the initiation and the suspension of the
investigation on SBR.  In the case involving carbon black, the decision of the initiation of a safeguardinvestigation had been made on 5 February 1998.  The notification to the Safeguards Committee
which contained only limited information had not been forwarded until 17 March 1998.  Furthermore,
the initiation of the safeguard investigation on propylene glycol on 26 February 1998 had not yet been
notified.  Recalling that Article 12.1 of the Agreement requires a Member to notify the initiation of an
investigation process "immediately" to the Committee, Korea was concerned that the IndianGovernment had not notified the investigations in a manner consistent with this provision of the
Agreement.
48. Regarding the carbon black case, the Indian industry had argued that the increase in imports
had caused serious injury to the Indian domestic industry, and India had found that, prima facie,
imports of carbon black had threatened to cause serious injury to the domestic producers of carbon
black.  However, the financial reports of Cabot India Ltd., which were only made available in the
submission of the applicants, showed that net profits increased to 140.9 million rupees during theOctober 1996 to September 1997 accounting year compared with 70.9 million rupees for the previous
accounting year.  In particular, during the six months ending on 30 September 1997, when the
applicants argued that there had been a huge increase in imports of carbon black, a net profit of 41.4
million rupees was recorded.  According to Article 4. l(b), a "threat of injury" shall be understood to
mean serious injury that is clearly imminent.  A determination of the existence of a threat of seriousinjury shall be based on facts, not merely on allegation, conjecture or remote possibility.  Korea was
of the view that significant overall impairment of the Indian domestic carbon black industry was not
imminent to the extent necessary to justify the safeguard measure, since the domestic industry was
still making profits on carbon black sales in spite of the increase in imports.  This situation also
suggested clearly that any injury to the domestic industry had been caused primarily by other factors,not by the increase in imports.
49. Korea was aware that the Indian Government would soon make a preliminary decision on the
existence of serious injury to the carbon black industry.  Korea urged the Indian Government to
respect the substantive and procedural requirements of the Safeguards Agreement to ensure
objectivity, neutrality and transparency in the investigation and the application of safeguard measures.G/SG/M/11
Page 10
50. The delegation of the Philippines supported all comments that had been made by Singapore.
He also made specific reference, in relation to Article 12.1(a) of the Agreement to the
28 November 1997 notification of India and its paragraph 7, which stated that "the application has
been examined and it has found that prima facie  increased imports of acetylene black have caused and
are threatening to cause serious injury".  The Philippines noted, that the word prima facie  indicated
that the Indian authorities had found that the petition was sufficient in form and substance to warrant
an investigation. The ordinary meaning of prima facie  was a rebuttable presumption;  if this was what
was meant, the Philippines was concerned that as of the date of initiation, the Indian authorities had
found a prima facie  case of serious injury solely on the basis of allegations by the petitioners.  Adding
to their concerns was the notification itself, which stated that imports had increased and domestic
production had decreased, but did not make any statement whatsoever as to the causal link between
the two, to at least give a semblance of justification to the prima facie  determination.  In January the
Indian authorities had issued a preliminary findi ng that there was serious injury to the domestic
production. This raised the question of what had ha ppened in the preliminary finding.  Did the Indian
authorities, pursuant to having previously found the prima facie  case, impose the burden of proof on the
subjects of the safeguard measure to rebut the presumption of serious injury?
51. The Philippines recognized that it was India's ri ght, like any other Member, to invoke any of its
rights under any of the Agreements under the WTO Ag reement.  In the recent trade policy review of
India, among the statements made by the Secretaria t was that India's overall policy was "more explicitly
export-oriented, increasing the possibility of res ource misallocation".  Up until the end of 1997, India
had never invoked GATT Article XIX or the Agreemen t on Safeguards whereas within the span of a
few months, India had initiated at the least investig ations on acetylene black and two or three other
products. The Philippines trusted that this surge in investigations and the statement in the trade policy
review made by the Secretariat were merely coincide ntal and not intentional.  Measures like safeguards
were the exception to the rule and they must be us ed sparingly by each Member giving regard to the
rights of other Members, following procedures stri ctly, because compliance with procedures ultimately
affects the substantive rights also of the other Members.
52. The delegation of Australia joined in the concerns expressed by other Members about the
apparent direction that India was taking in respect of its safeguards actions in recent months and
causality issues in these investigations. Australia was very concerned if these measures reflected an
effort to substitute previous import restraints.  In the carbon black case the Australian industry had a
direct interest and specific industry comments on the details of that safeguard investigation were
being sought.  Australia therefore expected to revisit this measure at a future point.  Australia was
concerned that this measure sought to replace one set of licensing arrangements with another.According to Australia's current analysis of the data , the loss of profits was due to increased costs in
India and not to the surge in imports.  Like others , Australia was concerned  that India had been slow
to notify the WTO of its decisions to initiate the investigations as required under Article 12 of the
Agreement.  Australia appreciated the notification given to its High Commission in New Delhi, which
was provided at the time of initiation, but this did not obviate immediate notification that had to begiven to the Committee and other Members of the WTO.  Australia echoed the remarks made by
others, which acknowledge the right of any Member to invoke safeguards, but this had to be done in
complete consistency with the Safeguards Agreement.
53. The delegation of Hong Kong, China stated that it had been named in India's safeguard
investigation on propylene glycol although no formal information had been received so far.  Aside
concerns relating to Article 12.1(a), Hong Kong, China was checking to see if it exported this item.
54. The delegate of the United States stated that the United States was named as having an export
interest for two of the products involved, carbon blac k and flexible slabstock polyol, and reserved the
right to raise questions and comments at a later date, after consulting with the US industry.  The
United States sought some clarification on whether there had been a preliminary determination madeG/SG/M/11
Page 11
with respect to the imposition of provisional safeguard measures at least with respect to acetylene
black.  It appeared that this had just been a recommendation, and thus had not yet been notified to the
Committee.  Some mention of this recommendation should have been at least mentioned in the
notification of the initiation of the investigation, had the decision to make such a recommendation
been taken at that earlier date.
55. The delegate of the United States requested India to supplement some of the information that
had been given in each of the Article 12.1(a) notifications.  In this regard, the United States requested
to supplement the tables contained in paragraph 4 by providing the value of imports and the value of
domestic production for each of the periods, as this information had been provided solely in metric
tonnes.  The United States also requested India to provide the data for apparent consumption both in
value and quantity for each of the periods, to provide the applied and bound tariff rates for the
products concerned, and to describe in detail any import restrictions such as the VABAL, which wasreferred to in the acetylene black notification, which were being applied to the products concerned or
were applied at any time during the applicable investigatory period.
56. The representative of the European Community stressed that safeguard measures are
exceptional in nature and because of that all substantive and procedural obligations must be strictly
adhered to.  The European Community was concerned by all five investigations initiated by India, thethree that had been notified and the two that had not.  Subject to confirmation, the European
Community had export interests in all of them.  Procedural requirements should have been met.  As in
the case of Argentina, the word "immediately" which is contained in Article 12.1(a) was not respected
when a notification was made more than a month after an investigation had been initiated. Regarding
the investigation on acetylene black, the evidence that  had been examined by India was not sufficient
in the terms of Article 6, and as stated by Singapore, neither the critical circumstances requirements
nor the causality requirements had been met.  Therefore, India should not impose provisional
measures at this stage because such measures were not warranted.
57. The delegate of Thailand expressed serious concern with regard to India's initiations of
safeguard measures covering at least three products which had been notified to the Committee, and
two other products that other members had mentioned.  Thailand had been named as one of the
affected exporters at least in two cases, i.e. the investigation on carbon black, initiated on
5 February 1998 and notified in the document G/SG/N/6/IND/2 on 17 March 1998, and the
investigation on flexible slabstock polyol of molecular weight 3,000-4,000, initiated on
26 February 1998 and notified to the WTO on 25 March 1998 in document G/SG/N/6/IND/3.
58. Thailand was concerned about the alarming number of safeguard measures that India had
initiated in the course of the past 6 months, and also about the timing of India's notification ofinitiations to the WTO.  Thailand recognized the righ ts of a Member to utilize the provisions provided
for under Article XIX of the GATT 1994 and the Agreement on Safeguards but, recalled that in
applying the provisions of the Agreement, Members must recognize that there is the need to enhance
rather than limit competition in international ma rkets.  Thus, Thailand appealed to India that, in
carrying out her tasks, the language and the spirit of the Agreement  would be adhered to.
59. Thailand requested that, in the course of its investigation on carbon black, the Indian
Safeguard Authority seriously consider the following facts.  Thailand had liberalized its market for
carbon black feedstock by imposing zero tariff on imports of feedstock for the production of exported
carbon black, while India had been imposing very high import tariffs on importation of feedstock
which constitutes more than 50 per cent of the carbon black's total cost of production.  The currencydevaluation caused by the recent financial crisis had not given exporters from such countries the
power to reduce their export prices but the devaluation itself provided the normal change in the
relative price and thus had automatically made carbon black from Thailand relatively cheaper than
other sources, including the highly priced domestic supplies.  This was evident from the tableG/SG/M/11
Page 12
provided by the applicants showing that the import price between 1995 and 1997 from the three
countries with financial crisis had not shown abnormal deviation in Rupees.
60. Recognizing that the procedures of both safeguard cases were still in their investigation stage,
Thailand reserved its right to revert to these specific matters and to the recently notified legislation at
a later stage.
61. Regarding the investigation on imports of carbon black, the representative of  Indonesia stated
that Indonesia recognized the right of every Member to take safeguard action to remedy or prevent
serious injury and to facilitate adjustment.  However, to ensure that the balance of rights and
obligations in the Agreement was not impaired, safegu ard investigations should be used as sparingly
as possible and should not constitute precedent for real harassment.  Indonesia considered that this
investigation opened by India was not consistent with Articles 2, 4, 5 and 12 of the Agreement on
Safeguards.  The initiation would cause serious injury to the trade interests of Indonesia on carbonblack.  Indonesia urged India to bring its measures into conformity with its obligations under the
Agreement on Safeguards.
62. The delegate of New Zealand expressed New Zealand's strong systemic interest in ensuring
that the Safeguards Agreement is used sparingly.  If an investigation were initiated every time there
was an increase in imports and subsequent or simultaneous decrease in domestic production, theCommittee would spend weeks reviewing notifications .  New Zealand acknowledged India's and any
Member's right to revert to the Safeguards Agreement when appropriate.  However, when there was a
causal link it is vital that this be very clearly spelled out in the notification as required by the
Agreement.  New Zealand expressed concern about th e recent sudden increase in India's use of the
Safeguards Agreement.
63. The representative of India stated that some of the issues raised by Members, particularly
those relating to an apparent increase of safeguard measures, had been raised, and were answered,
during India's Trade Policy Review.  However, India would attempt to present a consolidated
response to these issues in the meeting as well.  India very strongly believed in and supported the
rule-based nature of the WTO, and while it recognized the right of domestic industry to raise itsconcerns, it was also conscious of the need to ensure that any preliminary or definitive duties were
imposed only in accordance with the provisions of GATT 1994.  India reiterated that all of the
safeguard actions taken so far, which had been limited to the initiation of safeguard investigations
only, had been taken in accordance with the existing national regulation, which in turn was consistent
with the provisions of the Safeguard Agreement.
64. India noted that Members had pointed to a spurt of safeguard measures in recent months.
India explained that the reasons for this were that, since the end of 1996, the domestic safeguardregulations were being formulated and consequently applications received during this period had been
put on hold.  There were therefore a number of pe nding applications which had to be considered
together, once the domestic regulations had been finalized.  After closely examining and following the
due process, the competent authority had taken a decision to initiate preliminary investigations in
some of these cases.  This naturally resulted in a bunching up of safeguard notifications.  It wouldtherefore be clear to Members that the bunching together of safeguard notifications, which pertained
only to the initiation of preliminary investigations, had been because of these circumstances.
65. India recalled  that some delegations, while accepting the right of India to initiate safeguard
action, had expressed concern over the procedure wh ich had been followed, and by implication that
which were proposed to be followed in the course of the investigations. India appreciated the spirit inwhich these observations had been made, but was doubtful regarding their substance.  So far, India
had only initiated preliminary safeguard investigations.  While the competent authority had proposed
provisional duties in the case of acetylene black, this proposal had yet to be confirmed.  One specificG/SG/M/11
Page 13
procedural concern that Members had expressed in this regard related to the period between the
initiation of the safeguard investigations and their notification to the WTO.  Article 12 of the
Agreement on Safeguards states that a Member shall immediately notify the Committee on
Safeguards upon initiating an investigatory proces s.  Although the term immediately had not been
elaborated upon, if one were to take the accepted use of the term, not just in the context of theSafeguards Agreement, but also in the context of other agreements where the term "immediately" was
used, it was clear that it implied notification by the concerned Member as early as possible.  India was
in compliance with its obligations under this section of the Safeguards Agreement, as it had notified
all three safeguard investigations in the month following that in which the action was initiated.  The
fourth safeguard investigation had not been notified to the Committee because it had been suspended
immediately after initiation.  As for the fifth safeguard investigation, relating to propylene glycol, this
would be notified to the Committee shortly. Members could not regard this as an undue or deliberatedelay on the part of India to notify this Committee of the actions it had initiated.  This would perhaps
be even more strongly borne out by a cross-country comparison of safeguard measures notified by
other Members to this Committee.  It was therefore clear that the procedures as laid down in the
Agreement had been followed.  The same would also be equally true of the procedures which would
be followed should any of these initial investigations result in preliminary or final duties.
66. Regarding the transparency sought from notifications, the three notifications had all followed
the general format of notifications and had in no small measure provided details of the domestic
industry, the product involved, the year-wise details of imports including their percentage of domestic
production, the details of domestic sales, capacity utilisation etc. and the causal link between
increased imports and the threat of injury to the domestic market.  India considered that theinformation provided in these notifications was more th an sufficient, especially in view of the fact that
all of these notifications related to the initiation of preliminary investigations.  However, India would
provide any additional relevant information that Members may want.
67. On the lack of causal link between an increase in imports and the threat of injury to the
domestic market, while India had noted the points that had been made, particularly with reference tothe notification on acetylene black, these proceedings were quasi-judicial proceedings and it would
therefore be inappropriate for India's delegation to make substantive observations until the competent
authority had taken a final decision.  India's domestic legislation specifically provided for the
proceedings to be quasi-judicial, and not administrative, to ensure the independence and impartiality
of the proceedings.  However, the concerned parties were provided adequate opportunity to furnish
evidence on such aspects which might show the absence of a causal link. India supported a rule-based
multilateral forum and felt that this objective was best served by having procedures in place whichstipulated that the proceedings should be quasi-judicial in nature.
68. The delegate of India noted that, as Members were aware, India had extensively liberalized
and opened up its economy during the last few years.  From applied tariffs which had a peak of 300
per cent some years back, the peak applied tariffs had come down to 45 per cent.  As documented in a
recent World Bank report, the weighted tariffs in India had come down from about 80 per cent toapproximately 20 per cent during the last five years.  Such a rapid reduction of tariffs had perhaps not
taken place in too many countries.  During the Uruguay Round when the negotiations on the
Safeguard Agreement were taking place, the main consideration was that countries like India, which
were being asked to open up their economies at a rapid pace, should be able to deal with a situation of
a surge of imports consequent to the opening up of  the markets, thereby providing a reasonable time
for the domestic industry to restructure itself and/ or to become competitive.  The concerns expressed
by Members were therefore not entirely understandable.
69. Countries like India, which applied tariffs much lower than its bound rates, could obviously
follow two possible courses of action when a domes tic industry was threatened by a surge of imports.
The first and perhaps easier alternative would be to simply increase the applied tariff rates, withinG/SG/M/11
Page 14
bound limits, which would be entirely GATT consistent.  Such a course of action would have its own
implications for India's trading partners as well as the process of restructuring of the Indian economy.
On the other hand, the invocation of safeguard measures had in India's view in-built safety
mechanisms.  Unlike any proposed tariff increase, these measures are not taken unilaterally and are
invoked only after following the due process of investigation, in which the concerned parties had anopportunity of presenting evidence.  Second, any safeguard measure is applied for a limited and
specified period only, and is basically designed to be a temporary measure to provide a reasonable
period to the domestic industry to undertake the necessary structural adjustments.  India assured
Members that it remained committed to following the provisions of the Agreement on Safeguards
both in letter and in spirit.
70. The representative of the European Community stated that he could not agree with India's
interpretation of the word immediately.  Although it  was not defined in the Agreement, this could not
mean one month.  Referring to the notification on carbon black, the decision to initiate was taken on
5 February 1998, and then a period of 21 days was opened for parties to make themselves known to
the authorities.  Another term finishing on 23 March 1998 was opened for interested parties to make
their views known.  When the notification was made to the WTO, on 17 March 1998, the first of these
two deadlines was over and only three or six days were left for the second deadline.  The proceduralobligations in the Agreement were extremely importa nt because they allowed parties to defend their
interests.  It was difficult for the European Co mmunity to inform its exporters of an ongoing
investigation if the notification was not made in due course.  With modern communication
technology, it was difficult to argue that more than four weeks were needed for a notification to arrive
from India to Geneva.
71. The representative of Singapore expressed his disagreement with India's interpretation of
Article 12.1(a). Procedural obligations are extremely important, and although there was no
understanding on the meaning "immediate", the investigations on propylene glycol and styrene
butadiene rubber had not been notified at all.  On styrene butadiene rubber, the investigation had been
suspended so there was a double inconsistency, in th at there was a failure to notify the initiation and
the subsequent suspension of the investigation.  On propylene glycol, a circular had been sent to the
exporting countries' embassies in New Delhi in February, but it had taken more than a month and a
half for the notification to be made to the Committee.
72. Regarding the notification of the United States on Wheat Gluten, the delegation of Japan
stated that his country heavily relied on imports of feed grains, and the increase or decrease of imports
greatly affected the supply and demand of Japan's domestic feed grain market.  Therefore, Japan was
very much interested in the international supply and demand of corn gluten for feed and its potentialsubstitute wheat gluten.  Japan was concerned that the introduction of US safeguards would increase
imports of wheat gluten to Japan and would affect the relevant industry.  Japan noted that GATT
Article XIX:1(a) specified as a condition the existence of unforeseen developments in introducing
safeguards.  Japan asked the United States to explain how they identified the unforeseen
circumstances and how the introduction of safeguards on wheat gluten satisfied the conditions ofArticle XIX:1(a). Concerning the country by country allocation of quotas in the proposed measure by
the United States International Trade Commission, Japan asked the US delegation to explain why
Australia and the European Community were explicitly included in the allocating, and the relationship
between this country by country allocation and the relevant WTO provisions.
73. The delegate of the European Community info rmed the Committee that the Community had a
number of concerns with respect to the finding of serious injury on the investigation of wheat gluten.
The European Community in accordance with Article 12.3 of the Agreement had requested
consultations with the United States. The European Community regretted that although the request for
consultations had been made on 5 March, immediately af ter the first notification of injury was made, the
United States had not agreed to hold consultations until very recently.G/SG/M/11
Page 15
74. The delegate of the United States stated that he  did not have replies to both questions that were
raised by Japan, in particular the question rega rding the unforeseen circumstances with respect to
Article XIX:I(a).  In response to the second question raised by Japan regarding the ITC's
recommendation on quota allocation for the European Co mmunity and Australia, he noted that this was
a recommendation only from the ITC.  US domestic procedures provided for an inter-agencyrecommendation that would go to the President for consideration and a final decision.  As was noted in
one of the supplementary notifications, the date for this final decision would not occur probably until the
end of May.  In its recommendation, the ITC had not specifically recommended measures to be directed
solely against the European Community and Australia.  The recommendation was for specific
allocations of a quantitative restriction for the European Community and Australia, the two major
sources of imports subject to the recommended quot a, and for all other countries other than those
specifically excluded from the recommended action. C ountries that were specifically excluded include
Canada, Mexico, Israel, the Caribb ean Basin Economic Recovery Act countries and the Andean Trade
Preference Act countries.  Of these countries,  the US delegate noted that there were no
recommendations with respect to Canada and Mexico because a negative finding was made pursuant to
Section 3.11(a) of the NAFTA Implementation Act.  With respect to the Caribbean Basin Economic
Recovery Act countries, the Andean Trade Preferen ce Act countries and the US Free Trade Agreement
Act, the Commission was required to state whether a nd to what extent its findings and recommendations
applied to an article that was the subject of an affirmative determination under Section  202 of the US
domestic safeguards legislation when imported from the beneficiary countries or from Israel.  The
Commissions' findings and recommendations in this case  did not apply to these countries since, with the
exception of one importation from Ecuador during the period of investigation, there were no reported
importations of wheat gluten from any of these count ries during the period of investigation.  None of
these countries was known to be a significant producer or exporter of wheat gluten.  With respect to the
comment made by the European Community regarding Article 12.3 consultations, the US delegate
confirmed that Article 12.3 consultations had been  scheduled not only with the European Community
but also with Australia.  With respect to the European Community's comment regarding its 5 March
request for consultations, at that time the USITC had not yet issued its final report which included not
only its determination but also its recommendations .  Under US domestic procedures, the ITC first
makes a determination of serious injury caused by increased imports and then initiates the second stage
of its investigation which addresses the remedy issue.  It was this ITC final report which was not yet
available.  This information was reported in the in itial notification, and as further information became
available a revised notification was made following the standard format.  Additionally, a copy of the
USITC report was made available to those countries identified as interested exporting countries, and acopy was left with the Secretariat for review by ot her Members.  The United States felt that there was
sufficient time for consideration of the informati on to be provided by the European Community and
other interested Members prior to recommendations  being made by the inter-agency group to the
President, and the President's ultimate determinati on. The United States believed that its transparency
obligations had been more than adequately fulfille d and welcomed the opportunity to consult with the
European Community and Australia and any other interested Members about both the USITC
determination and the recommendations for remedies.
75. The Committee took note of the statements made.
(iii) Notifications regarding the non-application of safeguard measures to developing
countries
76. The Chairman noted that since the Committee's last meeting, Brazil had notified the
Committee concerning the list of developing countries to which Brazil's measure on toys did not
apply (G/SG/N/11/BRA/1).
77. The representative of Brazil informed the Committ ee that it had notified the modification of the
list of developing countries that were exempt from the measure.G/SG/M/11
Page 16
78. The Committee took note of the statements made.
79. The Chairman reminded Members that as in the legislative review, any questions concerning
the notifications of actions taken for which written responses were requested were to be submitted to
the Member concerned and to the Secretariat no later than 20 May 1998.  Written answers were to be
submitted by 17 June 1998.
D. Notifications related to pre-existing Article XIX measures
80. The Chairman noted that since the Committee's last meeting, a number of notifications had
been received concerning pre-existing measures.  Cyprus had notified a supplement to its timetable
for phasing out its measures covered by Article 11 (G/SG/N/5/CYP/Rev.1/Su ppl.2).  Slovenia had
notified two supplements to its timetable for phasing out its measures covered by Article 11
(G/SG/N/5/SVN/Suppl.1 a nd Suppl.2).  Nigeria had notified certain pre-existing Article XIX
measures covered by Article 10, and had asked the Committee for a waiver from its notification
obligation under Article 12.7 of the Agreement  (G/SG/N/2/NGA).  The United States and Nigeria
had exchanged written questions and answers concerning Nigeria's notification of pre-existing
measures.
81. The Chairman recalled that at the Committee's October 1997 meeting, the delegation from
Cyprus was unable to be present to report orally on Cyprus' progress in phasing out its notified Article
11 measures.  The Committee had requested that Cyprus provide a written report in this regard, in lieu
of the oral statement.  This report was contained in the notification from Cyprus that was on the
agenda.
82. The delegation of Cyprus reported that there was no change to the timetable for the
elimination of pre-existing safeguard measures that was contained in its notification.
83. The delegation of Slovenia reported that, as c ontained in its supplemental notification, as of
1 January 1998 there were no pre-existing safeguard measures in force.
84. The delegation of Nigeria reported that Nigeria was consulting with the United States and other
delegations on its notification, and would report on the results of these consultations at a later stage,
together with the response to the  written questions.
85. The delegation of the United States noted that some of the questions that had been submitted
in writing had not yet been answered.  The United States had posed several written questions
regarding Nigeria's notification of import prohibitions on wheat flour, sorghum, millet, gypsum and
kaolin as pre-existing safeguard measures.  The United States had also expressed concerns on this
subject in informal bilateral consultations.  In particular, it appeared that Nigeria was claiming that the
import prohibitions of these products were pre-existing Article XIX measures, yet it had provided noinformation to the Committee which indicated that any of the requirements of Article XIX of
GATT 1947 were satisfied prior to the imposition of the import prohibitions.  The United States had
requested references to each of the applicable GATT documents by which the import prohibitions had
been notified to the GATT Contracting Parties.  The United States also requested that Nigeria identify
the Contracting Parties that had substantial export interests in each of the products concerned as of thedates on which the measures were first imposed.  The United States asked whether the Government of
Nigeria had afforded each of these Contracting Parties an opportunity to consult about the proposed
measures prior to their imposition, as required by paragraph 2 of Article XIX of the GATT of 1947.
In the reply to the US questions concerning the notification, Nigeria had stated that because the
products at issue were not subject to a tariff concession, the import prohibition on these products wasnot generally subject to GATT disciplines in trade defense measures.  The United States asked
Nigeria to explain the basis for the assertion that  Article XIX of GATT 1947 only applied to productsG/SG/M/11
Page 17
subject to tariff concessions.  Also, how could Nigeria reasonably argue that the import prohibitions
should be covered as pre-existing measures when it acknowledged the measures were not subject to
GATT Article XIX disciplines on trade defense measures?  The United States noted that the
Article 12.7 notification was not submitted by the Government of Nigeria until after the United States
requested information about the import prohibitions.  In response to a request by the United States, atthe 6 May 1996 meeting of the WTO Safeguards Committee, the Nigerian representative had stated
that these measures would be notified promptly to the Committee.  Given that the Government of
Nigeria was well aware of the notification requirements of Article 12.7, its rationale for requesting a
waiver of the notification requirements was not clear.
86. The representative of Australia sought clarification as to whether Nigeria was asking for a
waiver to Article 12.7, which could not be given by the Committee but by the General Council.
Nigeria, in its replies to questions, seemed to cl aim that any trade restricting measure taken before
entry into force of the WTO but now in breach of its WTO obligations could be claimed to be a pre-
existing measure under Article 10.  This was not the case.  Article 10 measures must have been taken
pursuant to Article XIX.  Issues of safeguards in a general sense and questions of injury were
irrelevant if Nigeria did not need Article XIX cover for any reason, i.e. no tariff binding.  In that
circumstance, the measure did not fall under Article XIX, nor, therefore, under Article 10.
87. The European Community shared the concerns of the United States and Australia.  The
European Community saw nothing in the notification of Nigeria which might make those measures
qualify under Article XIX.  None of the Article XIX requirements had been met, and thus this
measures could not be characterized as being under Article XIX.
88. The delegate of Nigeria stated that responses in writing would be provided as quickly as
possible.
89. The Committee took note of the statements made.
E. Other business
90. As a matter under other business, the Chairman informed the Committee of his report to the
Chairman of the Council for Trade in Goods concerning the activity of this Committee since
December 1997.  The Goods Council Chairman had requested such a report by 15 April, in
connection with his preparations for the upcoming Ministerial Conference.  The Chairman had told
the Goods Council Chairman that as of 15 April the Committee had not met and had otherwise taken
no action since December 1997.
91. The Committee took note of the statement made.
F. Date of next regular meeting
92. The Chairman recalled that the Committee had agreed that its regular meetings normally
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 on Subsidies and Countervailing
Measures.  Given the number of days in the fall that would be needed for meetings covering anti-dumping issues, he proposed that the Committee's next regular meeting be held in the week of
19 October 1998.
93. The Committee so decided.G/SG/M/11
Page 18
G. Election of officers
94. The Committee elected Mr. Shishir Priyadarshi of India as Chairman, and Mr. Robert Kasper
of the United States as Vice Chairman, of the Committee.
95. The meeting was adjourned.
__________