WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED  
 G/SG/M/13  
21 July 1999  
 (99-3024)  
  Committee on Safeguards   
 
 
 
 
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING  
HELD ON 23 APRIL 1999  
 
Chairman:  Mr. S. Priyadarshi (India)  
 
 
1. The Committee on Safeguards (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 23 April 1999.  
2. The following agenda was adopted:  
Page  
 
 A. NATIONAL LEGISLAT ION – REVIEW OF NEW OR AMENDED  
  NOTIFICATIONS NOT PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED  ................................ ..............  4 
 
  (a) Benin - G/SG/N/1/BEN/1 + Corr.1  
  (b) Dominica - G/SG/N/1/DMA/1  
  (c) Egypt - G/SG/N/1/EGY/2  
  (d) Peru - G/SG/N/1/PER/2  
  (e) Suriname - G/SG/N/1/SUR/1  
 
 B. NOTIFICATIONS OF A CTIONS RELATED TO SAFEGUARD MEASURES  ..... 5 
 
  (i) Notifications of initiations of investigations  ................................ ..................  5 
 
   (a) Czech Republic – Cane/beet sugar (G/SG/N/6/CZE/1 + Suppl.1)  
  (b) Ecuador – Sandals (G/SG/N/6/ECU/1)  
  (c) India – Phenol (G/SG/N/6/IND/7)  
  (d) Slovenia  – Swine meat (G/SG/N/6/SVN/1)  
  (e) United States – Lamb meat (G/SG/N/6/USA/5)  
  (f) United States – Steel wire rod (G/SG/N/6/USA/6 + Corr.1)  
 
  (ii) Notifications of application of provisional safeguard measures  ....................  9 
 
   (a) Czech Republic – Cane/beet sugar  (G/SG/N/7/CZE/1 + Suppl.1)  
   (b) Slovenia – Swine meat (G/SG/N/7/SVN/1 + Suppl.1)  
 
  (iii) Notification of findings of serious injury or threat thereof caused by  
   increased imports  ................................ ................................ ..........................  10 
 
 (a) Australia – Frozen boneless pork (G/SG/N/8/AUS/1)  
 (b) Egypt – Safety matches (G/SG/N/8/EGY/1)  
 (c) India – High density board (G/SG/N/8/IND/3)  
 (d) India – Propylene glycol (G/SG/N/8/IND/4)  G/SG/M/13  
Page 2 
 
 
 Page  
 
 (e) India – Slabstock foam (G/SG/N/8/IND/5)  
 (f) United States – Lamb meat (G/SG/N/8/USA/3 + Corr.1 & Corr.2)  
 
  (iv) Notification of termination of an investigation with no safeguard measure  
   imposed  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  15 
 
 (a) India – Hard board (G/SG/N/9/IND/2)  
 (b) Australia – Meat of swine (G/SG/N/9/AUS/1)  
 
  (v) Notification of decision to apply a safeguard measure  ................................ . 15 
 
 (a) Egypt – Safety matches (G/SG/N/10/EGY/1)  
 (b) India – Acetylene black (G/SG/N/10/IND/1)  
 (c) India – Carbon black (G/SG/N/10/IND/2)  
 (d) India – Propylene glycol (G/SG/N/10/IND/3)  
 (e) India – Slabstock foam (G/SG/N/10/IND/4)  
 
  (vi) Notifications regarding the te rmination of safeguard measure  ....................  17 
 
 United States – Broom corn brooms   
 (G/SG/N/10/USA/1/Suppl.1 +G/SG/N/11/USA/1/Suppl.1)  
 
 C. ARGENTINA --RESOLUTION MEYOSP 1506/98 ON FOOTWEAR  
  (REQUESTED BY THE UNITED STATES)  ................................ ..........................  17 
 
D. OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 18 
 
 (i) US - impositio n of import restrictive measures on steel products  
  (requested by Japan)  ................................ ................................ .....................  18 
 (ii) Argentina – safeguard investigation on toys (requested by Malaysia  
  and the EC)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 18 
 (iii) Brazil – Mid-term review of safeguard measure on toys (requested  
  by the EC)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 19 
 
 E. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING  ................................ ................................  19 
 
 F. ELECTION OF OFFICERS  ................................ ................................ ......................  19 
 
3. Before the agenda was adopted, the representative of Argentina  raised concerns over the 
inclusion on the agenda of item C, regarding Resolution MEyOSP 1506/98 on footwear.  This item 
shou ld not be discussed in this Committee, as the resolution was subject to a dispute settlement 
procedure and was being discussed before the Panel on Argentina – Safeguard measures on imports of 
footwear .  Argentina’s concerns had been set forth in a note to the Chairman of the Committee dated 
13 April  1999, with a copy to the Chairman of the DSB, which indicates that Argentina had no 
objection to having the notification pertaining to Resolution MEyOSP 1506/98 circulated to the 
Committee.  The note further sta tes that this Resolution was under consideration by a Panel and that 
Argentina objected to including this item in the agenda for this meeting because any discussion in the 
Committee would threaten the obligation to maintain the necessary confidentiality of  those 
proceedings.  In addition, the this matter also had been placed under the dispute settlement process by 
the United States itself (document WT/DS164/1), and therefore the discussion should not take place in  G/SG/M/13  
 Page 3 
 
 
 the Committee, given that the same party wh ich raised the matter here had also placed it in a different 
legal context.   
4. Argentina recognised the right of any Member to ask for a point to be included in the Agenda, 
as well as the right of any Member to object to the inclusion of such point if it co nsidered this 
necessary.  Nevertheless, Argentina was not going to object to the adoption of the agenda of the 
meeting as there were substantive aspects that could affect the functioning of the WTO with respect to 
procedural questions concerning agendas of  Committees.  Adopting the agenda including item C, 
Argentina would not be able to intervene regarding any argument that might be raised by another 
Member concerning Resolution 1506/98, so as not to violate the confidentiality imposed by Article 14 
and 18 of the DSU.  Likewise Argentina considered that any reference to subjects under consideration 
in dispute settlement by any Member that was participating in such a procedure would infringe the 
obligation of confidentiality.  Therefore, while Argentina would  not object to the adoption of the 
agenda, it was of the view that no discussion should take place concerning item C. Argentina would 
proceed on that basis and reserved its right to raise this question in the DSB.  
5. The representative of the United States  responded that Resolution MEyOSP 1506/98 on 
footwear had been notified to the Director -General of the WTO by Argentina, with a copy to the 
Committee on Safeguard, but that it had not been submitted formally to the Committee.  This 
notification advised the Di rector -General that Argentina had imposed quantitative restrictions on 
footwear imports.  The US noted that these quotas applied in addition to the specific duties that were 
in place, with some modifications, since 1993.  
6. The US had consulted bilaterally wi th Argentina in March 1999 regarding the substance of 
the information provided to the Director -General and therefore would not raise additional substantive 
questions in the Committee.  Nevertheless the US was interested in the comments of and responses to 
questions posed by other delegations regarding this notification.  Second, the purpose of placing the 
item on the agenda was to discuss the systemic aspects of notification of items of interest to the 
Committee. A primary objective of the Agreement on Safe guards and the creation of the Committee 
was to ensure transparency involving the process pertaining to the imposition of safeguard measures.  
The US recalled that at the Committee’s previous meeting in November 1998, the US delegation had 
asked Argentina to confirm that the Government of Argentina was preparing to modify the specific 
duties that had been notified by Argentina as safeguard measures to footwear import, by imposing 
quantitative restrictions.  The Committee should have been advised when a deci sion was made to 
impose such a measure.  The US asked Argentina why it had decided to notify the Director -General 
and not this Committee of these quantitative restrictions.  
7. The Representative of Argentina  stated that such a debate placed Argentina in an in equitable 
situation, in that in replying they ran the risk of infringing the confidentiality rule of the DSU.  To 
involve Argentina in such a debate would force them to put forward their arguments which had been 
sustained and were being dealt with in anoth er legal context.  Argentina also expressed the view that it 
was not appropriate for a Member which was a third party to a dispute, and which therefore had 
access to confidential presentations which took place under the DSU procedure, to bring up in the 
Committee the same issues which were being debated before a panel.  
8. The Chairman  reminded all Members of the confidentiality requirements under the DSU, and 
asked that the parties and third parties to the dispute who might wished to take the floor when this 
agenda item was reached to ensure that their interventions maintained the confidentiality of the 
dispute settlement process.  G/SG/M/13  
Page 4 
 
 
 A. NATIONAL LEGISLATION – REVIEW OF NEW OR AMENDED NOTIFICATIONS 
NOT PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED  
 
9. The Chairman  recalled that, as indicated in WT O/AIR/1048, questions regarding the 
legislative notifications to be reviewed at the meeting were to have been submitted to the Member 
concerned and to the Secretariat no later than 2 April 1999.  The deadline to submit in writing any 
questions asked o rally at the meeting to which a written reply was desired was 14 May 1999, and the 
deadline for written answers to all written questions was 4 June 1999.   
10. The Committee proceeded to the substantive review of the notifications on the agenda.  
11. The questions concerning the notification of Egypt can be found in the following document:  
G/SG/Q1/EGY/1 (submitted by the United States)  
Answers to these questions can be found in the following document:  
G/SG/Q1/EGY/2  
12. The questions concerning the notification of Peru c an be found in the following document:  
G/SG/Q1/PER/1 (submitted by the United States)  
Answers to these questions can be found in the following document:  
G/SG/Q1/PER/2  
13. No questions were received regarding the notifications of Benin , Dominica  or Suriname . 
14. The Chairman  reminded the Committee 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, and therefore the Committee’ s records are left incomplete 
when questions are not answered or are only answered long after the meeting where the review has 
taken place.   
15. The Chairman also reported that as of the date of the meeting, the following 37 Members had 
not made a legislative  notification: Angola, Antigua & Barbuda, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, 
Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Democratic Republic of 
the Congo, Djibouti, Gabon, the Gambia, Grenada, Guinea Bissau, Guyana, Kuwait, Kyrgyz 
Republic, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Papua 
New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts & Nevis, Saint Vincent & Grenadines, Sierra Leone, Solomon 
Islands, Swaziland, Tanzania, and Togo.  He noted that this situation left a n unfortunate gap in 
transparency with respect to legislative notifications, and urged all Members who have not yet done 
so to make the required notification, which in the case where no legislation exists was a very simple 
“nil” notification.  
16. The Committe e took note  of all statements made.   
  G/SG/M/13  
 Page 5 
 
 
 B. NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RELATED TO SAFEGUARD MEASURES  
 
 (i)  Notifications of initiation of investigations (Art. 12.1(a) ) 
 
 (a) Czech Republic – Cane/beet sugar (G/SG/N/6/CZE/1 & Suppl.1)  
 
17. The representative of th e Czech Republic  stated that this investigation was initiated by the 
Ministry of Agriculture on the basis of a petition filed by the Czech -Moravian Sugar Association 
which represented Czech producers of sugar accounting for more than 94 per cent of domesti c 
production.  The Ministry of Agriculture by means of public notice made it possible for all interested 
parties to present evidence and their views, including to respond to the presentations of other parties.  
The reason for the initiation of the investig ation was the increase in imports of sugar into the Czech 
Republic under conditions which caused or threatened to cause serious injury to the domestic 
industry.  The Ministry of Agriculture would, in harmony with the respective provisions of the 
Agreement,  publish a report stating its findings and conclusions, including analysis and demonstration 
of the relevance of the factors examined.  
18. The representative of Poland  stated, concerning this notification as well as the 
Czech  Republic’s notification of applica tion of a provisional measure (agenda item B(ii)(a)), that the 
geographical proximity of Poland and the Czech Republic led to their having intensive trade relations.  
In industries of neighbouring countries, due to easier access to their neighbours’ market s, it was natural 
that under certain conditions export supplies tended to be concentrated during certain periods on a 
neighbour’s market.  Poland had a substantial interest as exporter of the product under investigation 
(beet sugar only as cane sugar is no t produced in Poland) in the context of the initiation of investigation.  
Poland requested import statistics broken out geographically for the period indicated in the notifications 
to the Committee.  Poland also requested clarification of the import figure s in the notification, including 
on imports of the product from Slovakia.  Poland drew attention to the exclusion of Slovakia as a source 
of imports covered by the introduced provisional safeguard measure, and sought clarification of how this 
exemption cou ld be justified, being a departure from the provision of the Article 2.2 of the Agreement 
on Safeguard which states safeguard shall be applied to a product being imported irrespective of its 
source.  In this context, Poland asked that the statistics on imp orts of sugar from Slovakia cover the 
period after imposition of the provisional safeguard measures with prior periods.  Poland sought 
confirmation that the decision to impose provisional measures had been based on a sufficiently broad 
analysis covering al l of the factors enumerated in Article 4.2.(a) of the Agreement, including capacity 
utilisation, production level and employment, which were factors which had not been expressly 
mentioned in the delivered notifications. Polish authorities were studying the  matter and would continue 
to do so, and Poland reserved its right to invoke any relevant provisions of the Agreement at an 
appropriate time if necessary.  
19. The delegate of the United States  stated that with respect to the determination of critical 
circumsta nces, the notification provided information on the quantity of sugar imports but did not 
provide any information on levels of domestic production or apparent consumption during the covered 
periods, nor did it contain any information relating to the situati on of the domestic industry, including 
changes in the level of sales, production, productivity, capacity utilisation, profits and losses and 
employment.  The United States asked whether the Czech Ministry of Agriculture had considered 
these factors when it  made its preliminary determination, and whether a report of this preliminary 
determination had been published.  The measure had been applied as an 80 per cent additional import 
duty to all imported sugar, irrespective of source, with the exception of impo rts originating from the 
Slovak Republic.  The US asked whether imported sugar from any countries other than the 
Slovak  Republic enjoyed margins of preference in duty rates, even after the application of this import 
duty.  G/SG/M/13  
Page 6 
 
 
 20. Regarding import statistics broken  out geographically, the delegate of the Czech Republic  
provided the following data covering the previous two years.  If more detailed information was 
required, the Czech delegation would provide it at a later date:  
 Economic years1 
1996/97  1997/98  1998/ 992 
Slovak Republic  286 11,943  8,199  
Poland  215 71 28,500  
Germany  5,875  2,644  2,097  
Other EC countries  2,200  435 811 
Others3 347 2,283  3,079  
 
1 Economic year means a period from 1 October to 30 September.  
2 Period from 1 October 1998 to 16 April 1999 . 
3 Reimports of sugar originated in the Czech Republic.  
 
21. The representative of the Czech Republic  stated that the Slovak Republic was exempted from 
the provisional measures because another measure had been adopted with respect to the 
Slovak  Republic prior  the initiation of the investigation and the adoption of the provisional measures.  
In harmony with the principal of the Agreement that no double actions should be imposed to 
counteract the injurious effect of imports, the Slovak Republic was exempted from  the provisional 
measure.  This treatment of the Slovak Republic was without prejudice to the position of the 
Czech  Republic concerning the relationship between Articles XIX and XXIV of GATT 1994.  
Regarding the investigation, the Ministry of Agriculture h ad considered all factors which were 
relevant to the investigation including the position in the domestic market, capacity utilisation, profit 
of the domestic industry and development of the domestic industry’s share of the domestic market.  
The Ministry o f Agriculture had evidence of a substantial increase of sugar imports into the Czech 
Republic and evidence on the conditions under which these imports were realised.  If the average 
price of imports in the last marketing year was at 100 per cent, in the pe riod just prior to initiation of 
the investigation, this price level was around 50 per cent.  If not counteracted, there was evidence of 
threat of serious injury caused to the domestic industry, and this was the reason why the Czech 
authority decided to ac t on the basis of exceptional circumstances under Article 6 of the Agreement in 
initiating the investigation and taking provisional measures.  Another factor supporting the need to 
take immediate action under exceptional circumstances was the situation of the sugar beet growers in 
the Czech Republic.  If no action was taken, there was a threat that there would be no contracts 
between the growers and the sugar factories.  In such a case, the position of the sugar industry in the 
Czech Republic was threatened  with very serious injury.  
22. The delegate of Hong Kong, China  asked for clarification of the Czech Republic's position 
concerning the relationship between Articles XIX and XXIV of GATT 1994.  Among all of the 
parties, only Slovakia had been exempted from the  safeguard measure.  It therefore was not clear 
whether the relationship between Articles XIX and XXIV was applicable in this specific context. The 
delegation of Hong Kong, China would reflect on any further information that would be provided by 
the Czech delegation.  
23. The delegate of Poland  asked for clarification concerning the mentioned alternative measure 
that was applied to imports from the Slovak Republic, in particular whether this measure had a 
context within the WTO provisions and whether it had been  notified to any body of the WTO.  
24. The representative of the Czech Republic  responded that the injurious effect of imports from 
the Slovak Republic's importations had been resolved on a bilateral basis, which had not been 
notified.  The solution was based o n the customs union between the Czech Republic and the Slovak  G/SG/M/13  
 Page 7 
 
 
 Republic and had eliminated the injurious effect of imports of sugar from the Slovak Republic.  
Therefore a double action was not needed toward Slovakia.  
25. The Chairman  noted that any questions c oncerning notifications of actions related to 
safeguard measures for which written responses were requested should be submitted in writing to the 
Member concerned and to the Secretariat no later than 14 May 1999, and that written answers should 
be submitte d by 4 June 1999.  
 
 (b) Ecuador – Sandals (G/SG/N/6/ECU/1)  
 
26. The representative of Ecuador  stated that, as indicated in the notification, the investigation 
undertaken by the Government of Ecuador and carried out by the Ministry of Foreign Trade, 
Industriali sation and Fisheries was initiated on 12 January 1999.  The investigation was underway and 
comprised the tariff headings which were identified in detail in the notification. The investigation had 
not yet been concluded, and as soon as there was change in t he situation, Ecuador would notify the 
Committee.  
27. The European Community  asked Ecuador to identify the main countries exporting sandals to 
Ecuador.  The representative of Ecuador  responded that he would provide the information to the EC.  
28. The Chairman  reque sted that a copy also be sent to the Secretariat.  
 
 (c) India – Phenol (G/SG/N/7/IND/1)  
 
29. The representative of India  stated that the investigation on phenol was initiated on 
2 February  1999 and the Committee was notified on 11 February 1999.  This investi gation was 
initiated on the basis of an application by the domestic industry regarding increased imports of phenol 
and the threat of serious injury which was caused by the increased imports.  Information contained in 
the notification in paragraph 5.(a), re lated to the production in 1996/97 contained a typographical 
error.  The notification indicated 59,281, while the correct figure was 69,281.  The various parameters 
were indicated in the notification, and the investigation was underway.  No provisional mea sure had 
been imposed in this case (or in any other case in India to date).  
30. The representative of Japan  noted that the number of safeguard measures taken by India had 
recently increased.  The investigation on phenol was preceded by recent impositions of sa feguard 
measures on slabstock polyol, acetylene black, carbon black and propylene glycol.  Concerning 
phenol, Japan had explained at the hearing in New Delhi that the recent increase of imports was due to 
strong domestic demand which could not be accommoda ted by domestic production.  Likewise the 
decrease of exports was due to the declining price competitiveness in the face of a sharp decline in 
international prices.  The causal link between imports and threat of serious injury to domestic industry 
had not been established. In Japan’s view, safeguards are emergency and exceptional measures which 
should be taken under certain conditions stated by the Agreement.  Japan would follow developments 
in the investigation closely to ensure that measures were consiste nt with the Agreement, and would 
keep in mind the possibility of requesting consultations under Article 12.3 of the Agreement.  
31. The representative of the European Community  noted that in the past, the EC had criticised 
India for late notifications, and ther efore wanted to thank the Indian delegation for this very timely 
one.  An attempt apparently had been made was made to check statistical data with the exporters so 
that two obstacles for procedural problems had been moved out of way very efficiently.  The 
representative of  the United States  also thanked India for the timeliness of this notification.  G/SG/M/13  
Page 8 
 
 
 32. The representative of Malaysia stated that although Malaysia was not a principal supplier of 
this product, it had some export interests and thus was following this case closely.  Malaysia thanked 
India’s Director -General of Safeguards for the explanations provided bilaterally to Malaysia regarding 
this case.  
33. The representative of India  responded regarding the surge in the number of investigations, 
which  had bee n addressed in the Committee previously, that although the Agreement came into effect 
on 1 January 1995, India’s domestic legislation was put in place only in September 1997.  Thus, for 
about three years the domestic industry was making applications that c ould not be pursued.  During 
these three years, about 30 cases already were pending with the Indian authority.  When the authority 
was appointed under the domestic legislation, it examined all of the cases.  Out of the 30  cases, 
investigations were initiat ed in respect of six cases where there was prima facie evidence that 
initiation was necessary.  Out of these six cases, only in respect of four had it been recommended to 
impose a safeguard duty, and at that moment, duties were being enforced in only three  cases. During 
the previous one year, only the investigation in respect of phenol had been initiated.  This 
investigation was underway.  Japan had made submissions to the Indian authority which were a 
subject matter of further investigation.  It was not ap propriate to make any comments on those issues 
that were under consideration in the investigation.  The Indian delegation appreciated the comments 
of the EC and the US, and was trying to make improvements in the timely submission of notifications.  
 
 (d) Slovenia – Swine meat (G/SG/N/6/SVN/1)  
 
34. The representative of Slovenia stated that his delegation would send the answers to the US 
written questions (G/SG/Q2/SVN/1) to that delegation and to the Secretariat.  The provisional 
measures had been terminated on 1 6 January, and a report was under preparation which would be sent 
to the Secretariat once it was ready.  Slovenia also was preparing a legislation on safeguards and 
would be notified to the Secretariat in due time.  
35. The representative of Colombia  requested information on the importation of swine meat for 
the full years 1997 and 1998, as the information available from the notification covered the three -
month periods of August -October 1997 and 1998  
36. The representative of the European Community  welcomed the term ination of the and removal 
of the measures.  The EC asked whether the provisional measures already paid by the EC exporters 
(which are among the main suppliers) would be reimbursed to them , given that there had not been a 
finding of serious injury or of th e other relevant conditions detailed in the Agreement.  
37. With regard to the question raised by Colombia, the representative of Slovenia referred to the 
written reply to the United States in which the relevant statistics were provided. Concerning the 
question  of the European Community, the representative of Slovenia would pass these questions on to 
the capital for answers.  
 
 (e) United States – Lamb meat (G/SG/N/6/USA/5)  
 
38. There were no interventions regarding this notification.   
  G/SG/M/13  
 Page 9 
 
 
 (f) United States – Steel wir e rod (G/SG/N/6/USA/6 & Corr.1)  
 
39. The representative of the United States  stated that it had attached to this notification a copy of 
the petition that had been filed with the US International Trade Commission (“USITC”) and which 
formed the basis for initiat ing of the investigation, and that this petition contained considerable detail.  
40. The representative of the European Community  requested more detailed factual information, 
for example concerning the imports into the United States by origin, and all of the fa ctors that the 
Unites States had evaluated for the initiation of this procedure. The notification mainly referred to the 
procedure itself rather than the facts.  The European Community understood that the petitioners in this 
case had requested that a numbe r of products, falling within the definition of steel wire rod, be 
excluded from the possible application of safeguard measures.  The European Community asked how 
this exclusion from the definition would influence the actual determinations on increased imp orts, 
serious injury and causality.  Since these products already in the petition were excluded from the 
scope of a possible measure, they should be excluded from the scope of the determinations. The EC 
also asked what consideration the United States had g iven to the fact that in the previous three or four 
years there had been three or four determinations, in the context of anti -dumping and countervailing 
duty procedures, that the steel wire rod industry in the US was not materially injured.  These standard s 
were different, and since serious injury is the higher standard, the EC asked on what basis the 
procedure had been initiated, given that the same authority, the USITC, had in these previous cases 
ruled that there was no material injury.  
41. The representativ e of Japan  stated regarding the USITC’s investigation of steel wire rod that 
Japan would watch the situation closely.  Whatever judgement the US Government would make on 
this issue should be strictly consistent with its WTO obligations.  
42. The representative  of the United States  stated that one of the problems in providing factual  
information in this case is that the USITC is obliged to open an investigation upon receiving a petition 
from the petitioners, and in the interest of providing the notification on the most timely basis, the US 
had provided all of the information available at that time, i.e., that contained in the petition, which 
was provided as an attachment to the notification.  Nevertheless, if the European Community made a 
written request for mor e specific information, the US would provide a written response.  Regarding 
product coverage, the USITC as part of the investigation considers what the domestic industry is and, 
in that situation would look at like or directly competitive products. With re spect to findings of no 
material injury in the anti -dumping cases, the relevance of those questions was not clear as safeguard 
investigations look at entirely different factors.  Regarding Japan’s comment, the United States noted 
that a hearing had been he ld by the USITC in this case on 15 April.  
43. The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
 
(ii) Notifications of application of provisional safeguard measures  
(a) Czech Republic – Cane/beet sugar (G/SG/N/7/CZE/1 & Suppl.1)  
(b) Slovenia – Swine meat (G/SG/N /7/SVN/1 & Suppl.1)  
44. The Chairman  noted that the notifications relating to the Czech Republic’s provisional 
measure on cane/beet sugar and to Slovenia’s provisional measure on swine meat had been covered 
under the previous agenda item.  There were no furthe r interventions concerning these notifications.  G/SG/M/13  
Page 10 
 
 
  (iii) Notifications of a finding of serious injury or threat thereof caused by increased 
imports.  
 
 (a) Australia – Swine meat (G/SG/N/8/AUS/1)  
45. The representative of Australia  stated that although the produ ctivity Commission of Australia 
had concluded that a safeguard measure was justifiable under the Safeguards Agreement, the 
Government had decided not to impose border measures.  Rather, it took the decision to increase the 
existing domestic adjustment assi stance which was provided to the swine meat industry, as Australia 
considered that in the light of circumstances this was more appropriate than a safeguard action.  
46. The representative of Canada  stated that Australia's decision to provide adjustment assistan ce 
to its domestic industry rather than to implement trade restrictive measure should be applauded.  
Canada also noted that it still had concerns with respect to provision of Australia’s safeguards 
legislation and procedures, as discussed during the consul tations.  
 
 (b)  Egypt – Safety matches in boxes (G/SG/N/8/EGY/1)  
47. The representative of Egypt stated that the notice of initiation of safeguard investigation 
concerning safety matches in boxes had been issued on 6 August 1998 and had been published in the 
official gazette on the same day.  A copy of the notice also had been sent to all known interested 
parties whether domestic producers, importers, foreign producers, exporters or foreign Governments, 
namely: India, Pakistan, Sweden, Turkey, and China.  Verif ication of the information considered 
necessary for the investigation had been undertaken and a team of investigators had visited the 
domestic industry.  A public hearing of all interested parties had been held on 1 October 1998.  All 
parties had been give n the opportunity to make written submission during and after the hearing, but 
some parties had not submitted any written comment during or after the hearing.  The essential facts 
and conclusions had been circulated to all parties and Governments of export ing countries, and all 
parties had been asked to submit their comments by 21 January 1999.  Comments had been received 
from the Government of India, from Nile Company for Matches, from Wooden Houses – Egypt, and 
from the Pakistani Match Manufacturing Assoc iation.  The product under consideration was safety 
matches in boxes which enters under HS Tariff heading 36.05.00 which does not include "comb" 
matches made of paper.  Regarding evidence of serious injury caused by increased imports, a full 
range of facto rs relating to the industry had been examined.  The industry’s prices had been depressed 
and undercut by imports, production, market share, sales and utilisation of productive capacity of the 
industry had declined seriously and there was a substantial decl ine in profits. As provided in the data 
in the notification, the conclusions reached in the investigation that serious injury occurred in 
association with significant increases in imports could be summarised as follows:  Imports had 
significantly increased  since 1996, both absolutely and in relation to production, and the rate of 
increase was accelerating.  There had been significant reductions in production, capacity utilisation, 
sales, and the domestic industry’s market share since 1996.  There had been s ignificant depression of 
average selling prices in the first four months of 1998 compared with average selling prices in 1997.  
The industry had suffered a series of substantial declines in profits over the period under review, 
especially since 1996, and t he rate of decline was accelerating.  Other factors also affected 
profitability.  Employment had declined significantly since 1996.  Egypt invited written questions 
from all delegations in need of further clarifications.  
48. The representative of the European  Community  indicated that his delegation had a number of 
concerns.  First, the procedure was initiated and the provisional safeguard measure applied prior to 
Egypt’s adoption of the relevant detailed rules which had been notified by Egypt to the Committee,  
and which had been discussed under a previous agenda item.  It appeared that Egypt considered that 
the Agreement on Safeguards was directly applicable, and that therefore no detailed rules were  G/SG/M/13  
 Page 11 
 
 
 needed.  In the view of the European Community, however, the Agreement on Safeguards specifically 
required that a procedure could be initiated only pursuant to previously established detailed rules.  
This legal vacuum had led to the initiation of the safeguard procedure on the basis of an anti -dumping 
complaint, alt hough the standard, the information and the conditions that were contained in anti -
dumping complaints were different from those that should be the basis of a safeguard investigation.  
Regarding the merits of the case, it had been extremely difficult to for  the EC to reach a final 
conclusion on this, given that almost all of the figures had been considered confidential.  While the 
European Community considered that the confidential treatment of certain information was 
warranted, basic macroeconomic data whic h were the basis for the adoption of the safeguard measures 
could not be considered confidential.  Regarding the holding of consultations under Article 12.3, the 
Agreement required that such consultations be offered prior to the adoption of measures.  The 
European Community noted that it had held consultations with Egypt on 10 February, at which time 
the European Community was not aware that in fact the measure already had been imposed on 1 
February, and already had been notified to the Committee in a notif ication sent on 1 February, thereby 
preventing any substantive discussion within the context of Article 12.3.  
49. The representative of Egypt  responded that these questions had been discussed at the 
Committee’s previous meeting as well as during the consultati ons with the European Community in 
Cairo. If  the EC submitted the questions in writing, Egypt would reply again, in writing,  
50. The representative of Egypt then presented orally Egypt’s written answers to the written 
questions that had been submitted by Turk ey.  Turkey’s questions were circulated in document  
G/SG/Q2/EGY/4.  Egypt’s answers were circulated in document G/SG/Q2/EGY/5.  
 
 (c)  India – High -density hardboard (G/SG/N/8/IND/3)  
 
51. The representative of India  stated that in respect of high density boar d the investigation had 
been concluded and the competent authority had found that it was not necessary to recommend any 
safeguard duties.  
52. The representative of Thailand  welcomed this notification on hard board as well as the 
notification of termination of a safeguard investigation with no safeguard measure imposed (included 
under the following agenda item).  Particularly in view of Thailand's statement at the Committee’s 
November 1998 meeting, Thailand was happy to see that in the public interest conclusion s section of 
India’s notification on hardboard, a broad perspective had been taken into account of factors, 
industries and users, and that the importance of a plan to improve the efficiency of the domestic 
industry of India had been recognised.  Thailand h oped that this would become a tradition among all 
safeguard users in the future.  
 
 (d) India – Propylene glycol (G/SG/N/8/IND/4)  
 
53. The representative of India  stated that the competent authority in the propylene glycol case 
had made a finding of threat of s erious injury.  The domestic producers in this case were stagnating at 
a total production of about 10,000 MT 1994/95, 1995/96 and 1996/97, and similarly, capacity 
utilisation had been stagnating in April -August 1997/98.  However, domestic producers realise d 
production of 5,553 MT and capacity utilisation of about 100.6 per cent in order to contain the per 
metric tonne cost of production which had resulted in closing stocks increasing from 207 MT in 
1996/97 to 1,137 MT that is, by about 449.3 per cent.  The domestic producers had lost sales; as 
compared to total sales of 11,306 MT in 1994/95, they registered total sales of 10,259 MT in 1995/96, 
a loss of  9.26 per cent.  In 1996/97, the domestic producers were able to maintain sales at  the 
1995/96 level but only at the cost of  a reduction in the average selling price from Re 80,658 per MT G/SG/M/13  
Page 12 
 
 
 to Re 74,896 per MT, a reduction of about 7.14 per cent.  In April -August 1997/98, the domestic 
producers achieved total sales of 4,624 MT but only by further reducing thei r average selling price 
drastically to a level of Re 63,060 per MT, a reduction of about 21.82 per cent as compared to 
1995/96 and 15.8 per cent as compared to 1996/97.  In order to retain market share, domestic 
producers had kept on lowering the prices at  the risk of incurring cash losses.  The domestic producers 
also had not been able to meet their financial obligations to banks and financial institutions.  The 
imports in this period increased drastically to 1,744 MT in April -August 1997 -98 from 2,628 MT in 
the entire 1996/97; that is, on a pro rata basis the imports increased by 259 per cent compared to 
1996/97.  The domestic producers could sell only about 83 per cent of their production in April -
August 1997, that too only by reducing their average selli ng price from Re 74,896 per MT to 
Re 63,060 per MT, a reduction of about 15.8 per cent.   Inventory increased from 207 metric tonnes to 
1,137 MT, or by about 450 per cent.  These were the considerations that led the competent authority 
to find a threat of serious injury.  
54. The representative of Mexico , regarding agenda items (iii)(d) and (v)(d), thanked the 
delegation of India for the consultations with the Indian authority, which had resolved the substantive 
concerns that Mexico had had over these matters.  
 
 (e) India – Slabstock foam (G/SG/N/8/IND/5)  
 
55. The representative of India  stated that the competent authority had made a finding of serious 
injury.  The various factors that were analysed included production, sales, stocks, capacity utilisation, 
loss of pr ofit, loss of productivity, loss of employment and surplus capacity.  Production in this case 
increased from 5,762 MT in 1994/95 to 6,831 MT in 1995/96 and 7,050 MT in 1996/97, but  declined 
drastically to 1,122 MT in the first five months of 1997/98, for a decline of 61.8 per cent as compared 
to 1996/97 on a pro rata basis.  Similarly, sales, which reached a peak of 7,133 MT in 1996/97 from 
5,937 MT in 1994/95 and 6,500 MT in 1995/96 declined to 657 MT in the first five months of 
1997/98, or by 78 per cent  as compared to sales in 1996/97 on a pro rata basis.  The domestic 
producers saw their share in apparent consumption reduced from 76.7 per cent in 1994/95 to 70.7 per 
cent in 1995/96, 68.1 per cent in 1996/97 and to a mere 14.6 per cent in April -August 19 97.  That is, 
the domestic producers’ market share was reduced by 366 per cent as compared to 1996/97.  The 
petitioners had been able to maintain this reduced share in the domestic market only at a reduced 
average selling price, which had fallen from Re 81 ,351 to Re 74,800 per MT.  Stocks even at this 
drastically reduced level of production had accumulated to 846 MT at the end of August 1997 as 
compared to 373 MT at the end of March 1997, a level of 227 per cent of stocks in 1996/97.  The 
average sales real ization of both companies had declined over the years as a result of the decline in 
the average sales price.  The domestic producers were unable to reduce the price further even as they 
lost market share as they had reached their limits and started incurri ng cash losses.  They were not 
able to meet their financial obligations to banks and other institutions.  They were maintaining 
production only by borrowing from the market and financial institutions.  They also had lost 
employment and productivity.  These  were the factors which contributed to the conclusion of serious 
injury.  
 
 (f) United States – Lamb meat (G/SG/N/8/USA/3 & Corr.1 & Corr.2)  
 
56. The representative of the United States  stated that USITC had submitted to the President on 
1 April 1999 its report  and recommendations on the impact of lamb meat imports on the domestic 
industry. The USITC had acted in response to a petition filed under section 201 of the Trade Act of 
1974.  In response to the receipt of the report from the USITC, the United States ha d made a revised 
notification of the determination of threat of serious injury caused by increased imports of lamb meat  
and of the USITC’s remedy recommendations on 13 April 1999, which was after the agenda closed  G/SG/M/13  
 Page 13 
 
 
 for this meeting.  In that notification, the United States expressed its readiness to consult with those 
Members having a substantial interest as exporters of the products concerned with the view to, inter 
alia, reviewing the information provided in the notification and in the USITC report, excha nging 
views on the measures and reaching an understanding on ways to achieve the objective set out on the 
Article 8.1 of the Agreement.  The USITC had found that imports of lamb meat were a substantial 
cause of the threat of serious injury to the domestic industry. The six USITC Commissioners had 
spelled out three recommended remedies, i.e., increasing US tariffs on lamb meat, establishing tariff 
rate quotas on lamb meat imports, and quantitative restrictions on imports.  Each remedy 
recommendation was for four years and each included adjustment assistance from existing federal 
programmes and the exclusion of remedy actions against Canada  Mexico, Israel, and beneficiary 
countries in the Caribbean Basin and Andean Preference Acts. The President had to respon d to the 
USITC report within 60 days or by 4 June 1999.  The President had the authority to take whatever 
action in his view would lead to a positive adjustment to imports by the domestic industry and would 
have economic and social benefits that exceeded t he economic and social costs of such actions.  The 
administration was reviewing the USITC report and recommendations and it was too early to 
comment on the President’s response.  During this review the United States was considering the views 
of all interes ted parties.  In considering the report and recommendations, the United States was 
mindful of its international obligations under the Agreement, which provided for action by the 
President, under Section 201, to allow industries to adjust to import competit ion . 
57. The representative of New Zealand  stated that New Zealand had a major interest in the 
investigation undertaken by the United States. New Zealand was disappointed at and concerned with 
the threat of serious injury finding which had been issued by the USITC together with the USITC'S 
recommendations as to possible safeguard measures, all of which would involve trade restriction.  
New Zealand did not consider this finding or recommendation appropriate.  New Zealand had taken 
the opportunity to register at  each step in the USITC process its concerns that the full range of factors 
affecting the US domestic lamb industry be taken properly into account an any decisions in this case. 
These included the long term decline in production and consumption of lamb mea t in the 
United  States. The USITC itself had acknowledged in its finding on the petition that the US sheep 
industry’s problems resulted from inefficiencies in the industry and inadequate market development 
strategies, rather than excess supply caused by im ports.  Imported lamb meat had developed a new 
segment of the US market by ensuring year -round availability of the product and an innovative 
approach to consumer -oriented cuts and packaging. There was therefor considerable scope for the 
domestic and import ed lamb meat industries to work together  to expand overall US lamb 
consumption.  New  Zealand considered that these sorts of approaches constituted the most appropriate 
response to the reality of the US market situation for lamb meat.  Safeguard action was  not justified.  
The US had offered to hold Article  12.3 consultations with New Zealand and Australia.  New 
Zealand welcomed this offer and looked forward to the opportunity this would provide to register 
again the full range of its concerns on the matter .  New Zealand noted that the United States had until 
4 June to consider the USITC's findings and recommendations.  As a WTO Member, New Zealand 
shared a common desire to advance the WTO's trade liberalization objective at  this year's Seattle 
Ministerial Meeting. New  Zealand therefor would look to the US administration to adopt what would 
be a sound course, and one consistent with the objective of eschewing the imposition of trade 
restraints in favour of a constructive, market -expanding response in this ca se. 
58. The delegation of Australia  supported New Zealand’s concerns about the US safeguard 
investigation into imports of lamb meat. Australia had a number of problems with the findings and 
recommendations of the USITC.  The Government of Australia considered that a border measure 
would not be justified in this case, as the problems being faced by the various parties were not being 
caused by imports.  Accordingly, Australia had urged the United States not to introduce safeguards 
measures but to take appropriate  domestic adjustment action.  The imposition of import constraints by 
the United States would be inappropriate and would not facilitate positive adjustments by the US 
industry.   G/SG/M/13  
Page 14 
 
 
 59. Australia had a number of concerns about the approach that the USITC appeared  to have 
taken in the report.  Australia also stated that it had systemic problems with the NAFTA treatment of 
safeguards.  Although Australia recognised in this particular case that the two NAFTA partners were 
not major suppliers, this treatment was not c onsistent with the Agreement.  Australia was concerned 
with the approach of the USITC towards the determination of the domestic industry.  For instance, the 
USITC report included as the domestic industry, for purposes of the Safeguards Agreement, the 
farme rs that breed and raise the lambs (the growers) and the feeders.  As the bulk of lamb meat in the 
United States passes through feed lots, in comparison to the method in Australia and New Zealand, 
where the product is raised on grass rather than in feed lot s, this resulted in a somewhat different 
product.  After the growers and the feeders are the packers (slaughterhouses) and the processors 
(breakers).  It seemed from the report that the United States focused on specialist packers and 
specialist breakers, i .e., those that handle lamb meat.  While these do form the major part of the 
industry there seemed to be little in the report regarding the issue of “major proportion”.  Australia 
raised as an example the product produced by a grower, which would go to a f eed lot.  The grower 
would sell a lamb for fattening some months down the process.  It was difficult to see how a lamb 
going to a feed lot could be regarded as being directly competitive with the carcass of a lamb that had 
gone through a feed lot.  There a lso was the issue of how the lambs that had gone through the feed 
lots should be treated.  There were obviously some differences of views on this subject and it might 
depend on contractual obligations.  Australia had some reservations on the basis of the U SITC report 
regarding the way that the USITC had included the feeders as part of the industry.  
60. In addition, this was a case where there had not been a finding of serious injury, and in 
Australia’s view, where the issue was threat, it was necessary to be d oubly careful.  The USITC had 
found that imports were a substantial cause of the threat of serious injury.  Australia did not accept 
that the USITC had demonstrated in its report that the key conditions were being met and that imports 
were threatening to c ause serious injury and that that serious injury was clearly imminent. There was a 
great responsibility on the investigating authorities to demonstrate the above quite explicitly if there 
was to be a consideration of a safeguard measure.  On the issue of c ausation the problems facing the 
United States growers, feeders, packers and breakers were domestic ones.  Australia referred to the 
New Zealand delegations' identification of some of the issues that had been raised in the investigation, 
i.e. the United St ates’ termination of direct subsidies to producers under the Wool Act and the view 
that the growers and other sectors of the processing trade had not yet adjusted to that; and the view 
that the US industry sectors had failed to market and promote their pro ducts in such a way as to 
encourage the consumption of domestic lamb meat.  This was not a problem that could be addressed 
by import restraints, and indeed imports helped to maintain the market for lamb meat in the 
United  States through the promotional eff orts of the Australian and New Zealand industries.  The 
USITC had not demonstrated causation or that serious injury was clearly imminent.  Moreover, the 
USITC had not met the necessity test in its recommendations of a tariff quota to prevent the alleged 
injury, and the necessity test was an important aspect of the Agreement that needed to be set out 
clearly in the recommendations of the report.  Safeguard action was not warranted in this case and it 
had not been justified in terms of the Agreement.  Austral ia would be putting this view to the 
United  States in their consultations, i.e., Australia’s consistent view that the problems faced by the 
various domestic businesses affected in this case in the United States were of domestic origin and so 
needed to be a ddressed directly through domestic action and not through trade restrictions.   
61. The representative of the United States  responded that his delegation had taken note of the 
comments made by New Zealand and Australia regarding the determination and recommend ations 
that had been made by the USITC.   Each of these was familiar and each had been addressed within 
the context of the report of the USITC which was available for review by interested Members with the 
Secretariat.  The USITC had noted all of these conc erns raised in the course of its investigation and 
responded appropriately to them.  Nevertheless, the United States would attempt to explore them 
further during the Article 12.3 consultations which were scheduled to take place in the following 
weeks.   G/SG/M/13  
 Page 15 
 
 
 62. The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
 
 (iv) Notifications of termination of an investigation with no safeguard measure imposed.  
 
(a) India – High -density hardboard (G/SG/N/9/IND/2)  
(b) Australia – Swine meat (G/SG/N/9/AUS/1)  
 
63. The Chairman  noted that  both notifications had been discussed under the previous agenda 
item.  No further interventions were made on these notifications.  
 
 (v) Notifications of a decision to apply a safeguard measure  
 
(a) Egypt – Safety matches (G/SG/N/10/EGY/1)  
 
64. The representa tive of Egypt  recalled the finding that safety matches were being imported into 
Egypt in such increased quantities in absolute terms that serious injury had been caused and would 
continue to be caused to the domestic industry.  A safeguard measure was requ ired to allow the 
industry to adjust to import competition, and the measure should be in the form of a duty which 
should be phased out proportionately over a period of three years.  In Egypt’s view it was in the 
public interest that imports be allowed to c ontinue.  The domestic industry was in need of adjustment, 
and the industry had a plan for such adjustment that should be mandated by the investigating 
authority.  Egypt did not consider that a safeguard measure substituted for a competitive domestic 
indus try supported only by long term tariffs, and did not consider that a "tax" should be imposed upon 
consumers in any case without the industry having firm plans for improvement which would be 
implemented.  The investigating authority would only contemplate m easures if it was assured by the 
industry that the Egyptian consumers would only be disadvantaged temporarily.  At the end the 
domestic industry would need to be in a position to meet international competition and provide the 
local consumers value for mone y.  In view of these findings, it had been considered that increased 
imports of safety matches in boxes into Egypt had caused serious injury to the domestic producers, 
that the imposition of a safeguard duty for a period of three years would be in the publ ic interest, and 
that the measure should be in the form of a duty because a quota system would not provide price 
restraint through competition with the industry which was undergoing a restructuring phase.  Price 
competition was an essential element in any scheme of structural adjustment for the industry.  Egypt 
had held consultations regarding this case with the European Community and India on 10 and 
11 February 1999.  The results of these consultations were notified to the WTO in accordance with 
Article 12 .5 of the Agreement on 23 March 1999, and were circulated in document G/SG/17 dated 
13 April 1999.  
65. The representative of the United Sates  asked Egypt to identify any countries that had been 
excluded from the application of the safeguard measure on safety m atches, and the reasons for such 
exclusion.  Secondly, the United States asked if Egypt had excluded certain developing Members 
from the safeguard measures as required by Article 9 of the Agreement, and to identify the developing 
countries that had been ex cluded from the measures pursuant to the suggested format for notifications 
under Article 9, footnote 2 which was contained in item 5 of the Annex to document G/SG/W/1.  
66. The representative of Malaysia  asked Egypt to provide the information requested by the 
United States as well as further information on the surtax.  Malaysia supposed that the surtax was an 
imposition in addition to the import duty, and therefore Malaysia sought clarification concerning the 
total duty imposed on imports of safety matches into  Egypt.  G/SG/M/13  
Page 16 
 
 
 67. The representative of Egypt  responded that for the measure on safety matches, there was no 
requirement to make any special provision, as the imports did not meet the specific requirements on 
the shares of imports of developing countries.  Concernin g the total duty, the ordinary customs duty 
was 30 per cent added to which was 30 per cent surtax so that for the first year of the measure, the 
total duty would be 64 per cent, for the next year the total duty would be the customs duty plus 22  per 
cent, a nd for the third year it would be the customs duty plus 11 per cent.  
68. The representative of the United States  requested further clarification concerning the 
exclusion of developing countries, that is, why there was a requirement for a specific provision in this 
regard when it seemed to be clearly spelled out in Article 9.1 of the Agreement.  In particular, did 
developing countries account for more than 3 per cent of the product concerned?  
69. Egypt  responded that there was no requirement to make any special prov ision as the imports 
do not meet the specific requirement of share of imports of developing countries.  In other words, 
there were no exemptions in this case.   
(b) India – Acetylene Black (G/SG/N/19/IND/1)  
(c) India - Carbon Black (G/SG/N/19/IND/2)  
(d) India - Propylene Glycol (G/SG/N/10/IND/3)  
(e) India - Slabstock Foam (G/SG/N/10/IND/4)  
 
70. The representative of India  stated that regarding carbon black, the safeguard duty had already 
ceased to apply, from 1 March 1999, so that at the time only in respect of  three cases (acetylene black, 
propylene glycol and slabstock foam) were safeguard duties in place.  In respect of all of these cases, 
duties were in place for two years or one -and-one-half years.  In no case had the duty been imposed 
for the full period o f three years.   During the period of two years or one -and-one-half years there was 
an element of liberalization of the safeguard measures.  In the case of acetylene black the duty had 
been reduced from 18 per cent to 5 per cent after one year, in the case  of propylene glycol the duty 
had been reduced from 16 per cent to 11 per cent and in the case of slabstock foam the duty had been 
reduced from 20 per cent to 5 per cent.  
71. Regarding the notification on acetylene black, the representative of Singapore  recal led that at 
the past two meetings of the Committee Singapore had expressed its concerns over India’s safeguard 
investigation and the final finding issued in August 1998.  These concerns remained, particularly in 
relation in the establishment of serious inj ury and the causal link criteria, and were well elaborated in 
paragraphs 93 and 94 of the minute of the previous meeting (document G/SG/M/12).   India and 
Singapore had had bilateral discussions with the view to clarifying the situation and addressing some  
of the issues relating to this safeguard action.  While it thanked the delegation of India for its positive 
participation in those consultations, Singapore nevertheless continued to reserve its rights in respect of 
this case.  Singapore sought clarificati on in respect of the exemptions that India has been providing 
for imports under advance licences, and sought further information on what the advance licences 
entailed.  Singapore also noted that India had made attempts to comply with its obligations on 
notifications, as was evidenced in the notification regarding phenol.  Singapore had in the past 
highlighted India's failure to meet these obligations and welcomed the attempts being made recently.  
72. The representative of the United States  stated that the Unite d States had submitted several 
written questions to India and to the Secretariat, regarding all of the notifications grouped together 
(acetylene black, carbon black, propylene glycol and slabstock foam).  Most of these questions were 
items of systemic inte rest as opposed to specific exporters’ interests.  However, the United States had 
the same question as that posed to Egypt, relating to the identification of countries that were excluded 
from the application of the safeguard measures on the products.  In a ddition, the United States asked 
whether India had excluded imports from certain developing country Members from the safeguard 
measures as required by Article 9 of the Agreement.  The United States requested that India provide,  G/SG/M/13  
 Page 17 
 
 
 for each of the products and  countries, a notification in accordance with item 5 of the Annex on 
formats for notifications to this Committee.  The United States also was interested to know more 
about the advance licence system.  The United States was concerned that the imposition of safeguard 
measures only to products not subject to advance licences could increase the trade distortive effects of 
the licences.  The United States also was interested to know whether India had stopped issuing 
advance licences for the products covered by t hese notifications, and if so, on what dates such 
issuance had been halted.  
73. Regarding the notification on carbon black, the representative of Thailand  noted that, 
regarding their consideration of the domestic industry, the Indian authorities had reduced t he rate and 
duration of the safeguard duties on carbon black imports.  As a matter of record, India and Thailand 
had held bilateral discussions during which Thailand was informed regarding two items, the first 
being an explanation of the number of safeguar d measures that India had undertaken in the previous 
two years.  Thailand hoped to see less and less use of safeguards by India in the future.  Thailand also 
had noted that India had attempted to improve the timeliness of its notifications.  For the carbon  black 
case, even though the public notice on the impositions of the safeguard measures was announced in 
October 1998, the notification was not submitted to the Committee on Safeguards until 
February  1999, which definitely hampered transparency.  
74. The repre sentative of India  stated, regarding the exclusion of developing countries from 
application of the measures, that Indian law does provide for exclusion of developing countries having 
a de minimis  share of imports, and that India intended to implement this provision of the law.  
Regarding the advance licences, this was a system permitting imports for export production without 
payment of duty, i.e., a duty exemption scheme.   Since any duty that would be paid at the time of 
importation would be given back as drawback when the goods were exported, this system was 
basically the same as a drawback system, except that the duties were not levied ab initio .  This system 
remained in place.  
75. The Committee took note of the statements made.  
(vi )  Notifications regarding  the termination of a safeguards measure  
United States – Broom corn brooms (G/SG/N/10/USA/1/Suppl.1 -G/SG/N/11/USA/1/Suppl.1)  
76. There were no interventions concerning this notification.  
C. ARGENTINA – RESOLUTION MEYOSP 1506/98 ON FOOTWEAR (REQUESTED BY 
UNITED  STATES)  
77. The representative of the United States  stated that it was concerned over the systemic aspects 
of the notification having been made to the Director -General rather than to the Committee on 
Safeguards.  
78. The representative of Argentina  responded that as was said before the adoption of the 
Agenda, Argentina would not reply in this forum to any comments on this agenda item, and reiterated 
that it was not appropriate to have any discussion of the subject in this Committee so long as the 
subject was before  a panel.  
79. The Committee took note  of the statements made.  G/SG/M/13  
Page 18 
 
 
 D. OTHER BUSINESS  
(i) US – Imposition of import restrictive measures on steel (requested by Japan)  
80. The representative of Japan  registered Japan’s concerns regarding the recent move in the 
United Sta tes relevant to imposition of emergency import restrictions on steel products. President 
Clinton had referred on a number of occasions to the possibility of imposing various measures, 
including self -initiation under Section 201.  Japan also understood that  a bill to relax the conditions of 
injury under this law had been introduced in the Congress, and which would mean that such a bill 
contained WTO inconsistent provisions.  Also, imposition of safeguard measures could violate the 
Agreement on Safeguards, fo r example if they were imposed without sufficient grounds.  Japan was 
concerned and would follow future developments very closely.  
81. The representative of the United States  responded that there had been no change to its 
legislation, and that the United State s was mindful of its WTO obligations.  
(ii) Argentina – Investigation on toys (requested by Malaysia and the EC)  
82. The representative of Malaysia  apologised for not having informed the Argentine delegation 
before raising this point.  He recalled that at the C ommittee’s previous meeting, Argentina had 
indicated that the information available to the Foreign Trade Commission suggested that there was no 
injury, but that no further detail was available at that time, and that subsequently Argentina would 
provide an update to the Committee.  Malaysia asked Argentina to provide that update.   
83. The representative of Thailand  stated that his delegation shared the concerns expressed by 
Malaysia.  
84. The representative of Argentina  responded that this matter had been the object of questions 
during the course of the November 1998 meeting of the Committee.  On the basis of the information 
available at the moment the investigation was initiated, the Foreign Trade Commission was not able 
to determine the existence of materiel injury or threat thereof to the industry in this particular case. 
Subsequently, the petitioner the Argentine Chamber of the Toy Industry had appealed before the 
Federal tribunal.  At the request of that Chamber, the acting judge had ruled to suspended the legal 
deadlines for the investigation until the appeal raised by Chamber was resolved.  
85. The representative of Malaysia  indicated a need for further clarification for which his 
delegation would submit its question in writing.  
86. The representative of Argentina  stated that without prejudice to any written reply, although 
the National Commission for Foreign Trade had determined the non -existence of injury to the national 
industry, there was a later fact, which was that this decision had been challenged before the judicia l 
system.  The judge had decided for a period to suspend the deadlines of the investigation. An 
investigation did not end with the Foreign Trade Commission’s determination of a lack of injury; 
rather this required as well a determination by the Undersecret ariat of Foreign Trade and the authority 
that applies the measure, i.e., the Ministry of the Economy.  The proceeding had not yet reached this 
point because the deadline had been suspended by judicial order.  
87. The representative of the European Community  stated that the EC understood that Argentina 
had recently increased the tariff on imports of toys, and asked if there was any relationship between 
this action and the safeguards case.  
88. The representative of Argentina  responded that concerning the safeguard inv estigation on 
toys, the only development had been that already explained.  That is, in relation to the investigation,  G/SG/M/13  
 Page 19 
 
 
 no measure had been applied except that of the judge.  As to whether or not any tariffs or taxes existed 
on toys, this was not within the competence of this Committee because it was not related to a 
safeguard investigation.  
89. The representative of Thailand  asked if there was any specification of the period of time for 
the suspension, and noted that although there was no format for notifying s uch actions to the 
Committee, because this initiation had taken a very long time, it would be beneficial to transparency if 
Argentina would provide some information regarding the appeal procedure and the resolution of the 
judge.  
90. The Chairman  requested Memb ers to put any remaining questions in writing to Argentina.  
(iii) Brazil – Mid-term review of measure on toys (requested by the EC)  
91. The representative of the European Community  stated that the EC was concerned that the 
mid-term review of Brazil’s measure o n toys should have been completed by March 1998, but the 
European Community had only received the notification concerning the review in April 1999.  The 
European Community asked whether in the review, exporters and exporting countries participated in 
order  to be able to provide their views, because the EC was not aware of any such possibility .  
92. The representative of Brazil  recalled that Brazil had informed the Committee at its previous 
meeting that the review had started in March 1998, and had only been con cluded in October 1998.  
Brazil had not had time to translate and notify the results to the Committee before the October 1998 
meeting.  As far as the Brazil was aware, there had been no requests for consultations by any country 
during the investigation  
93. The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
E. DATE OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING  
94. 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 wi th the regular 
meetings of the Committees on Anti -dumping Practices and on Subsidies and Countervailing 
Measures. In view of the fall meeting schedules of those Committees and related bodies, it was 
proposed that the next meeting of this Committee would be  held on the Friday of the week beginning 
18 October 1999.  
F. ELECTION OF OFFICERS  
95. The Committee elected Mr. Hamish McCormick of Australia as Chairman, and 
Ms. Amy  Yuen of Hong Kong, China as Vice Chairman, of the Committee.  
96. The meeting was adjourned . 
____ ______