RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SG/M/18
11 February 2002
(02-0669)
Committee on Safeguards
DRAFT MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
HELD ON 29 OCTOBER 2001
Chairman Mr. Martin Pospíšil (Czech Republic)
1. The Committee on Safeguards (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 29 October 2001.
2. The following agenda was adopted:
A. NATIONAL LEGI SLATION ..............................................................................................2
1. Review of notifications of new or amended legislation or regulations not previously
reviewed by the Committee (including supplemental notifications of existingprovisions not previo usly reviewed) ....................................................................................2
(a) Burundi ..................................................................................................................... ..........2
(b) Cro atia..................................................................................................................... ............2
(c) Japan ....................................................................................................................... ............2
(d) Jordan...................................................................................................................... ............3
(e) Korea....................................................................................................................... ............3
(f) Madaga scar .................................................................................................................. .......3
(g) Nam ibia..................................................................................................................... ..........3
(h) Oman........................................................................................................................ ...........3
(i) Phili ppines................................................................................................................. ..........3
B. NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RE LATED TO SAFEG UARD MEASURE S...........4
(a) Argentina - Motorcycles ..................................................................................................... 4
(b) Argentina - Peaches ......................................................................................................... ...4
(c) Brazil - Coconuts ........................................................................................................... .....5
(d) Chile - Lighters ............................................................................................................ .......5
(e) Chile – Mixed Oils.......................................................................................................... ....5
(f) Chile – Synt hetic Socks ..................................................................................................... .5
(g) Chile – Wheat, Wheat Flour, Suga r, and Edible Vegetable Oils ........................................6
(h) Czech Republic - Footwear.................................................................................................6
(i) Czech Republic - Isoglucose...............................................................................................6
(j) Egypt – Powdered Milk ......................................................................................................6
(k) India - Phenol.............................................................................................................. ........7
(l) Japan – Tatami-Omote, Welsh Onion and Shiitake Mushrooms........................................7
(m) Jordan – Chocolates / Biscuits ............................................................................................7
(n) Korea - Garlic .............................................................................................................. .......8
(o) Morocco - Bananas ........................................................................................................... ..8
(p) Philippines - Cement........................................................................................................ ...8
(q) Philippines – Ceramic Tiles ................................................................................................8
(r) El Salvad or - Rice .......................................................................................................... .....8
(s) El Salvador - Fertilizer.................................................................................................... ....8G/SG/M/18
Page 2
(t) Slovak Repub lic - Sugar ..................................................................................................... 9
(u) United States – Wire Rod..................................................................................................11
(v) United Stat es – Steel ....................................................................................................... ..11
(w) United States – Wheat Gluten...........................................................................................13
(x) United States – Line Pipe..................................................................................................1 3
(y) Venezuela  - Tyres ........................................................................................................... ..13
C. OTHER BU SINESS............................................................................................................13
1. Nigeria – pre-existing measures.........................................................................................13
2. Article 12.5 notifications................................................................................................... ..14
D. ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCI L FOR TRADE IN  GOODS...........................14
E. DATE OF NEXT RE GULAR ME ETING........................................................................14
A. NATIONAL LEGISLATION
1. Review of notifications of new or amended legislation or regulations not previously
reviewed by the Committee (including supplemental notifications of existing provisions
not previously reviewed)
3. The Chairman recalled that questions regarding legislative notifications were to have been
submitted to the Member concerned and to the Secretariat no later than 8 October 2001.  The
Chairman noted that written questions had been submitted by the European Communities regarding
the legislative notification made by the Philippines on 11 October 2001.
4. The Chairman recalled that follow-up questions could be asked at this meeting, and that other
delegations also had an opportunity to present questions orally at this meeting.  If Members wished to
have written answers to questions, they should ensure that all questions were presented in writing to
the Member whose legislation was concerned, and to the Secretariat, no later than 19 November 2001.
Written answers to all questions submitted in writing by that deadline should be submitted to theSecretariat no later than 10 December 2001.
(a) Burundi
5. There were no comments or questions regarding the "nil" notification submitted by Burundi
in document G/SG/N/1/BUR/1.
(b) Croatia
6. The delegate of Croatia made a number of opening remarks regarding the legislative
notification contained in document G/SG/N/1/HRV/1.  He stated that the notified legislation
contained general provisions that could not be applied in the absence of implementing regulations.He further noted that Croatia had committed, during accession negotiations, not to apply its
safeguards legislation until the requisite implementing regulations had been adopted.  He stated that
such regulations were currently being prepared by the Ministry of Economy.
(c) Japan
7. There were no comments or questions regarding Japan's legislative notification contained in
document G/SG/N/1/JPN/3.G/SG/M/18
Page 3
(d) Jordan
8. There were no questions or comments regarding the legislative notification submitted by
Jordan in document G/SG/N/1/JOR/1/Corr.1.
(e) Korea
9. The representative of Korea informed the Committee that the legislative notification
contained in document G/SG/N/1/KOR/4 concerned a si mple renumbering of certain provisions of the
Customs Act.  There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.
(f) Madagascar
10. There were no comments or questions regarding the "nil" notification submitted by
Madagascar in document G/SG/N/1/MDG/1.
(g) Namibia
11. There were no comments or questions regarding the "nil" notification submitted by Namibia
in document G/SG/N/1/NAM/1.
(h) Oman
12. There were no questions regarding Oman's "nil" notification contained in document
G/SG/N/1/OMN/1.  The representative of Oman stated that draft safeguards legislation was currently
under review by the Ministry of Legal Affairs. The law would be issued by a royal decree once theprocess was finalized and the approval was given.
(i) Philippines
13. The Chairman noted that the European Communities had submitted written questions
regarding the legislative notification submitted by the Philippines in document G/SG/N/1/PHL/2.  The
questions are contained in document G/SG/Q1/PHL/1.
14. The representative of the Philippines stated that, in view of the forthcoming Ministerial
Conference at Doha, his delegation had not yet ha d an opportunity to reply to the EC questions.
15. The delegate of the European Communities regretted that the Philippines had not yet
responded to the questions submitted by the EC, especially as safeguard investigations were currently
underway in the Philippines.  Indeed, these investigations had been initiated well before the
Philippines made its legislative notification to the Committee.
16. The Chairman reminded the Committee of the importance of providing written answers to
written questions posed.  As Members were aware, the exchange of written questions and answers
constituted the Committee's only record of the review of legislations.  Thus, the Committee's records
were left incomplete when written questions were not answered, or only answered long after the
meeting where the review took place.  In this context, the Chairman urged all Members to abide by
the deadlines set by the Committee for the provision of written replies to written questions.
17. The Chairman informed the Committee that there were still 35 Members that had not yet
made any legislative notification:G/SG/M/18
Page 4
Albania, Angola, Antigua & Barbuda, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Burkina Faso,
Cameroon, Central African Republic, Cong o, Democratic Republic of the Congo,
Djibouti, Gabon, the Gambia, Georgia, Grenada, Guinea Bissau, Guyana, Kuwait,
Lithuania, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mo ldova, Mozambique, Niger, Papua New
Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts & Nevis, Saint Vincent & Grenadines, Sierra Leone,Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Tanzania and Togo.
18. The Chairman urged those Members to make the required notification.  The Chairman
reminded Members that, in cases where no legislation existed, only a very simple "nil" notification
was required.
19. The Committee took note of the statements made.
B. NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RELATED TO SAFEGUARD MEASURES
20. The Chairman noted that a large number of notifications of actions related to safeguard
measures had been received since the previous meeting. In order to ensure that all of those
notifications could be reviewed in the limited time available, the Chairman suggested that the
Committee address each investigation separately, and review all notifications pertaining to each
investigation at the same time. The Chairman info rmed Members that any questions concerning the
notifications under review for which written responses were requested should be submitted to the
Member concerned and to the Secretariat no later than 19 November 2001.  Written answers shouldbe submitted to the Secretariat no later than 10 December 2001.
(a) Argentina - Motorcycles
21. The Chairman noted that notifications made by Argentina regarding its investigation on
motorcycles were contained in documents  G/SG/N/8/ARG/3 + Add. 1 + Corr. 1 & 2,
G/SG/N/10/ARG/ 2 + Add.1 + Corr.1 & 2, G/SG/N/ 11/ARG/2 + Add. 1 + Corr. 1 & 2,
G/SG/N/10/ARG/4, a nd G/SG/N/ 11/ARG/4.
22. There were no comments or questions regarding these notifications.
(b) Argentina - Peaches
23. The Chairman noted that notifications made by Argentina regarding its investigation on
peaches were contained in documents G/SG/N/6/ARG/4/S uppl.3, G/SG/N/7 /ARG/2/Suppl.3,
G/SG/N/8/ARG/4, G/SG/N/10/ ARG/3, and G/SG /N/11/ARG/3.
24. The representative of the European Communities re gretted that Argentina had still not replied to
the questions put by the EC at the last meeting, as set forth in document G/ SG/Q2/ARG/9, since in the
meantime Argentina had imposed definitive measures on imports of peaches.  In the view of the EC,
these measures were inconsistent with a number of provisions of the Safeguards Agreement.  Without
wishing to revisit all of the issues raised by the EC  at the Committee's last regular meeting in respect of
the provisional duty imposed by Argentina, the re presentative of the EC noted that Argentina had
imposed a definitive duty of 88 per cent ad valorem.  According to the EC, such an exceptionally high
duty was in breach of Article 5 of the Safeguards  Agreement,  because no justification had been
provided of why that extremely high level was necessary.  The EC delegate also raised concerns
regarding Argentina's injury determin ation in this investigation, and the fact that Argentina had already
increased the applicable tariff to the bound rate, and imposed countervailing duties on imports of
peaches from the EC.G/SG/M/18
Page 5
25. The representative of Argentina stated that his delegation would be circulating written replies to
the EC's questions in the coming days.  He stated that any WTO Member had the right to raise its tariffs
to bound rates.  He also expressed the view that the simultaneous application of countervailing duties
and safeguard measures on the same product was not in consistent with the Safeguards Agreement, since
they were two separate instruments addressing two separate factual situations.
26. The delegate of Chile informed the Committee that his delegation had requested consultations
with Argentina under Article 23.1 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding ("DSU") and Article 14 of
Safeguards Agreement, and that such consultations had taken place on 2 October 2001 in Geneva.
27. The representative of the United States expressed concern at Argentina's failure to provide
written replies to the EC's written questions, and looked forward to the prompt submission of such
replies.
(c) Brazil - Coconuts
28. The Chairman noted that Brazil had notified the initiation of an investigation on coconuts, as
set forth in document G/SG/N/6/BRA/2.
29. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.
(d) Chile - Lighters
30. The Chairman noted that Chile had notified the initiation of an investigation on lighters, as set
forth in document G/SG/N/6/CHL/6.
31. The representative of Chile stated that Chile had decided not to impose any provisional
safeguard measure pending completion of the investigation.
32. The representative of the European Communities expressed concern regarding the standards of
initiation applied by the Chilean authorities.  A lthough the Safeguards Agre ement did not contain any
provisions regarding the standards for initiation, the applicable jurisprudence had confirmed that
safeguard actions were only warranted in emergenc y situations.  According to the EC, this condition
should be taken into account when investigating aut horities consider whether or not to initiate an
investigation.  The EC delegate also stated that, acco rding to the information available, imports had been
declining from 1998 to 2000.  While there had been some  increase in the first months of 2001, there had
been an important increase only in April 2001.  This one month increase had apparently been sufficient
basis for Chile to initiate an investigation.  The EC  delegate also expressed concern regarding the like
product definition for the investigation, since it include d two different products that were very different
as to technical characteristics: imported lighters a nd domestic matches.  Although Chile had sought to
ensure a fair comparison of the two products by de termining "lights" as a unit of measurement (650
lights for lighters, and one light for a match), this  approach had not been fully explained in Chile's
notification.
(e) Chile – Mixed Oils
33. The Chairman noted Chile's notification regarding the termination of its investigation on
mixed oils, as set forth in document G/SG/N /9/CHL/3.  There were no comments or questions
regarding this notification.
(f) Chile – Synthetic SocksG/SG/M/18
Page 6
34. The Chairman noted that Chile had made a number of notifications regarding its investigation
on socks of synthetic fibres, as set fo rth in documents G/ SG/N/6/CHL/3/Suppl.1,
G/SG/N/7/CHL/4/Suppl.1, G/SG /N/9/CHL/2/Suppl.1, G/SG/N/10/CHL/2/ Suppl. 2 & 3, and
G/SG/N/11/CH L/2/Suppl. 1.
35. The representative of Chile informed the Comm ittee that these notifications concerned Chile's
decision to extend the relevant safeguard measure by six months.
36. There were no other comments or questions regarding these notifications.
(g) Chile – Wheat, Wheat Flour, Sugar, and Edible Vegetable Oils
37. The Chairman noted that Chile had made a number  of notifications regarding its investigation
on wheat, wheat flour, sugar and edible vegetable oils as set forth in documents
G/SG/N/6/CHL/2/Suppl.1, G/SG/N/7/CHL/2/Suppl.2, G/SG/N/8/CHL/1/Suppl .2, G/SG/N/10/CHL/1/
Suppl.3, G/SG/N/11/CH L/2/Suppl.2 and G/SG /N/14/CHL/ 1/Suppl.1.
38. The delegate of Chile stated that the safeguard measures relating to wheat and wheat flour had
been lifted as of 27 July 2001.  The measure applicable to imports of sugar and oil would expire on
25 November 2001.
39. The representative of Colombia reiterated Colo mbia's concern that it had expressed at the
previous regular meeting of the Committee in respect of Chile's safeguard measure because it did not
meet the conditions provided for in the Safeguards  Agreement, nor did it comply with Article XIX of
the GATT.  Also she reiterated the serious conc ern in the Colombian sugar industry regarding the
measures that had been adopted by Chile.
(h) Czech Republic - Footwear
40. The Chairman noted that the Czech Republic had notified the termination of its investigation
on footwear, as set forth in document G/SG/N/9/CZE/1.
41. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.
(i) Czech Republic - Isoglucose
42. The Chairman noted that the Czech Republic had made a number of notifications regarding
its investigation on isoglucose. These notifications were contained in documents G/SG/N/8/CZE/2,
G/SG/N/10/CZE/2, a nd G/SG/N/11/CZE/2.
43. There were no comments or questions on these notifications.
(j) Egypt – Powdered Milk
44. The Chairman noted that Egypt had made two notifications regarding its investigation on
powdered milk. The notifications were contained in documents G/SG/N/8/EGY/4 and
G/SG/N/10/EGY/4.  Egypt had also made a joint notification with the European Communities
concerning this investigation, as set forth in document G/SG/N/12/EGY/1 & G/SG/N/12/EEC/6.
45. The delegate of the European Communities referred  to the concerns raised by the EC at the
Committee's last regular meeting.  He reiterated the EC's opposition to the safeguard measure imposed
by Egypt.  He asked whether Egypt was going to carry out a mid-term review of that measure.G/SG/M/18
Page 7
46. The representative of Egypt stated that he would forward the EC's question to his capital.
(k) India - Phenol
47. The Chairman noted that India had made a notification regarding its investigation on phenol,
as set forth in document G/SG/N/8/IND/6/Suppl.1.
48. The representative of India stated that India proposed to extend its safeguard duty on imports
of phenol, but stressed that the safeguard duty was less than the bound rate.
49. The delegate of Mexico noted that only an insignificant quantity of phenol was exported from
Mexico to India from 1999 to 2000.  The delegate of Mexico queried why the measure against
imports from Mexico had not been lifted in accordance with Article 9.1 of the Safeguards Agreement,
and asked India to specify how the Indian auth orities had determined that imports from Mexico
threatened to cause serious injury to the Indian domestic industry.  In addition, Mexico asked why it
had not been afforded an opportunity for consultations prior to application of the measure, consistent
with Article 12.3 of the Safeguards Agreement.
50. The delegate of India asked Mexico to provide its questions in writing.
(l) Japan – Tatami-Omote, Welsh Onion and Shiitake Mushrooms
51. The Chairman noted that Japan had made two notifications regarding its investigation on
tatami-omote, welsh onion and shiitake mushrooms. These notifications were contained in documents
G/SG/N/7/JPN/1 and G/SG/N/11/JPN/1.
52. There were no comments or questions regarding these notifications.
(m) Jordan – Chocolates / Biscuits
53. The Chairman noted that Jordan had made a number of notifications regarding its
investigation on chocolates and biscuits. These notifications were contained in documents
G/SG/N/6/JOR/1/Suppl.1, G/SG/N/6/JOR/1/Suppl.2 & Corr.1, G/ SG/N/8/JOR/1, G/ SG/N/9/JOR/1,
G/SG/N/9/JOR/1/Corr.1, G/SG/N/9/JOR/1/Rev.1, and G/SG/N/10/JOR/1.
54. The delegate of Jordan stated that his country had terminated its investigation on chocolate
without imposing any measure.  Jordan had, how ever, decided to impose a safeguard measure on
imports of biscuits.  Jordan was consulting bilaterally with exporting Members.
55. The representative of the European Communities criticised the lack of information contained
in Jordan's notifications, and requested more details of Jordan's findings.  The EC also asserted that
Jordan had failed to provide for consultations before the measure took place, contrary to Article 12.3
of the Safeguards Agreement.
56. The delegate of Jordan stated that the notifications respected the format set by the WTO, and
that all details of the investigation were in the final report.
57. The delegate of Turkey was pleased to note that Jordan had decided to terminate the
safeguard investigation on chocolate without imposing a safeguard measure. However, Turkey still
had concerns regarding the investigation on biscuits.  Turkey was pursuing these concerns bilaterally
with Jordan.  Turkey would keep the Committee info rmed of any developments resulting from these
bilateral consultations.G/SG/M/18
Page 8
(n) Korea - Garlic
58. The Chairman noted that Korea had made a notification regarding the results of the mid-term
review of its safeguard measure on garlic, contained in document G/SG/N/13/KOR/2.
59. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.
(o) Morocco - Bananas
60. The Chairman noted that Morocco had made two notifications regarding its investigation on
bananas.  These notifications were contained in documents G/SG/N/8/MAR/1 and G/SG/N/10/MAR/1.
61. There were no comments or questions regarding these notifications.
(p) Philippines - Cement
62. The Chairman noted that the Philippines had notified the initiation of an investigation on
cement.  The notification was contained in document G/SG/N/6/PHL/1.
63. The delegate of Japan stated that cement exported from Japan should be excluded from the
scope of the investigation, because it was not like or directly competitive with cement produced in the
Philippines.
64. The representative of the European Communities asked for an update on the status of the two
investigations, since a preliminary injunction had apparently been granted by a trial court which
prevented the Philippines Government from implementing its domestic safeguards legislation.
65. The delegate of the Philippines expressed his understanding that a restraining order had been
issued by the trial court in the province of Bulacan  in the Philippines, and that such order was the
subject of further proceedings in the Supreme Court of the Philippines.  He further understood that the
implementation of the Philippines safeguards law - including further proceedings under the
investigations on cement and ceramic tiles -  woul d be held in abeyance pending the resolution of
those proceedings.
(q) Philippines – Ceramic Tiles
66. The Chairman noted that the Philippines had notified the initiation of an investigation on
ceramic tiles.  The notification was contained in document G/SG/N/6/PHL/2.
67. There were no comments or questions concerning this notification.
(r) El Salvador - Rice
68. The Chairman noted that El Salvador had made two notifications regarding its investigation
on rice.  The notifications were contained in documents G/SG/N/6/SLV/2/Suppl.2 and
G/SG/N/9/SLV/2.
69. There were no comments or questions regarding these notifications.
(s) El Salvador - Fertilizer
70. The Chairman noted that El Salvador had made notifications regarding its investigation on
fertilizer.  The notifications were containe d in documents G/SG/N/6/SLV/3/Suppl.1 and Suppl.2.G/SG/M/18
Page 9
71. There were no comments or questions regarding these notifications.
(t) Slovak Republic - Sugar
72. The Chairman noted that Slovak Republic had made a number of notifications regarding its
investigation on sugar.  Those notifications were contained in documents G/SG/N/8/SVK/1,
G/SG/N/10/SVK/1, G/SG/N/11/SVK/1 and G/SG/35/Suppl.2.  The Chairm an further noted Poland had
also made notifications concerning that investig ation.  Poland's notifications, which concerned the
suspension of substantially equivalent concessions under Article 8.2 of the Safeguards Agreement, were
contained in documents G/L/453, G/SG/35, and G/ SG/35/Suppl. 1.
73. The delegate of Poland explained that his country was justified in taking unilateral, retaliatory
action under Article 8 of the Safeguards Agreement because Poland had concluded that the safeguard
measure imposed by the Slovak Republic was inconsistent with various provisions of the Safeguards
Agreement.
74. The representative of the Slovak Republic expr essed his country's strong disagreement with
Poland's suspension of concessions.  He rejected  the suggestion that the Slovak measure was
inconsistent with the Safeguards Agreement, and stat ed that in any event it was not for Poland to make a
unilateral determination as to the conformity of that safeguard measure with the Agreement.
75. The representative of the United States recal led that the Council for Trade in Goods was
currently reviewing the Article 8 measures taken by  Poland, and that the United States would therefore
refrain from commenting on that matter in the Safe guards Committee.  However, the United States
expressed the view that this matter should have been  reviewed as a technical matter by the Safeguards
Committee before it was referred to the Council for Trade in Goods.
76. The delegate of the Czech Republic expressed th e view that only the Dispute Settlement Body
("DSB") was entitled to determine whether or not a measure taken by a WTO Member was consistent
with its WTO obligations.
77. The representative of Poland stated that, in prin ciple, he shared the prevailing view that a
Member should not make any one-sided or unilateral de terminations of other Members’ violations of the
Agreement.  But, given the logical structure of Article 8, it was impossible to find a solution which
would please everybody in the house.  That is why Poland considered that there was a very difficult
choice to be made between two c onflicting assumptions.  First, the assumption that Members should not
make unilateral determinations as to the confor mity with the WTO Agreement of another Member's
measures.  Second, the assumption that law-makers, i.e., the Contracting Parties, always acted in a
rational way.  In this case, Poland decided to re spect the rationality assumption, that is that the
Contracting Parties had decided to regulate the situa tion they were dealing with in that very specific
manner.  That is, under Article 8, once a Member had determined that there was a prima facie  of
violation of some procedural rules under the Agreem ent, that Member should be allowed to suspend
their concessions and other obligations.  Otherwise, there was no way to do so because the time forsuspension would expire after a year or so.  That is exactly the time-period required, or which could be
expected to be taken, by a panel to resolve a dis pute.  If, instead, one respected the assumption that
Members should not make unilateral determinations as to the conformity of other Member's measures,
Members would not be in a position to take adva ntage of or use their rights under Article 8.2.
78. The representative of Chile expressed systemic concern with the proposition that one Member
could unilaterally determine that another Member's safeguard measure was not consistent with the
Safeguards Agreement.  He queried whether there was really conflict between the two assumptions
identified by Poland.G/SG/M/18
Page 10
79. The delegate of Poland expressed the view that, while interpreting the provisions of Article 8,
account must be taken of the structure of this Article, that is of the links between paragraphs 1, 2 and
3.  It was beyond any doubt that paragraph 1 laid down a basic general rule obliging a Member
proposing to apply a safeguard measure to endeavour to maintain a substantially equivalent level ofconcessions and other obligations at a predetermined level, the rationale for this being to keep these
concessions and other obligations in balance.  In order to accomplish this objective, paragraph 1,
through the reference to Article 12, provided for the consultations between the interested parties
whereby some trade compensation measures granted by the importing Member were expected to
restore the aforementioned balance.   However, in the case of failure of such consultations to reach the
stipulated objective, and under precisely specified conditions in paragraph 2, the affected Members
were free to suspend the application of substantially equivalent concessions and other obligations andthus to restore unilaterally the equilibrium of trade rights and duties of the Members concerned.  The
aforementioned remarks pertained to paragraphs 1 and 2 treated as leges generalae  but as had been
indicated earlier account must be taken of paragraph 3 of Article 8 laying down an exemption to the
general rules which meant that it was of a lex specialis  character.  That character of the provision
should be kept in mind when construing its meaning.  One of the conditions for the application of thatprovision refered to the notion of "conformity with the Agreement".  In that context, an issue had
arisen as to who was entitled, and under what procedure, to determine this conformity, or the lack
thereof. Here there appeared to have been two different positions presented at the last CTG meetings.
According to one of them, strongly voiced by Slovakia and supported by some other delegations, the
conformity determination in the context of para. 3 Ar t. 8 should rest exclusively with the DSB or else
Article 23 of the DSU would be violated.  It seemed that it was in order not to give a blessing to any
unilateral determination of conformity and to evalua te any risk involved that some delegations flatly
rejected the interpretation of paragraph 3 proposed by Poland.  Under that interpretation of the
exemption question, two things deserved to be stre ssed:  first, Poland shared the view that a Member
should not make a unilateral determination on another Member’s violation of an Agreement and thatthe said determination should be made through the DSU system. But, on the other hand, Poland did
have serious doubts as to whether the DSU mechanism should be invoked in the context of paragraph
3 since the objective to be sought by the Member concerned under this provision differed from the
one referred to in Article 23 of the DSU.  Once more, if a Member considering the application of
suspension followed the procedure proposed by Slovakia and waited for the DSB ruling on the
conformity of this safeguard measure with the Agreement, that would eventually result in granting the
importing Member a bonus in case of the DSB’s declaration of non-conformity of the measure.  So,even though that approach would be in full accord with the DSB, it would, nevertheless, effectively
deprive the affected Member, in the light of paragraph 2 - imposed time limit, of its right to suspend
concessions even in the situation where the safeguard measure was finally declared by the DSB as
non-conforming to the provisions of the Agreement. The delegate of Poland noted, in that context,
that in order to avoid that unintended legal consequence some Members had decided to get around a90-day deadline by means of a bilateral agreement between them.  Following this example, Poland
could have tried to reach an agreement with Slovakia to the effect that the 90-day period would expire
within the time-frame needed for getting a panel' s report on the matter.  However, in Poland's view,
one could have some doubts as to the legal validity of such an agreement as it would have been based
on a quite objectionable assumption that some provisions of the type of jus cogens  ("not later than")
included in a multilateral agreement, i.e. in that case in the Safeguard Agreement, might loose their
binding force under the bilateral agreement concluded by the Members to the former Agreement.  If
one would not be inclined to take such a position, a way out of this interpretative trap could be to
claim that a 90-day period was of an indicative character, in spite of the obvious result of the textual
interpretation of the phrase “not later than”.  The issue whether it was the case could not unfortunatelybe resolved in this forum.  So, the choice really  was between two questionable proposals.  Secondly, it
seemed to be quite natural to assume that any in terpretation of the agreement in question should rest
on two basic assumptions:  i.e. on the rationality of the Contracting Parties and on the exclusivity of
the conformity determination by the DSU.  Howeve r, in order to make such interpretation possible,G/SG/M/18
Page 11
the texts of the Agreement should respect certain logi cal requirements.  In that case, for example, the
relevant requirement could be as follows:  “If, as one of the conditions for its application by a
Member, the provision in an Agreement provides for the assessment of conformity of other Member’s
action with this Agreement, other pr ovisions of this Agreement must not, without making the former
provision inoperative, lay down a deadline for its application which, out of necessity, can not be metgiven the timeframe for the determination of conformity under the DSU”.  Abiding by such simple
logic made it possible to keep both abovementioned assumptions intact.  Had Article 8 followed the
requirement in question, one would not be confronted with the problem that had now arisen. But,
unfortunately, that article regulated mutual rights and obligations of the Members concerned in the
way, which made it impossible for an interpreter to  reconcile the result of simultaneous applications
of those two assumptions.  As it was almost imperati ve for interpreters of legal texts never to reject
the rationality assumption, sometimes contrary to the facts of the case, hence, the only option leftseemed to be that of rejecting the applicability of the exclusivity rule in this case. Such rejection could
easily be reinforced by a legal reasoning a contrario which could go as follows: where a provision
laying down the basic rule, to which an exemption based on conformity determination was provided
for in another provision, set a deadline for its application (including the situations covered by the
exemption), which clearly could not be met if the Member concerned was to wait for the DSB tomake the conformity-determination, then one could safe ly assume that in the situations covered by the
exemption the legal power of conformity-determination was not vested on the DSB.  The delegate of
Poland stressed that since they could not reject the rationality assumption all they could do was to
reject the exclusivity assumption for such cases.
80. Finally, the delegate of Poland emphasized once again that Poland was of the view that it was
the DSB which had the exclusive power of conformity-determination under the DSU.  At the same
time, it had been their intention to draw attention of the Members to certain discrepancies within the
Safeguards Agreement.  Poland understood, of course, that its approach to the problem might cause
some concerns of the Members of the Committee as their interpretation of the Article 8 might make iteasier for a Member to apply suspensions.  But, on the other hand, they thought that it would rather
result in more careful application of the safeguard measures, especially as far as the procedural rules
were concerned, and in wider use of trade compensation provided for in the Article 8.1 of the SG
Agreement.
81. The Chairman noted that Members had shown c onsiderable interest in Poland's recourse to
Article 8.2 of the Safeguards Agreement.  In doing so, Members had identified a number of systemic
issues regarding the operation of this provision.  The Chairman noted that similar issues had been raised
by Members at the 17 October 2001 meeting of the Council for Trade in Goods.  As a result, the
Chairman of the Council for Trade in Goods had unde rtaken to hold informal consultations on those
issues.  To that end, the Chairman of the Council for Trade in Goods had invited Members to submit
written questions and comments to the parties concerned by 31 October 2001, and for the parties tosupply written answers by 20 November 2001.  Those written questions and answers were to be
circulated as formal documents.  The Committee agreed to revert to this issue at a later date, following
further by the Council for Trade in Goods.
(u) United States – Wire Rod
82. The Chairman noted that the United States had made a notification regarding its investigation
on wire rod.  This notification was cont ained in document G/SG/N/6/U SA/6/Suppl.1.
83. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.
(v) United States – SteelG/SG/M/18
Page 12
84. The Chairman noted that the United States had notified the initiation of an investigation on
steel.  The notification was contained in document G/SG/N/6/USA/10.
85. The representative of the United States inform ed the Committee that the US had recently made
a notification under Article 12.1 (b) (on 26 October 2001) regarding a finding of serious injury caused
by increased imports with respect to certain products.  A notification of termination of the investigation
without a measure for certain other steel products had been filed at the same time.
86. The delegate of Japan stated that they understood that the US International Trade Commission
("USITC") had made an affirmative serious injury de termination with respect to 16 types of steel like
products out of 33, and that the US was considerin g trade remedies for those 16 like products.  Japan
asserted that the development of international trad e would be adversely affected if US trade law was
used in a protectionist manner to offset the need for structural reform of its domestic steel industry.
87. The representative of the European Commun ities noted that the US had launched the
investigation covering a very broad range of steel pr oducts, classified in four macro-categories and in 33
subcategories or individual products.  He expre ssed concern that the USITC had not given any
indication of what kind of like produc t could be involved, nor how the relevant domestic industry would
be defined.  This lack of clarity had impaired the US injury investigation. The EC expressed concern at
this approach, and asserted that it was difficult for third parties to defend their rights appropriately
without having a clear idea of the exact product being investigated.  The categorization of different types
of like products made it impossible to assess import leve ls, injury indicators, or other factors.  It also
made it impossible for interested parties to comment at the remedy phase, since they would not know in
what direction the US was going when it came to the defining the products groups, the product
categories, the domestic industry and the measures th at should be imposed.  The EC considered that in
the beginning of the safeguards investigation it must  be necessary, even if it was not stated in the
Safeguard Agreement, to give some preliminary id ea of what is the like product, what is the domestic
industry investigated so as to allow all interested parties to focus their attention and to build up their
defence precisely on those products and those catego ries that were investigated. That had not been
possible in the present case, and therefore the EC we re concerned that their essential rights in that
proceeding had not been respected so far.  The EC also asserted that for many products the evidence
provided by the US did not support the USITC determ ination of serious injury. The EC also raised a
concern of multiple protection, since many of the products that were covered by the US investigation
were already subject to countervailing and anti-dump ing measures.  The EC asked the US to explain
how it would ensure that injury already remedied by anti-dumping and countervail measures would not
be attributed to increased imports and further reme died by any safeguard measures imposed by the US.
The EC also asked the US to reassure the Committee that the issue of unforeseen developments would
be addressed, consistent with applicable WTO jurisp rudence, since the EC was of the opinion that there
were no such unforeseen developments in the present case.
88. The delegate of Korea endorsed the points raised by the representatives of Japan and the EC.
89. The delegate of Argentina expressed concern at the initiation of the US investigation, and at
the USITC determination of serious injury.  He noted that safeguard measures were exceptional
measures for use in emergencies, and found it difficult to understand how any emergency situation
could cover so many products.  Argentina also raised doubts regarding the existence of unforeseen
developments, and the existence of any causal link between increased imports and the serious injury
identified by the USITC.
90. The delegate of India stated that they were very much concerned by the broad coverage of the
products and the investigation. They shared the concerns expressed by Argentina, the EC, Korea, and
Japan.G/SG/M/18
Page 13
91. The delegate of Brazil endorsed the comments made by Argentina, the EC, India, Japan and
Korea.
92. The delegate of Australia stated that Australia was also involved in that investigation and
joined other delegations in expressing concerns with the number of issues raised by the investigation.
93. The delegate of the United States stated that he had noted the concerns of Argentina,
Australia, Brazil, the EC, India, Japan, and Korea regarding the USITC's determination of serious
injury, but since the US Article 12.2 (b) notification was not on the agenda of this meeting it was not
appropriate to provide substantive responses at this time.
(w) United States – Wheat Gluten
94. The Chairman noted that the United States had made a number of notifications regarding its
investigation on wheat gluten.  These notifications were contained in documents
G/SG/N/10/USA/2/ Suppl.3 & Suppl.4, and G/SG/N /11/USA/2/S uppl.3 & Suppl.4.
95. There were no comments or questions regarding these notifications.
(x) United States – Line Pipe
96. The Chairman noted that the United States had notified the results of a mid-term review of its
safeguard measure on line pipe. This notification was contained in document G/SG/N/13/USA/2.
97. The delegate of the European Communities stated  that the US notification did not contain any
information regarding decisions taken as a result of the mid-term review, but simply referred to findings
made by the USITC.  He asked the US to provide in formation on the state of play on that issue, noting
that according to Article 7.4 of the Safeguards Agreement the mid-term review should be completed
before the mid-term of the measure, and that this deadline had already expired.
98. The delegate of the United States asserted  that he would follow-up on the EC question.
(y) Venezuela - Tyres
99. The Chairman stated that Venezuela had made two notifications regarding its investigation on
tyres.  These notifications were contained in documents G/SG/N/8/VEN/1 and G/SG/N/8/VEN/2.
100. Since Venezuela was not represented at the meeting, the delegate of the European Communities
stated that he would present its questions to Venezuela in writing.
101. The Committee took note of the statements made.
C. OTHER BUSINESS
1. Nigeria – pre-existing measures
102. The Chairman drew Members' attention to document G/SG/N/2/NGA, dated 16 March 1998,
in which Nigeria notified certain measures as pre-existing within the meaning of 11.1(b) of the
Safeguards Agreement.  The Chairman recalled that Article 11.1(b) provided for such measures to be"brought into conformity with" the Safeguards  Agreement, or "phased out" in accordance with
timetables to be notified to the Committee.  In the absence of any notification from Nigeria regarding
its plans for bringing those measures into conformity, or phasing them out, the Secretariat, on behalf
of the Committee, had sought on numerous occasions  to obtain information from Nigeria regardingG/SG/M/18
Page 14
the status of those measures.  Nigeria had not responded to the Secretariat's requests.  Therefore, the
Chairman proposed to place that issue on the agenda of the next regular Committee meeting, for
consideration by Members, unless the requisite information was provided by the delegation of Nigeria
in the meantime.
103. The delegate of Nigeria stated that he had not yet received any clarification from capital on
the status of the pre-existing measures notified to the Committee in 1998, but that he would notify the
Committee of the status of the measures as soon as possible.
2. Article 12.5 notifications
104. The Chairman stated that Members would be aware that, in accordance with Article 12.5 of
the Safeguards Agreement, the results of any consultations held under Article 12 of the Agreement
"shall be notified immediately to the Council for Trade in Goods by the Members concerned".
Members would also be aware that, by virtue of Article 12.10 of the Agreement, "[a]ll notifications to
the Council for Trade in Goods … shall normally  be made through the Committee on Safeguards".
The Chairman impressed upon all Members the importance of complying with these provisions, witha view to maximizing transparency in the safeguards area.
D. ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS
105. The Committee adopted its annual report to the Council for trade in Goods for 2001 (see
document G/L/494).
E. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING106. The Chairman recalled that regular meetings norma lly would be held in the last week of April
and the last week of October, in conjunction with the regular meetings of the Committees on Anti-
Dumping Practices and Subsides and Countervailing Measures. The Committee on Anti-Dumping
Practices and subsidiary bodies would meet for the whole week commencing 22 April 2002, and the
Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures would meet from 30 April to 3 May 2002.
Accordingly, he suggested that the Safeguards Committee meet on Monday, 29 April 2002.
107. The Committee so agreed.
__________