RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SG/M/14
11 February 2000
(00-0526)
Committee on Safeguards
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE COMMITTEE ON SAFEGUARDS
HELD ON 22 OCTOBER 1999
Chairman:  Mr. H. McCormick (Australia)
1. The Committee on Safeguards (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 22 October 1999.
2. The following agenda was adopted:
Page
A. NATIONAL LEGISLATION - REVIEW OF NOTIFICATIONS OF
NEW OR AMENDED LEGISLATION OR REGULATIONS NOT
PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED 2
(a) Czech Republic (G/SG/N/1/CZE/2 and Corr.1)
(b) Guatemala (G/SG/N/1/GTM/2)
(c) India (G/SG/N/ 1/IND/2/Suppl.1)
(d) Latvia (G/SG/N/1/ LVA/1 and Suppl.1)
(e) Paraguay (G/SG/N/1/PRY/2)
(f) Uruguay (G/SG/N/1/URY/1/Suppl.1)
B. NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RELATED TO SAFEGUARD
MEASURES 4
(i) Notifications of initiations of investigations 4
(a) Colombia – taxis (G/SG/N/6/COL/1)
(b) India – acetone (G/SG/N/6/IND/8)
(c) Latvia – swine meat (G/SG/N/6/LVA/1)
(d) Slovak Republic – swine meat (G/SG/N/6/SVK/1)
(e) United States – line  pipe (G/SG/N/6/USA/7)
(ii) Notifications of application of provisional safeguard measures 5
(a) Latvia – swine meat (G/SG/N/7/LVA/1)
(b) Slovak Republic – swine meat (G/SG/N/7/SVK/1)
(iii) Notifications of findings of serious injury or threat thereof caused by
increased imports 6
(a) India – phenol (G/SG/N/8/IND/6)
(b) United States – steel wire rod (G/SG/N/8/USA/4, Suppl.1
and 2)G/SG/M/14
Page 2
(c) United States –  lamb meat (G/SG/N/8/USA/3/Rev.1)
(iv) Notifications of a decision to apply a safeguard measure 6
(a) Argentina – footwear (G/SG/N/10/ARG/1/Suppl.3)
(b) India –  acetylene black (G/SG/N/10/IND/1/Suppl.1)
(c) India – flexible slabstock polyol (G/SG/N/10/IND/3/Suppl.1)
(d) India – propylene glyc ol (G/SG/N/10/IND4/Suppl.1)
(e) United States – wheat glut en (G/SG/N/10/USA/2/Suppl.1 +
Corr.1)
(f) United States – lamb meat (G/SG/N/10/USA/3 + Suppl.1)
(v) Notifications regarding the non-application of a safeguard measure
to developing countries 9
(a) Argentina – footwear (G/SG/N/11/ARG/1/Suppl.3)
(b) United States – wheat glut en (G/SG/N/11/USA/2/Suppl.1 +
Corr.1)
(c) United States – lamb meat  (G/SG/N/11/USA/3 + Suppl.1)
(vi) Notifications pertaining to the results of a mid-term review 9
(a) Brazil – toys (G/SG/N/13/BRA/1)
(b) Korea – skimmed milk powder preparations
(G/SG/N/13/KOR/1)
C. NOTIFICATION CONCERNING PRE-EXISTING MEASURES 10
- ZAMBIA (G/SG/N/2/ZMB AND G/SG/N/3/ZMB)
D. PROGRESS IN PHASING OUT MEASURES COVERED BY ARTICLES 10
AND 11 OF THE AGREEMENT 10
E. OTHER BUSINESS 11F. ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS 12
G. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING 12
* * * * *
A. NATIONAL LEGISLATION - REVIEW OF NOTIFICATIONS OF NEW OR AMENDED
LEGISLATION OR REGULATIONS NOT PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED
3. The Chairman noted that questions regarding newly notified legislations were to have been
submitted to the Member concerned and to the Secretariat no later than 1 October 1999.  He reported
that written questions concerning five of the legislations were submitted by the United States on that
date.
4. The Chairman stated that Members whose legislation was subject to review at this meeting
would be requested, in accordance with the procedures adopted by the Committee, to answer in
writing all questions submitted in writing.  The Chairman reminded Members that follow-upquestions could be asked at this meeting.  If written answers to questions asked orally at this meetingG/SG/M/14
Page 3
were desired, the questions were to be submitted in writing to the Member whose legislation is
concerned, and to the Secretariat, no later than 12 November 1999.  Written answers to all questions
submitted in writing by that deadline were to be submitted to the Secretariat no later than
3 December 1999.
5. The Committee proceeded to the substantive review of the legislation on the agenda.
6. The questions from the United States concerning the legislative notification of the Czech
Republic can be found in document G/SG/Q1/CZE/1.
7. Answers to these questions can be  found in document G/SG/Q1/CZE/2.
8. The questions from the United States concerning the legislative notification of Guatemala can
be found in document G/SG/Q1/GTM/1.
9. Answers to these questions can be found in documents G/SG/Q1/GTM/2 + Corr.1.
10. No written questions were submitted concerning the legislative notification of India.  Mexico
raised a number of oral questions concerning that notification, to which India provided oral replies.
11. The questions from the United States concerning the legislative notification of Latvia can be
found in document G/SG/Q1/LVA/1.
12. Answers to these questions can be found in document G/SG/Q1/LVA/2.
13. The questions from the United States concerning the legislative notification of Paraguay can
be found in document G/SG/Q1/PRY/1.
14. Answers to these questions can be  found in document G/SG/Q1/PRY/2.
15. The questions from the United States concerning the legislative notification of Uruguay can
be found in document G/SG/Q1/URY/1.
16. Answers to these questions can be  found in document G/SG/Q1/URY/2.
17. The Committee took note of the statements made.
18. The Chairman also reported on the status of legislative notifications received from Members,
noting that the following 35 Members had still not made the required notification regarding
legislation:  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, Guya na, Kuwait, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali,
Mauritania, Mozambique, Niger, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts & Nevis, Saint Vincent &
Grenadines, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Tanzania and Togo.
19. The Chairman urged these Members to make the required notification.  The Chairman noted
that, in cases where no legislation exists, only a very simple "nil" notification is required.
20. The Committee took note of the statements made.G/SG/M/14
Page 4
B. NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RELATED TO SAFEGUARD MEASURES
(i) Notifications of initiation of an investigation and the reasons for it
21. The Chairman noted that since the Committee's last meeting, notifications of initiation of
investigations have been received from Colomb ia on taxis (G/SG/N/6/COL/ 1), from India on acetone
(G/SG/N/6/IND/8), from Latvia on swine meat (G/SG/N/6/LVA/1), from the Slovak Republic on
swine meat (G/SG/N/6/SVK/1), and from the Un ited States on line pipe (G/SG/N/6/USA/7).
22. Regarding Colombia's notification, the representative of Korea expressed his country's
concern that the Colombian safeguard investigation includes products classified under HS Codes
A7032200, A7032300, A7033100 and A7033000, whereas ther e is currently no increase in the
volume of such imports into Colombia.  Korea believ es that it is unwarranted for an investigation to
be initiated in respect of increased imports and serious injury that are non-existent.  Regarding the
product classified under HS Code A7032200, the investigation is inopportune and unjustifiable, sincethe increase in imports occurred in 1997, and in all subsequent periods up to the present the volume of
the imports has constantly been declining.  The Agreement on Safeguards clearly stipulates in
Article 2.1 that it has to be determined that "the product is being imported into its territory in such
increased quantities", such that the increase in imports must be imminent.  In this context it must be
emphasized that the volume of imports in 1999 is similar to that of the first two quarters of 1996, thereference year of the investigation.  Korea understands that the Colombian investigating authority
refused to impose a provisional safeguard measure as a result of the non-imminence of the increase in
imports.  With regard to the determination of serious injury, Korea submits that the analysis of the
financial status of a single company is not sufficient for reaching a conclusion on the existence of
serious injury, since paragraphs (a) and (c) of Article 4.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards stipulatethat serious injury should be understood to mean "significant overall impairment in the position of a
domestic industry", and "domestic industry" shall be "understood to mean the producers as a whole"
or "those collective output … constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production".
According to these provisions, Colombia must carry out its investigation based upon the performance
data of domestic industry as a whole, and not with respect to a single company.  Korea also contendsthat its previous argument applies equally with respect to the existence of a causal link between
increased imports and serious injury.  While maintaining its position that the financial indicators of a
single company do not constitute sufficient basis for the determination of injury, Korea notes in any
event that these indicators show improvements in the performance of that single company.  The gross
profit margin, net profit margin, yield of capital and production of the company improved in 1996
when the imports increased, and these indicators deteriorated in 1998.  This is a sign that the
deterioration in the performance of the company depends on factors other than increased imports.  Italso must be underlined that the deterioration in the situation of the company continues in 1999, a
period in which imports have decreased.  In such circumstances, it would be irrational and
unwarranted to establish a correlation between imports and a deterioration in the situation of the
company.  Korea expects Colombia to respect international rules and norms in carrying out its
investigation, and to base its determination on objective evidence, taking into account the publicinterest.
23. The representative of the European Commun ities asked Colombia to identify the major
exporting countries covered by its investigation, and the percentage and absolute volume of exports
represented by each of those countries.  The European Communities also expressed concern regarding
the definition of the product under investigation.  The European Communities asked Colombia todefine "taxis" exactly, and asked how taxis are to be distinguished from other vehicles (see subsequent
document G/SG/Q2/COL/1).
24. The delegate of Colombia requested these qu estions to be provided in writing, to be
forwarded to capital for answers.G/SG/M/14
Page 5
25. Regarding India's notification on acetone, the representative of the European Communities
asked India to state both the WTO bound duty rates, and the applicable rates, for this product.  In
addition, the European Communities asked for an update concerning the status of India's investigation
into serious injury (see subse quent document G/SG/Q2/IND/7).
26. The delegate of India stated that his country would respond to the European Communities'
first question in writing.  With regard to serious injury, he stated that India made a finding of serious
injury on 7 October 1999, and that India would soon be making a notification to that effect.
27. As to Latvia's notification on swine meat, the representative of Poland requested more recent
information from Latvia as to the geographic breakdown of the imports under investigation, noting
that the data in Latvia's notification only covers up to April 1999.  Poland also requested more data on
the state of the domestic market, in particular concerning the market share of imports, changes in the
level of sales, production, productivity, capacity utilisation, profits and losses, and employment.Poland stated that the data contained in Latvia's notification is not sufficient to determine whether or
not there is clear evidence that increased imports have caused, or are threatening to cause, serious
injury (see subsequent document G/SG/Q2/LVA/1).
28. The representative of Latvia stated that additional information concerning the breakdown of
imports into Latvia would be provided to Poland in writing (see subsequent document
G/SG/Q2/LVA/2).  With regard to additional data concerning serious injury, he stated that it was
precisely in order to obtain such additional data that an investigation had been initiated.  Only upon
conclusion of the investigation could a determination as to the existence of serious injury be made.
29. The delegate of Poland requested certain additional information concerning the notification of
the Slovak Republic (see subsequent document G/SG /Q2/SVK/1).  This information was provided in
writing by the Slovak Republic in subsequent document G/SG/Q2/SVK/2.
30. With regard to the US notification, the United States indicated that a determination on serious
injury or threat of serious injury was expected to be made on 28 October 1999.
(ii) Notifications concerning the application of provisional safeguard measures
31. The Chairman noted that, since the last meeting of the Committee, Latvia and the Slovak
Republic have both notified provisional safeguar d measures on swine meat (G/SG/N/7/LVA/1 and
G/SG/N/7/SVK/1).
32. With regard to the Latvian notification, Canada expressed a concern that Latvia has not
correctly defined the relevant domestic industry.
33. The representative of Latvia stated that his country would respond in writing, once a written
version of Canada's question was received.
34. With regard to the notification of the Slovak Republic, Canada expressed a concern that the
Slovak Republic has not correctly defined the relevant domestic industry.
35. The representative of the Slovak Republic stated that his country would respond in writing,
once a written version of Canada's question was received.G/SG/M/14
Page 6
(iii) Notifications of findings of serious injury or threat thereof caused by increased imports
36. The Chairman noted that, since the last meeting of the Committee, three notifications
concerning findings of serious injury or threat thereof caused by increased imports have been
received:  from India on phenol (G/SG/N/8/IND/6) , from the United States on steel wire rod
(G/SG/N/8/USA/4 and Suppl. 1 & 2), and from the United States on lamb meat
(G/SG/N/8/USA/3/Rev.1).
37. With regard to India's notification on phenol, the European Communities asked India to
specify both the bound and applicable duty rates for this product, and for those products covered by
the Indian notifications to be reviewed subsequently by the Committee (see subsequent document
G/SG/Q2/IND/7).
38. The representative of India stated that his country would respond in writing, once a written
version of the European Communities' question was received.
39. With regard to the notification of the United States on steel wire rod, the representative of
Japan noted that a majority of the US International Trade Commission ("USITC") did not find that
imports were a cause of serious injury to the US industry, as required under the Agreement onSafeguards.  Japan expressed the concern that the United States might therefore impose import relief
in a manner inconsistent with the Agreement on Safeguards.  If the United States were to imposesafeguard measures on steel wire rod, the Government  of Japan would examine the decision in detail,
with a view to considering what actions were appr opriate, in terms of both international rules and
further trade liberalization.
40. The representative of the European Communitie s reiterated the EC concerns regarding the US
investigation.  The European Communities does not consider that the conditions for applying a
safeguard measure are met in this case.  The European Communities requested an update on the status
of the investigation.
41. The delegate of the United States informed the Committee that the USITC split evenly on
whether or not serious injury or threat of serious injury is caused by increased imports of steel wire
rod.  Consistent with US domestic law, the report from the ITC was forwarded to the President whowill have to make a determination in this regard.  At a press conference last week, the President stated
that his advisers were evenly split on this issue.
42. There were no comments concerning the United States' notification on lamb meat.
(iv) Notifications of a decision to apply a safeguard measure
43. The Chairman informed the Committee that, since the last meeting, the following
notifications concerning a decision to apply a safeguard measure have been received: from Argentina
on footwear (G/SG/N/10/ARG/1/Suppl .3), from India on acetylene black
(G/SG/N/10/IND/1/ Suppl.1), from India on flexible slab stock polyol (G/SG/N/10/IND/3/Suppl.1),
from India on propylene glycol (G/SG/N/10/IND/4/S uppl.1), from the United States on wheat gluten
(G/SG/N/10/USA/2/Suppl.1 & Corr.1), and from the United States on lamb meat (G/SG/N/10/USA/3
& Suppl.1).
44. There were no comments on the Argentine notification.
45. With regard to India's notifications, the representative of Japan expressed his country's
concern about the frequency of India's recourse to the safeguard mechanism.  By their nature
safeguard measures should be taken exceptionally, in accordance with strict conditions.  Japan willG/SG/M/14
Page 7
study closely the reasonableness of India's trade policy, and the consistency of India's safeguard
action with the Agreement on Safeguards.
46. The representative of  India assured the Committee that his country's domestic safeguard
legislation is in conformity with the WTO Agreement on Safeguards, and that India's investigations
are carried out in accordance with domestic legislation.  India rejected the allegation that it is abusingthe WTO safeguard mechanism.
47. Concerning India's notification on propylene glyc ol, the delegate of Mexico asked whether or
not imports from Mexico were still covered by the measure.
48. The representative of India replied that imports from Mexico were not covered, consistent
with the developing country exception provided for in Article 9.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards.
49. The representative of the United States asked India why its notification had not been notified
as a N/11 document.
50. The delegate of India stated that this was a purely technical matter, and that perhaps a N/11
notification could have been used.
51. The representative of Malaysia asked why India's measure applied to certain developing
countries, but not to others.
52. The delegate of India explained that certain developing countries were covered by the
measure because their share of total imports exceeded three per cent, consistent with Article 9.1 of the
Agreement on Safeguards.
53. With regard to the United States' notification on wheat gluten, the representative of the
European Communities expressed concern on the cut of almost 20 per cent of the quota allocated to
the European Communities for the year 1999/2000.  The European Communities understands that
there was Presidential proclamation in the United States saying that there had been an excess of
5,000,000 kilograms in the imports from the European Community by reference to the quota for the
year 1998/1999, and alleging that this excess justified the cut in the 1999/2000 quota on the basis of
circumvention.  However, that proclamation cont ains no evidence of circumvention.  Furthermore,
there was a notification by the United States simply stating that there had been an excess in theimports from the European Community and that it is decided to cut the quota of the European
Community by around some 20 per cent.  Then there was a corrigendum where this figures is again
modified.  In this regard the European Communities drew the attention of the United States to the fact
that in three separate documents there are four different figures regarding the excess and the cut of the
quota.  The European Communities would like to know exactly which figure is correct, since the
alleged excess varies from 4,000,000 kilograms to 5,000,000 kilograms.  The European Communities
understands that the management of the quota is the responsibility of the US Administration, and thatany difficulties concerning the management of the quota are therefore the responsibility of the US
Administration.  The European Communities asked the United States to provide a full explanation for
the cut in the 1999/2000 quota (see subsequent document G/SG/Q2/USA/7).
54. The representative of the United States noted that the quota, in fact, has not been cut, and that
the quota is the same as was originally applied.  However, the volume of imports from the European
Communities in 1998/1999 was greater than the allocated share of its quota by almost 6,000,000
kilograms.  So, in order to maintain the appropr iate level of the quota, the amount of quota in the
following year was reduced by that amount.  Howe ver, subsequently, it was determined that the
excess amount was about 4,400,000 kilograms, and not 5,950,000 kilograms as originally notified, soG/SG/M/14
Page 8
the European Communities should be satisfied that the United States has remedied the amount of the
reduction to take into account actual data.
55. The delegate of the European Communities took issue with the explanation given, stating that
a yearly quota is a yearly quota.  The fact that in one year the US Administration did not properly
manage that quota is a problem for the US Admini stration, and should not prejudice the quota of the
European Communities for the following year.  The European Communities has not heard any valid
explanation why the pass-over has been made, and the aforementioned Presidential proclamation
refers to circumvention.  The European Communities asked whether there is a report that explains
what type of circumvention has taken place.  Furthe rmore, as to the amount of the quota reduction, the
European Communities noted that whilst it is said in the latest US notification
(G/SG/N/10/USA/2/Suppl.1/Corr.1) that the reducti on is 4,402,000 kilograms, in the same paragraph
it is stated that the quota allocation for the European Communities is reduced by 5,402,000 kilograms,some one million kilograms more than 4,402,000 kilograms.
56. As to the US notification on lamb meat, the delegate of Australia expressed her country's
concern about the import restrictions imposed by the United States, especially as they are more
restrictive than the recommendations of the USITC.  Australia considers that the US action was not
justified under the Agreement on Safeguards, and has accordingly asked the Dispute Settlement Bodyto establish a panel on the matter.
57. The representative of New Zealand concurred with the views expressed by Australia, and
noted that New Zealand too has instituted dispute settlement proceedings in this matter.
58. The delegate of Hong Kong, China, speaking also on behalf of Singapore , raised a concern
regarding the application of US measures to developing countries.  Hong Kong, China noted that
Article 9.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards provides that safeguard measures shall not be applied
against a product originating in a developing country Member with limited exports.  Hong Kong,
China noted that the United States has provided  a list of developing countries exempted from
safeguard measures pursuant to Article 9.1, and that this list is based on the list of beneficiaries of the
US Generalized System of Preferences.  However, the long-standing practice under the GATT and the
WTO has been that the determination of a Member's development status is by self-selection.  Hong
Kong, China is therefore concerned that a Member imposing safeguard measures should make a
unilateral determination as to another Member's development status for the purpose of Article 9.1 of
the Agreement on Safeguards.
59. The representative of the United States noted, in response to the items raised by Australia,
that there was a unanimous USITC determination that the domestic lamb meat industry is threatened
with serious injury, and the United States decided to take the necessary action to permit the industryto adjust to import competition.  Before implementing a remedy to aid its industry, the United States
examined all relevant information that was available to it.  The US decision-making process was both
fair and transparent, and took into account information provided by all interested parties.  Moreover,
the United States consulted extensively with Australia and New Zealand as the two countries that
would be impacted by the US safeguard action.  In fact, on a number of occasions, the United Statesdecided to alter some aspects of the measure based on reasonable concerns raised by Australia and
New Zealand.  For example, the United States agreed to permit the use of export certificates based on
Australia's and New Zealand's concerns that their products be marketed in an orderly manner in the
United States.  In sum, the United States made every effort, with full participation from Australia and
New Zealand, to ensure that the US measure is designed and applied to address the needs of itsdomestic industry, while simultaneously ensuring its trading partners continued access to the US
market.  The United States believes that the action it has taken is completely consistent with its WTO
obligations.  Pursuant to the WTO Agreement on Safeguards, the United States has implemented a
temporary measure only to the extent necessary to prevent serious injury to the domestic lamb meatG/SG/M/14
Page 9
industry and to facilitate its adjustment to imports.  The US safeguard measure establishes a tariff rate
quota at 1998 import levels, and both the tariff rate quota and the import duties are progressively
liberalized over time.  The US measure satisfies all relevant provisions of the Agreement on
Safeguards.
60. With respect to the question raised by the dele gation of Hong Kong, China, the United States
noted that Article 9 of the Safeguards Agreement does not provide a list of developing countries to be
exempted from application of safeguard measures.  The United States believes that its use of the list
of beneficiaries of the US General System of Preference is appropriate in these circumstances.
(v) Notifications regarding the non-application of a safeguard measure to developing countries
61. The Chairman noted that, since the last meeting of the Committee, the following notifications
on the non-application of a safeguard measure to developing countries have been received:  from
Argentina on footwear, from the United States on wheat gluten, and from the United States on lambmeat.
62. There were no statements concerning these notifications.
(vi) Notifications concerning the results of a mid-term review
63. The Chairman recalled that, shortly before th e Committee's last meeting, Brazil notified the
results of the mid-term review of its safeguard measure on toys, which is contained in document
G/SG/N/13/BRA/1.  For procedural reasons, the Comm ittee was unable to consider that notification at
its last meeting.  Since the last meeting, the Committee has also received a notification from Korea
concerning the mid-term review of its safeguard measure on skimmed-milk powder preparations,
contained in document G/SG/N/13/KOR/1.
64. With regard to Brazil's notification, the representative of the European Communities asked
whether a separate report of Brazil's mid-term review exists, apart from the notification that has been
given to the Committee.  If such report does exist, can it be made available to the Committee?  In
addition, the European Communities asked for additional information concerning the extension
review that is to be initiated by Brazil.  In particular, is there any information on the schedule or
procedures that will govern such extension review?  The European Communities expressed the wishthat views could be expressed by all interested parties in the extension review, noting that only the
Brazilian industry was consulted in the context of the mid-term review.  The European Communities
also asked for a copy of the domestic industry's request for an extension review (see subsequent
document G/SG/Q2/BRA/5).
65. The representative of Brazil  stated that the Agreement on Safeguards does not establish any
specific procedures for the mid-term review, nor for the participation of interested parties, importers
or exporters.  The Agreement only establishes an obligation on Members to notify the results of themid-term review.  Brazil complied with that obligation by virtue of the notification currently under
review.  Nevertheless, according to Brazilian legislation, interested parties can have access to all non-
confidential information contained in the file, upon request.  This applies to the investigating
authority's report on the mid-term review, which is therefore available to interested parties on request.
As for the schedule of the extension review proceeding, Brazil's legislation does not contain anyprecise time-limits.  However, by consulting the files, all interested parties can have a precise idea of
the steps which are being taken during the investigation.  The European Communities can obtain a
copy of the extension review request by consulting the file.G/SG/M/14
Page 10
66. The representative of the United States also asked for a copy of the mid-term review report
and the request for an extension review.  The United States asked that a copy of the petition and the
report be left with the Secretariat, so that all members of the Committee could have access to it.
67. There were no comments concerning Korea's notification.
68. The Chairman recalled that any questions concerning the notifications of actions taken for
which written responses are requested, should be submitted in writing to the Member concerned and
to the Secretariat no later than 12 November 1999.  Written answers must be submitted to the
Secretariat no later than 3 December 1999.
69. The Committee took note of all statements made concerning the notifications of actions
related to safeguard measures.
C. NOTIFICATION CONCERNING PRE-EXISTING MEASURES
70. The Chairman noted that, since the Committee's last meeting, Zambia has submitted a "nil"
notification concerning pre-existing measures, indicating that it has not adopted and does not maintain
any pre-existing measures covered by Articles 10 and 11 of the Agreement on Safeguards
(G/SG/N/2/ZMB and G/SG/N/3/ZMB).  While there is no requirement that a Member make such a
"nil" notification, the Chairman thanked the delegation of Zambia for taking the effort to do so.
71. There were no comments concerning Zambia's notification.
D. PROGRESS IN PHASING OUT MEASURES COVERED BY ARTICLES 10 AND 11 OF
THE AGREEMENT
72. The Chairman recalled that, by virtue of Article 13.1(d) of the Agreement on Safeguards, the
Committee is required to monitor the phase-out of measures covered by Articles 10 and 11.1 of the
Agreement.  Two Members - the European Communities and Korea - had notified pre-existing ArticleXIX measures covered by Article 10 by the deadline set forth in the Agreement.  In addition, five
Members  - Cyprus, the European Communities, Korea , Slovenia and South Africa - had notified pre-
existing grey-area measures covered by Article 11, along with the timetable for the phase-out of such
measures, by the deadline set forth in the Agreement.    The Annex to the Agreement on Safeguards
identifies one additional such measure maintained  by the European Communities with a termination
date of 31 December 1999.  Furthermore, in 1998 Nigeria notified certain pre-existing Article XIX
measures covered by Article 10 (G/SG/N/2/NGA).
73. The Chairman recalled that, at the Committee's April 1998 meeting, Slovenia informed the
Committee that, consistent with its notification in G/SG/N/5/SVN/Suppl.2, as of 1 January 1998 it no
longer had any pre-existing measures in force.  At the Committee's November 1998 meeting, the
Committee heard oral reports from the European Communities, Korea and South Africa on their
progress in phasing out their pre-existing measures.  Since neither Cyprus nor Nigeria wererepresented at that meeting, the Committee asked those delegations to provide a written report on this
matter.
74. The Chairman proposed that the Committee undertake the monitoring of the phase-out of pre-
existing measures by giving the floor to each of the notifying Members, other than Slovenia, to make
a brief statement concerning its progress in phasing out its pre-existing measures.G/SG/M/14
Page 11
75. The Chairman read out the following statement on behalf of Cyprus:
Concerning the notification G/SG/N/5/C YP/Rev.1/Suppl.2 dated 20 November 1998
on timetables for phasing out measures on Article 11.1(b) or for bringing them into
conformity with the Agreement, Cyprus confirms that all restrictions applied on
imports of products listed in the relevant documents have been eliminated before the
date notified, that is before 31 December 1998.  Therefore, Cyprus does not at present
maintain any import restrictions on those products.
76. The representative of the European Communitie s stated that pre-existing EC Article XIX
measures would expire according to the schedule contained in Annex 3 of document G/L/338.
77. The delegate of Korea stated that, in relation to document G/SG/N/2/KOR, the safeguard
measure on salt-fermented shrimps has been terminated, and the safeguard measure on hot-bean paste,
which is the only one in force at the moment, will be terminated at the end of this year.  With regardto grey-area measures, Korea noted that, in re lation to document G/SG/N/3/KOR, all grey-area
measures concerning microwave ovens, colour picture tubes, stainless steel flatware, oyster in airtight
containers and shelled chestnuts, have already been phased out as scheduled in accordance with
Article 11.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards.
78. Since the delegations of South Africa and Nigeria were absent from the meeting, the
Chairman proposed that the Committee request Sout h Africa and Nigeria to provide a brief written
report for circulation to Members and for review at the Committee's next meeting.
79. The Chairman stated that any delegation wishing to receive a written response to any question
raised under this agenda item should submit its question in writing, to the Secretariat and to the
notifying Member, no later than 12 November 1999.  Written answers to all questions submitted inwriting by that deadline should be submitted to the Secretariat no later than three weeks later, i.e., no
later than 3 December 1999.
80. The Committee took note of all statements made.
E. OTHER BUSINESS
81. The representative of Japan referred to the Agreement Suspending the Countervailing Duty
Investigation on Hot-Rolled Carbon-Coated Steel from Brazil entered into by the Government of the
United States and the Government of Brazil ("Suspension Agreement").  Japan noted that Article
11.1(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards prohibits Members from seeking, taking or maintaining any
voluntary export restraints, any orderly marketing arrangements, or any other similar measures.
According to Japan, the Suspension Agreement provid es for certain export limits on hot-rolled steel
products with the export licences issued by the Government of Brazil.  Japan believes that this is
nothing but a voluntary export restraint agreement specifically prohibited by Article 11.1(b) of theAgreement on Safeguards.  The Governments of the United States and Brazil may argue that this type
of arrangement is allowed under Article 18.1 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing
Measures ("SCM Agreement").  However, the SCM Agreement does not enable a Member to seek,
take or maintain voluntary export restraint measures.
82. The delegation of Brazil took note of the concerns expressed by Japan, and would convey
them to its capital.
83. The representative of the United States took note of the items raised by Japan. He indicated
that the undertaking at issue was taken in accordance with Article 18 of the SCM Agreement, and that
the United States was therefore somewhat surprised that Japan chose to raise this item in the contextG/SG/M/14
Page 12
of the Committee on Safeguards.  He undertook to report this matter back to Washington for further
consideration.
84. The Committee took note of the statements made.
F. ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS
85. The Committee adopted its annual report to the Council for Trade in Goods (subsequently
circulated as document G/L/338).
G. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING
86. The Chairman noted that the Committee has agreed that regular meetings normally would be
held in the last week of April and the last week of October, in conjunction with the regular meetings
of the Committees on Anti-Dumping Practices and Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.  Since
Easter falls at the end of April in the year 2000, and since the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices
will meet throughout the week commencing Monday, 1 May 2000, the Committee decided to meet on
Monday, 8 May 2000
__________