RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SG/M/25 
4 August 2004 
 
 (04-3326) 
Committee on Safeguards  
  
 
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING 
HELD ON 19 APRIL 2004 
 
Chairman:  Mr. Pornchai Danvivathana (Thailand) 
  
1. The Committee on Safeguards (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 19 April 2004. 
2. The following agenda was adopted: 
A.
 NATIONAL  LEGISLATION.....................................................................................................2  
1. Armenia – Review of New Legislative Notification................................................................2  
2. Jordan – Review of New Legislative Notification ..................................................................3  
3. Pakistan – Review of New Legislative Notification................................................................3  
4. Peru – Review of New Legislative Notification ......................................................................3  
5. Chinese Taipei  – Review of Ne w Legislative Notification ....................................................3  
6. China – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Legislative Notification ....................3  
7. Mexico – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Legislative Notification ..................3  
B. NOTIFICATIONS  OF ACTIONS  RELATED  TO SAFEGUARD  MEASURES ......................4  
1. Brazil – Toys.................................................................................................................. ............4  
2. Canada – Steel................................................................................................................. ..........7  
3. China  – Steel................................................................................................................. ............7  
4. Colombia  – Electric Smoothing Irons ....................................................................................7  
5. Ecuador– Paper................................................................................................................. ........7  
6. Ecuador– Tyres ................................................................................................................. ........7  
7. Ecuador– Smoot h Cerami cs.....................................................................................................7  
8. European Communities – Mandarins.....................................................................................9  
9. European Communities – Certain Steel Products .................................................................9  
10. European Communities – Salmon...........................................................................................9  
11. Hungary – Sugar................................................................................................................ .....12  
12. India – Bisphenol A............................................................................................................ .....12  
13. Jamaica – Cement............................................................................................................... ....13  
14. Moldova – Sugar ................................................................................................................ .....14  G/SG/M/25 
Page 2  
 
 15.
 Philippines – Cement ........................................................................................................... ...14 
16. Poland  – Matches .............................................................................................................. .....14  
17. United States – Steel.......................................................................................................... ......14  
18. Venezuela – Iron/Steel U Sections .........................................................................................14  
C. APPLICATION  OF ARTICLE  9.1...........................................................................................15  
D. DATE  OF NEXT  REGULAR  MEETING ................................................................................17  
E. ELECTION  OF OFFICERS......................................................................................................17  
 
A. NATIONAL  LEGISLATION 
3. The Chairman  noted that the first seven items on the agenda dealt with the review of 
notifications of national safeguard  legislation and/or regulations, in accordance with the procedures 
adopted by the Committee at its special meeting in  April 1996.  The Chairman mentioned that, as 
indicated in the airgram convening the meeti ng, the Committee had received new legislative 
notifications from five Members.  The Chairman re called that, as indicated in the annotated draft 
agenda circulated in March 2004, questions regarding these legislative notifications were to have been 
submitted to the Member concerned and to the Secretariat no later than 29 March 2004.  The 
Chairman mentioned that questions had been receiv ed from the United States regarding the legislative 
notification of Armenia.  The Chairman further not ed that the agenda also  included previously 
reviewed legislative notifications submitted by Me xico and China, since questions had been submitted 
regarding these notifications. 
4. Concerning the procedure for the review of new legislative notifications, the Chairman stated 
that he would first give the floor to the Member whose legislation was being reviewed, to make any 
introductory statement that it wished.  The Chairman  would then invite that Member to present its 
answers to any written questions.  The Chairman  reminded Members of the Committee that in 
accordance with the procedures adopted by the Co mmittee, a written version of those answers had 
also to be provided after the meeting. The Chai rman also reminded Members that follow-up questions 
could be asked at this meeting.  Other delegati ons would also be given an opportunity to present 
questions orally at the meeting.  Regarding the c ontinuing review of previously reviewed legislative 
notifications, the Chairman would first give the floor to the notifying Member to respond to the questions posed, and then offer the floor for follow- up questions.  After the meeting, there would be a 
period for the submission of written questions concer ning any of the legislations reviewed in the 
meeting. 
5. The Chairman mentioned that if Members wished  to have written answers to questions, they 
had to ensure that all questions were presented in writing to the Member whose legislation was 
concerned, and to the Secretariat, no later than th ree weeks after the meeting, i.e., no later than 
10 May 2004.  Written answers to all questions su bmitted in writing by that deadline had to be 
submitted to the Secretariat no later than three weeks later, i.e., no later than 31 May 2004. 
1. Armenia – Review of New Legislative Notification 
6. The Chairman noted that Armenia's legisla tive notification was contained in document 
G/SG/N/1/ARM/1, and that written questions concer ning this notification had been received from the 
United States (G/SG/Q1/ARM/1).  The delegation of Armenia was not present in the meeting. 
7. There were no other comments or questions regarding this notification.  G/SG/M/25 
 Page 3 
 
 
 2. Jordan – Review of New Legislative Notification 
8. The Chairman noted that Jord an's legislative notification was contained in document 
G/SG/N/1/JOR/2.  
9. The delegate of Jordan  stated that their notification was self-explanatory.  The delegate of 
Jordan also pointed out that there was a typogra phical error on the top of page two of the document 
and that the title of the law had to read "Law No. 50 of 2002" instead of "Law No. 5 of 2002". 
10. There were no questions regarding this notification. 
3. Pakistan – Review of New Legislative Notification 
11. The Chairman  noted that Pakistan's legislative notif ications were contained in documents 
G/SG/N/1/PAK/2 and G/SG/N/1/PAK/3. 
12. There were no comments or questions regarding these notifications. 
4. Peru – Review of New Legislative Notification 
13. The Chairman noted that Peru's legisla tive notification was contained in document 
G/SG/N/1/PER/2/Suppl.1. 
14. The Chairman noted that the delegate of  Peru was not present in the meeting. 
15. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
5.  Chinese Taipei  – Review of New Legislative Notification 
16. The Chairman noted that Chinese Taipei's legislative notification was contained in document 
G/SG/N/1/TPKM/2/Suppl. 1. 
17. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
6. China – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Legislative Notification 
18. The Chairman  noted that written questions concerning China's notifications contained in 
documents G/SG/N/1/CHN/2, G/SG/N/1/CHN/2/S uppl.1 and G/SG/N/1/CHN/2/Suppl.2 had been 
received from Argentina and Mexico in docum ents G/SG/Q1/CHN/14 and G/SG/Q1/CHN/11, 
respectively.  The Chairman also noted that in  document G/SG/Q1/CHN/15, China had responded to 
the questions posed by Argentina. 
19. The delegates of Argentina  and Mexico  stated that they would inform the Committee should 
they have any supplementary questions. 
 
7. Mexico – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Legislative Notification 
20. The Chairman  noted that Mexico's legislative notification was contained in document 
G/SG/N/1/MEX/1/Suppl.1 and that written questions  concerning this notification had been received 
from Chile and Argentina, in documents G/SG /Q1/MEX/2 and G/SG/Q1/MEX/3, respectively. G/SG/M/25 
Page 4  
 
 21. The representative of Mexico
 stated that they had already responded at the previous meeting 
to Chile's questions and that these responses had al so been provided in writing by Mexico (See 
document G/SG/Q1/MEX/5).  The representative of Mexico also mentioned that on 10 March 2004 
they had sent to the Secretariat their written repli es to Argentina's questions.  The representative of 
Mexico then read out their responses to Arge ntina's questions (See document G/SG/Q1/MEX/4). 
22. The delegate of Chile  stated that their capital felt satisfied with Mexico's responses. 
23. The representative of Argentina  stated that they would pass Mexico's responses on to their 
capital and let the Committee know at a later time if they had any follow-up questions. 
24. The Chairman  reminded Members that the legislative review process was of benefit to the 
Committee.  The Chairman recalled that the d eadline for any written questions concerning the 
legislations reviewed was 10 May 2004.  The dead line for written answers to all questions posed in 
writing was 31 May 2004. 
25. Concerning these deadlines, the Chairman reminded the Comm ittee of the importance of 
providing written answers to written questions posed , since the exchange of written questions and 
answers constituted the Committee's only record of th e 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 Co mmittee for the provision of written replies to written questions. 
26. The Chairman informed the Committee that th ere were still 30 Members that had not yet 
made a legislative notification: Albania, Angol a, Antigua & Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Burkina 
Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Congo,  Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, 
Gabon, the Gambia, Grenada, Guinea Bissau, Guya na, Kuwait, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, 
Niger, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts & Ne vis, Saint Vincent & Grenadines, Sierra Leone, 
Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Tanzania and Togo. 
27. The Chairman urged these Members to make the required notification and reminded that in 
cases where no legislation existed only a very  simple "nil" notification was required. 
28. The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
B. NOTIFICATIONS  OF ACTIONS  RELATED  TO SAFEGUARD  MEASURES 
29. The Chairman  noted that various notifications of ac tions related to safeguard measures had 
been received since the previous meeting.  In order to ensure that all of these notifications could be 
reviewed in the limited time available, the Ch airman suggested that the Committee address the 
relevant safeguard investigations as separate agen da items, and review all of the notifications 
pertaining to each separate investigation at the same time. 
1. Brazil – Toys 
30. The Chairman noted that Brazil had made a number  of notifications regarding its investigation 
on toys, as contained in documents G/SG/N/8 /BRA/2/Suppl. 2, G/SG/N/10/BRA/2/Suppl. 2, 
G/SG/N/11/BRA/1/Suppl. 2 and G/SG/N/6/BRA/1/Suppl. 1. 
31. The delegate of Brazil  stated that this was an extension of an old safeguard measure and that 
all the relevant information was available in the notification itself.  The delegate of Brazil also 
mentioned that they had held a number of consultations with interested Members.  G/SG/M/25 
 Page 5 
 
 
 32. The delegate of Chinese Taipei  stated that under Article 12.1(c) of the Agreement on 
Safeguards, Members were required to notify their decision as soon as possible and to provide an adequate opportunity for consultations.  Accordi ng to Chinese Taipei, however, Brazil's notification 
had not been circulated until 19 December 2003.  Gi ven that the deadline mentioned in the paper for 
holding consultations was 18-19 December 2003, it w as impossible to enter into such consultations.  
Even though Brazil had agreed to extend the deadline to 29 Decemb er, that was not adequate either 
because it overlapped with the Christmas holiday pe riod.  Having said that, the delegate of Chinese 
Taipei expressed his gratitude to Brazil for having  held consultations with  their delegation on 15 
January 2004.  According to Chin ese Taipei, however, this notificati on should nevertheless have been 
made prior to the extension or applica tion of the safeguard measure at issue. 
33. The delegate of Brazil
 acknowledged that the notification in question had been circulated late 
in December.  The reason for the delay was the time spent for translation in the WTO Secretariat.  The 
representative of Brazil stated that the fact that Br azil had prepared the text of the notification in 
English and Uruguay had presented the cover letter in Spanish had led to a delay of more than three 
weeks in the actual circulation of the notificati on, since the original notification could not be 
immediately circulated in a single language.  The representative of Brazil mentioned that, as indicated 
by Chinese Taipei, Brazil had offered the opportunity for consultations to be held in the remaining 
days of 2003 and even after the period had expired. 
34. The delegate of the European Communities  supported the comments expressed by Chinese 
Taipei and stated that the period that Brazil had a llowed for prior consultations was too short.  The 
delegate of the European Communities expressed hope that this would not happen again.  The 
delegate of the European Communities also disagreed with the measures themselves.  First of all, the 
delegate of the European Communities repeated  their objection to the product scope of this 
investigation, which included any type of goods that somehow qualified as toys, without 
distinguishing, for instance,  products as different as  dolls and computer games.  In the view of the 
European Communities, this investigation concer ned many different sectors which hardly had 
common denominators. 
35. The European Communities also had concerns re garding the duration of this measure.  The 
measure had been applied already for over seven years which was in and of itself a very unusual 
period of time for a safeguard action.  The represen tative of the European Communities recalled that a 
safeguard was to be an emergency measure, a saf ety valve which was supposed to be of a short 
duration.  The representative of the European Co mmunities expressed concern that things would not 
stop here.  The representative of the European Commun ities noted that in its latest notification to the 
Secretariat, Brazil had proposed to extend the m easures for another 2 years and a half, thereby 
reaching the absolute maximum duration allowed by the Agreement for developing countries.  What 
was understood from the publication in Brazil's official  journal, however, was that Brazil had decided 
to extend the measure by one year only.  The re presentative of the European Communities invited 
Brazil to explain why this final extension as publishe d had not yet been notified.  The representative 
of the European Communities also asked whether this would be the last extension of the safeguard 
action at issue.  Finally, the representative of  the European Communities noted that various 
documents published regarding this measure demons trated that the Brazilian industry had already 
completed over 97 per cent of the adjustment, and ask ed whether in those circumstances the extension 
of the subject measure was justified for even one year. 
36. The representative of the United States  shared the concern raised by the European 
Communities regarding the duration of this extensio n.  Recalling that the last notification dated 19 
December 2003 stated that the fina l decision on extension would be adopted by the authorities during 
the week of 21 December 2003, the United States asked whether any notification had been made 
regarding this matter. G/SG/M/25 
Page 6  
 
 37. The delegate of Brazil
 stated that during the period of application of this measure neither the 
European Communities nor any other Member had been  able to explain how one could not consider 
toys as directly competitive products.  Brazil had b een unable to find a feasible or practical way of 
separating various types of toys, which had been indicated by different Members.  According to the delegate of Brazil, toys were directly competitiv e products that had common users and there was no 
objective way to separate them into sub-categories fo r the purposes of a safeguard investigation.  With 
regard to the duration, the delegate of Brazil stated  that the proposed extension was consistent with 
the relevant provisions of the Agreement on Safegua rds.  The delegate of Brazil stated that if 
Members decided in the course of the Uruguay Round that this would be the maximum duration allowed for safeguard measures, there had to be a reason for it and that any assessment as to the extent 
in which a safeguard would remain in  force was a subjective assessment. 
38. With regard to the need to keep  this measure in place and the degree of adjustment reached by 
the Brazilian industry, the delegate of Brazil mentione d the fact that this safeguard measure applied to 
a tariff which was far lower than that consolidated  by Brazil for toys.  Brazil had increased the tariff 
in the course of the safeguard investigation to a le vel which was still below Brazil's consolidated tariff 
for toys.  According to the delegate of Brazil, th erefore, the fact that Brazil had chosen to use a 
safeguard measure demonstrated th e seriousness with which it had been undertaking its liberalization 
and that it refrained from simply increasing its tariff to provide higher protection to certain sectors.  
The delegate of Brazil pointed out that their inves tigators had concluded that continued imposition of 
this measure was necessary so as to better restor e the economic health of the companies producing 
toys in Brazil. 
39. With regard to the length of the extension, the delegate of Brazil stated that the investigators 
had recommended the extension for the maximum pe riod.  In December 2003, the decision had been 
taken to extend the safeguard measure by one year.  The delegate of Brazil also stated that Brazil had 
decided not to make a notification at that time because it would have had to be changed after only a 
very short time.  He also mentioned that they we re still consulting with their capital officials as to 
whether this would be Brazil's extension on this measure and that Brazil was not wavering any rights 
under the Agreement on Safeguards. 
40. Regarding Brazil's point that the European Communities had not proposed any method to 
separate the various products covered by this inves tigation into sub-categories, the delegate of the 
European Communities
 stated that it was not up to them to design the product scope of an 
investigation conducted by Brazil and that it was Br azil's obligation to define the product scope in a 
proper manner. 
41. Concerning Brazil's statement that its safeguard  measure was still below the bound rate, the 
representative of the European Communities pointed out  that the level of the measure did not allow 
Brazil to make certain determinations that were not fully in conformity with the Agreement.  
According to the European Communities, since Braz il had chosen a certain avenue to protect its 
domestic industry, it was bound by the letter and the spirit of the Agreement on Safeguards.  
Regarding the length of the extension, the Europ ean Communities was not fully satisfied by Brazil's 
reply as it was still not clear how long the safeguard measure was going to last.  In this regard, the 
representative of the European Communities drew atte ntion to the difference between what had been 
published in the Brazilian Official Journal and Brazil's notification to the Committee. 
42. The representative of Brazil  argued that the European Communities was placing an 
impossible burden on Brazil regarding the scope of th is measure.  Brazil had already explained why it 
had chosen to include all toys in this investigation.   The representative of Brazil reiterated that they 
were not aware of a feasible wa y of sub-dividing toys that would be acceptable from an economic 
point of view.  The representative of Brazil rep eated that unless the Europ ean Communities suggested 
a logical and feasible method in this regard, nothing could be done by Brazil in this regard.  With  G/SG/M/25 
 Page 7 
 
 
 regard to duration, the representative of Brazil reiter ated the fact that they were still consulting and 
that they reserved their right under the Agreemen t on Safeguards to extend this measure to the 
maximum possible extent.  The representative of Br azil finally stated that they would notify the 
Committee in due course should a decision be made not to utilize the full period. 
2. Canada – Steel 
43. The Chairman  noted that Canada had made two notifi cations regarding its investigation on 
steel, as contained in documents G/SG/N/8/CAN/1/Suppl. 2 and G/SG/N/9/CAN/1. 
44. There were no comments or questions regarding these notifications. 
3. China  – Steel 
45. The Chairman noted that in document G/SG/N/10/CHN/1/Suppl. 1 China had made a 
notification regarding its investigation on steel. 
46. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
4. Colombia  – Electric Smoothing Irons 
47. The Chairman noted that in document G/SG/N /6/COL/2 Colombia had notified the initiation 
of its investigation on electric smoothing irons. 
48. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
5. Ecuador– Paper 
49. The Chairman noted that Ecuador had made tw o notifications regarding its investigation on 
paper, as contained in documents G/ SG/N/6/ECU/6 and G/SG/N/9/ECU/2. 
50. There were no comments or questions regarding these notifications. 
6. Ecuador– Tyres 
51. The Chairman noted that in documents G/SG /N/6/ECU/7 and G/SG/N/9/ECU/1 Ecuador had 
made two notifications regardi ng its investigation on tyres. 
52. There were no comments or questions regarding these notifications. 
7. Ecuador– Smooth Ceramics 
53. The Chairman noted that in document G/SG/Q 2/ECU/9 the European Communities had posed 
questions regarding Ecuador's no tification contained in document G/SG/N/7/ECU/2 concerning its 
investigation on smooth ceramics.  Ecuador had prov ided its answers to these questions in document 
G/SG/Q2/ECU/10. 
54. Regarding the notification of provisional me asures, the delegate of the European 
Communities  noted that in its reply to question two,  Ecuador had suggested that in practice 
provisional measures were always notified after their adoption by the responsible agency.  The 
representative of the European Co mmunities asked how Ecuador consid ered that this view was in 
conformity with Article 12.4 of the Agreement, wh ich required notification prior to the adoption.  The 
representative of the European Communities noted that  Ecuador's reply seemed to suggest that this G/SG/M/25 
Page 8  
 
 post-measure notification was mandated by the domest ic law.  The representative of the European 
Communities therefore asked if their understanding w as correct and, if so, whether or not Ecuador 
intended to modify its law to bring it into conformity with Article 12.4. 
55. Regarding Ecuador's reply to question three concerning the findings on unforeseen 
developments, the delegate of the European Comm unities raised the concer n that the provisional 
determinations contained no findings regarding un foreseen developments.  The delegate of the 
European Communities referred to Ecuador's reply to this question and stated that the concepts of 
unforeseen developments and the increase in imports we re different.  The delegate of the European 
Communities sought Ecuador's clarification on this issue. 
56. Before responding to EC's request for cl arification, the delegate of Ecuador
 pointed to a 
discrepancy in document G/SG/Q2/ECU/10 of 5 Febr uary 2004 which containe d Ecuador's responses 
to EC's questions.  The delegate of Ecuador mentione d that this document stated that it was circulated 
at the request of the European Co mmunities when in fact it was Ecuador that had made such a request.  
The delegate of Ecuador requested that the necessary change be made to this document to remove this 
discrepancy. 
57. Regarding EC's supplementary questions, the de legate of Ecuador stated that they would 
respond after receiving their authorities' explanations.  To that end, the delegate  of Ecuador invited the 
European Communities to send its questions in writing. 
58. The Chairman  noted that Ecuador had made two notif ications regarding its investigation on 
smooth ceramics, as contained in documents  G/SG/N/8/ECU/2 and G/SG/N/10/ECU/3. 
59. The delegate of Brazil  noted that Ecuador's notification re ferred to the imposition of a specific 
duty on subheadings 6908.90.00 and 6907.90.00.  However, when the initial investigation had been 
initiated and notified, it referred exclusively to the first subheading, i.e. 6908.  At the time of the 
initiation of this investigation the list of the countri es concerned was limited.  It included some ten or 
twelve countries.  In October, Ecuador had ma de another notification to include subheading 
6907.90.00 on the grounds that it would be difficult to make any distinction between the products 
classified under these two subheadings.  The delegate of Brazil pointed to the discrepancy stemming 
from the fact that this new product category had not been part of the analysis regarding the initiation of this investigation, particularly with rega rd to the volume, prices and trend of imports. 
60. The delegate of Brazil mentioned that in this additional notification there was no reference to 
the sources of imports.  In documents G/SG/Q2/ ECU/2 and G/SG/Q2/ECU/3, Members had been 
informed of the existence of serious injury a nd the decision to apply the safeguard measure.  
However, no mention had been made of any possib ility for prior consultations under Article 12.3 of 
the Agreement.  The delegate of Brazil pointed out that Brazil had not been excluded from the scope of the safeguard measure in spite of the fact that at the initiation stage it had not been identified as part 
of the sources of the imports and that the sec ond notification had not made any reference to the 
sources of imports.  Therefore, Brazil had concerns both with regard to the basis for the WTO-
consistency of the determin ation of serious injury and the lack of opportunity for prior consultations.  
Brazil looked forward to Ecuador's explanations on these matters, and intended to hold consultations 
with Ecuador regarding the possible effect of  this measure on Brazilia n exports to Ecuador. 
61. The delegate of Ecuador
 stated that regarding the issue of holding consultations, their 
delegation was always open to provide  information if Brazil so required.  If Brazil was interested in 
obtaining clarification on the issues they had referre d to, Ecuador asked Brazil to submit its questions 
in writing.  G/SG/M/25 
 Page 9 
 
 
 8. European Communities – Mandarins 
62. The Chairman  noted that the European Communities had made a number of notifications 
regarding its investigation on mandarins, as contained in documents G/SG/N/7/EEC/2, 
G/SG/N/11/EEC/2, G/SG/N/8/EEC/2, G/SG/N /10/EEC/2 and G/SG/N/11/EEC/2/Suppl.1. 
63. The representative of the European Communities  stated that the latest notification that 
appeared on the agenda with regard to mandarins  concerned the proposed definitive measures, and 
that following that notification those measures ha d been adopted on 8 April 2004 and entered into 
force on 11 April 2004.  An additional notification had been made to the Secretariat in this regard 
during the week preceding the Committee's meeting. 
64. The delegate of the United States  stated that they were studying the EC's most recent 
notification which was not on the agenda for this meeting and that they might have questions about 
that at a later date.  Regarding the notifications th at were on the agenda for this meeting, the United 
States had some questions.  First, looking at th e notification of the provisional safeguard measure 
from November 2003 and then comparing it with the notif ication of the finding of serious injury in the 
notification of March 2004, the United States had noticed  that the data in both notifications seemed to 
be in many cases identical.  The United States asked whether the injury investigation underlying the 
finding of serious injury was in fact solely that conducted for purposes of the imposition of the 
provisional measure, or whether the European  Communities had carried out an additional 
investigation for purposes of imposing the defi nitive measure beyond that conducted for the 
provisional measure.  Second, with respect to the finding of serious injury and the proposed tariff 
quota, the United States asked why the proposed ta riff quota did not take into account the import 
statistics for the period 2002 and 2003 for purposes of  calculating the size of the tariff quota when in 
fact in the notification, in the table on page 12, thos e data were available.  In other words, the United 
States asked why data from the most recent period had not been taken into account when setting the 
tariff quota. 
65. Regarding the first question put by the Unite d States, the delegate of the European 
Communities  responded that there had been an additi onal investigation following the provisional 
findings and this was reflected in the level of the additional duty that was payable once the tariff quota 
would be exceeded.  This was also reflected in  the allocation of quotas between Members having 
substantial interest supplying this product to the EC market and in the fact that the impact of 
enlargement had been taken into account in the de termination of the measures which were adopted.  
Regarding the second question, the representative of  the European Communities stated that they 
would consult colleagues in Brussels and provide a reply to the United States as soon as possible. 
9. European Communities – Certain Steel Products 
66. The Chairman  noted that in document G/SG/N/10/EEC/1/Suppl.2, the European Communities 
had made a notification regarding its investigation on certain steel products. 
67. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.  
10. European Communities – Salmon 
68. The Chairman noted that in document G/ SG/N/6/EEC/3, the European Communities had 
notified the initiation of an investigation on salmon. 
69. The delegate of Norway  stated that Norway had a substantial interest in this case as the 
largest exporter to the European Communities of th e products concerned.  In addition to Norway, 
significant suppliers were the Faeroe Islands, Chile and the United States.  The delegate of Norway G/SG/M/25 
Page 10  
 
 stated that the Norwegian authorities were deep ly concerned about the European Commission's 
decision to initiate a safeguard investigation on imports of farmed salmon from non-EC countries on 
the basis of the requests from the UK and Irish Governments.  In this regard, the delegate of Norway 
drew attention to the very low support among EC pr oducers for the initiation of safeguard procedures. 
70. The delegate of Norway mentioned that No rway had provided its initial response to the 
initiation of the investigation directly to the Europ ean Commission, and that it had requested that the 
submitted information be duly taken into account in the investigation.  Norway had in this respect 
made itself known as an interested party and had re quested an oral hearing.  Norway had also 
requested access to all information relevant to  the case from all other interested parties. 
71. The delegate of Norway pointed out  that No rway would provide comprehensive comments to 
interested Members who so wished on all relevant aspects of the issue at hand.  However, at this 
stage, the delegate of Norway wi shed to stress the following points. 
72. Initially, the delegate of Norway drew the a ttention of Members to the notification provided 
by the European Communities, and in particular to  Annex 1 thereof.  While that Annex in general 
referred to developments until the e nd of September 2003, with regard to prices it only referred to the 
end of May 2003.  According to the representative of Norway, this selection of period was non-
representative, as more updated price information had to have been available.  Such updated 
information showed a very different picture of pr ice developments than did figures for the January – 
May 2003 period.  Norway expected that the EC in all aspects of its investigation would base itself on the most recent data available. 
73. The delegate of Norway pointed out that safeguard measures could only be applied in 
exceptional circumstances, i.e. if faced with the ve ry particular situation where farmed salmon – as a 
result of unforeseen developments – was being imported into the EC market in such increased quantities and under such conditions so as to cause or  threaten to cause serious injury to the EC 
industry producing the like product.  With regard to the requirement of increased imports, the WTO 
Appellate Body had ruled that the increase in imports had to be "sudden, recent, sharp and 
significant".  The Norwegian position was that the criteria for imposing safeguard measures were not 
met.  Having reviewed the complaints by th e UK and Irish governments and other information 
available to the European Commis sion at the time of the initiation, Norway was concerned by the 
Commission's decision to initiate an investigation on such  a weak basis.  It had to have been clear to 
the Commission that the developments the compla inants referred to as unforeseen, either had not 
taken place or were clearly not unforeseen or we re irrelevant.  Norway asked the European 
Commission how the requirement of unforeseen developments had been addressed in accordance with 
WTO obligations. 
74. According to the representative of Norway, im ports had increased to satisfy increased EC 
consumption.  On the whole, EC production, cons umption and imports had de veloped in parallel over 
a number of years, including through 2003.  In 2003 imports had increased by 13 per cent, 
consumption by 10 per cent and production by 11 per cent.  By early 2004 it was clear that prices 
were reflecting a normal market situation.  All in all, these developments were definitely not 
indications of an injured industry or a market in need of such drastic action as a safeguard measure.  
The Norwegian salmon farming industry was cost-eff ective, competitive and unsubsidised.  Parts of 
the EC industry were less competitive due to, inter alia , higher production costs, as identified in 
Norway's written response to the EC Commission.  It  was Norway's view that the difficulties the EC 
salmon farming industry was facing were not caused by  increased imports, but were the result of other 
factors.  Indeed, Norway had noted that competitiv e EC producers, who constituted the large majority 
of the EC industry, were opposed to any measure against imports.  G/SG/M/25 
 Page 11 
 
 
 75. The delegate of Norway stated that the European Communities had applied anti-dumping 
measures on Norwegian farmed salmon for six years,  until May 2003, with strict restraints on 
Norwegian exports of salmon to the EC market.  This period had provided the EC producers with 
ample time to adjust and become more competitive.  Norway was of the firm opinion that safeguard measures were neither called for nor justified under the rules of GATT 1994 and the WTO Agreement 
on Safeguards.  In particular, unforeseen develo pments had not occurred, and imports had not 
increased in such quantities and under such conditions  so as to cause or thr eaten to cause serious 
injury to the EC farmed salmon industry.  Norway was furthermore of the opinion that serious injury 
to the EC producers as a whole of farmed salmon, or threat thereof, could not be demonstrated to be 
caused by imports.  Nor could this be demonstrated  for those EC producer s whose collective output 
constituted a major proportion of the total EC produc tion of farmed salmon.  Norway expected that 
the European Communities, in conformity with  its WTO obligations, would find no grounds for 
introducing safeguard measures against imports of farmed salmon.  If, however, the investigation 
resulted in the introduction of any safeguard measure, the Norwegian Government reserved its right to 
make use of the WTO dispute settlement system. 
76. The delegate of Chile
 shared Norway's concern about the initiation of this investigation on 
salmon which was one of Chile's most important expor t products.  In the EC's first notification it was 
not clear whether or not there had been unforeseen  circumstances leading to increased imports of 
salmon to cause or threaten to cause serious injury to the EC industry.  According to the 
representative of Chile, Annex 1 of the notificati on provided figures without further explanation, 
particularly with respect to the source of serious inju ry.  Furthermore, as mentioned by the delegate of 
Norway, the fact that around 70 per cent of farmed  salmon producing enterprises in Scotland had not 
supported the initiation of the investigation demonstr ated that no safeguard measure was necessary or 
desirable.  The delegate of Chile mentioned that in Chile the salmon industry was of great importance 
to the producers located in the isolated southern regions of the country and that salmon farming was 
one of the few ways for them to integrate in the economic development under present rules of free 
trade.  The Government of Chile was an interested  party in this safeguard investigation so as to 
safeguard the conditions of market access for this pr oduct.  Likewise, Chile reserved the right to bring 
up its doubts and points of view on the measure notified and on future developments in the 
appropriate bodies of the WTO.  As there was no background which justified the initiation of the 
investigation and therefore the application of the measure, Chile trusted that the European authorities 
would conclude the investigation without imposition of a measure as soon as possible.  According to 
the delegate of Chile, this woul d be consistent with the system ic interests which the European 
Communities had shown in the correct applicati on of the multilateral provisions on safeguards. 
77. The representative of the European Communities  reminded the Committee that the 
notification at issue was a notification about the initiation of an investigation.  As Norway had 
demonstrated itself, Norway was extremely active in  the investigation and in making every use of the 
extensive procedural rules and guarantees that the EC legal system provided.  The delegate of the 
European Communities  stated that  Norway seemed to have reache d its own conclusions about the 
outcome of this investigation but that the EC Comm ission had not yet done so as the investigation was 
still ongoing.  The delegate of the European Comm unities stated that they intended to apply the 
safeguards instrument in conformity with the WT O Safeguards Agreement as interpreted by the DSB. 
78. Regarding the issue of unforeseen developments ra ised by Norway and Chile, the delegate of 
the European Communities stated that, although evid ence in this regard had been provided in the 
request for the initiation of the investigation, it was not clear whether this was relevant for the 
initiation of an investigation.  In the view of th e European Communities, th is was an issue for the 
imposition of safeguard measures and this would be investigated carefully by the team in charge.  
Regarding the comments concerning the allegedly lo w domestic support for this investigation, the 
representative of the European Communities stated that  it was not clear whether this was relevant for 
a safeguard investigation.  Since there was no st anding requirement in the Agreement on Safeguards, G/SG/M/25 
Page 12  
 
 there was no need to demonstrate the industry support for the initiation.  What needed to be 
demonstrated and established was whether a majo r proportion of the domestic industry was suffering 
serious injury.  The delegate of the European Co mmunities also stated that  the reason why a certain 
share of the Scottish industry was not supporting the initiation of this investigation was because they 
were Norwegian owned.  The de legate of the European Communities finally stated that the 
investigation was ongoing and if ever provisional me asures were intended they would be notified to 
the Committee in due time in  accordance with Article 12.4 of the Agreement. 
79. The delegate of the United States
 mentioned that they were also following with great interest 
the initiation of yet another safeguards investigati on by the European Communities.  Regarding the 
issue of unforeseen developments, the delegate of  the United States asked whether the European 
Communities considered the withdrawal of counter vailing duty measures or anti-dumping measures to 
be an unforeseen development that would jus tify the imposition of a safeguard measure. 
80. The delegate of the European Communities  stated that the existence of unforeseen 
developments had been alleged by both the Un ited Kingdom and Ireland in their request for the 
initiation of an investigation.  The delegate of th e European Communities mentioned that this was one 
factor that had been mentioned in the request a nd that no conclusion had so far been reached as to 
whether or not this type of event qualified as an unforeseen development.  
81. The delegate of Norway ,  acknowledging the fact that this was an investigation and that no 
measures had yet been taken, stressed the fact that the comments that they had made in this context 
concerned the basic criteria that needed to be fulf illed in this respect.  As regards the element of 
unforeseen circumstances and the elements contained in the original complaint, the delegate of 
Norway stated that they had commented upon that directly in Brussels and that they had copies of 
those comments available for all Members who were interested. 
82. The delegate of Chile  also acknowledged the fact that this was only an initiation but stated 
that they expressed their views hoping that, with a ll the background elements before the Commission, 
the measure would not be applied. 
11. Hungary – Sugar 
83. The Chairman  noted that Hungary had made three notif ications regarding its investigation on 
sugar, as  contained in documents G/SG/N/8/HUN/3, G/SG/N/10/HUN/3 and 
G/SG/N/11/HUN/3/Suppl.1. 
84. There were no comments or questions regarding these notifications. 
12. India – Bisphenol A 
85. The Chairman noted that in document G/SG/N/8/IND/13 India had made a notification 
regarding its investigation on Bisphenol A. 
86. The delegate of the United States  asked whether there had been any update on the status of 
this proceeding.  The United States understood that there had been a notification of findings back in 
November 2003 with respect to serious injury an d recommending imposition of a safeguard measure.  
Given that no further notifications had been made , the United States wanted to know whether there 
had been any additional information as to whether a decision had been made about the application of 
the measure. 
87. The delegate of India  stated that their government had decided not to impose safeguard duties 
on imports of bisphenol A.  G/SG/M/25 
 Page 13 
 
 
 13. Jamaica – Cement 
88. The Chairman  noted that Jamaica had made two notifi cations regarding its investigation on 
cement, as contained in documents G/SG/N/6/JAM/1 and G/SG/N/7/JAM/1. 
89. The delegate of Egypt  stated that Egypt had, since the initiation of the Jamaican proceedings, 
actively cooperated with the Jamaican authority and drew the attention of the Committee and the 
Jamaican delegation to certain issues in re lation to the documents G/SG/N/6/JAM/1 and 
G/SG/N/7/JAM/1. 
90. Regarding the procedural requirements, the re presentative of Egypt stated that they were 
particularly concerned with Jamaica's failure to co mply with its notification obligation under Article 
12 of the Agreement on Safeguards.  According to the delegate of Egypt, Jamaica had only notified 
the Committee on Safeguards of its laws, regulations, administrative procedures relating to safeguard 
measures on 18 March 2004, i.e. more than 5 m onths after the initiation of the investigation 
(16 October 2003) and four months after the impos ition of the provisional safeguard duties against 
Egypt (16 February 2004).  Also, Jamaica had negl ected its obligation under Article 12.1(a) of the 
Agreement on Safeguards by failing to immediat ely notify the Committee on Safeguards of the 
initiation of its investigation.  The Committee had been  notified of this investigation more than four 
months after its initiation.  Furthermore, Jamai ca had failed to notify its Notice of Affirmative 
Preliminary Determination to the Committee on Sa feguards pursuant to Article 12.1(b) of the 
Agreement on Safeguards.  Jamaica had adopted a Notice of Affirmative Preliminary Determination 
and a Statement of Reasons in which it had found th at its domestic industry ha d been injured and was 
threatened to suffer injury as a result of imports of OPC on 15 December 2003 but had failed to notify 
this decision.  Finally, Jamaica had failed to in form the Committee on Safeguards of its decision to 
adopt a provisional safeguard measure promptly in accordance with Article 12.4 of the Agreement.  
The Jamaican Anti-Dumping and Subsidies Commi ssion had rendered an affirmative preliminary 
determination on 15 December 2003 and the Cabinet had confirmed the proposed safeguard measure 
shortly thereafter but Jamaica had only notified th e Committee on Safeguards of the adoption of a 
safeguard measure on 16 February 2004.  In this re gard, Egypt wished the delegate from Jamaica to 
specify the date of entry into force of the provi sional safeguard measure since the information made 
available to it in this regard was inconsistent. 
91. On substantive conditions, Egypt considered th at the circumstances identified by Jamaica in 
the Statement of Reasons supporting the adoption of  provisional safeguard measures could not be 
considered as unforeseen developments resulting in an increase of imports causing and/or threatening 
to cause serious injury within the meaning of  Article XIX of GATT 1994.  This analysis was 
supported by Jamaica which had agreed that the unforeseen developments which had been identified 
had occurred prior to the investig ation period.  Consequently, Egyp t considered that the critical 
circumstances addressed by Jamaica were irrelevant  in the framework of the unforeseen development 
analysis.  The delegate of Egypt argued that, in lin e with Articles 2 and 4 of the Agreement, the scope 
of the safeguard proceeding had to be limited to the products that were like or directly competing with 
those produced in Jamaica, i.e. OPC classified  under the HS subheading 2523.2910.0.  Egypt 
considered that imported cement wh ich did not have the same characteristics as Jamaican cement had 
to be excluded from the scope of the proceeding.  Egypt also considered that Jamaica had failed to 
objectively analyse the information collected and made  available to it in order to determine whether 
increased imports had caused or threat ened to cause serious injury to the Jamaican cement industry.  
The figures used to assess the increase in imports ha d been chosen on a selective basis to artificially 
highlight increase of imports in specific years, i.e., mainly during 2002 and 2003.  Egypt considered that an objective comparison of the trend of imports in relation to domestic production would 
establish that the increase in imports did not justify the imposition of a safeguard measure under Article 2.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards.  Egypt  considered that the analysis of the economic 
situation of the Jamaican cement industry confirmed that it had not suffered injury or was threatened G/SG/M/25 
Page 14  
 
 thereby.  The factors examined in line with Artic le 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards indicated that 
the required serious injury standard was not satisfi ed.  The representative of Egypt finally welcomed 
the recent decision by Jamaica to accept Egypt's re quest for consultations under Article 12.4 of the 
Agreement.  The delegate of Egypt expressed hope that these consultations would enable Egypt to 
present its claim further and in more detail to Jamaica  and that Jamaica would use this opportunity to 
conclude its safeguard investigation in accordance with its obligations. 
92. The delegate of Jamaica
 requested Egypt to submit a written copy of this statement so that it 
could be transmitted back to their capital. 
14. Moldova – Sugar 
93. The Chairman  noted that Moldova had made a num ber of notifications regarding its 
investigation on sugar, as contained in documents G/SG/N/6/MDA/1, G/SG/N/8/MDA/1, 
G/SG/N/10/MDA/1 and G/SG/N/11/MDA/1. 
94. There were no comments or questions regarding these notifications. 
15. Philippines – Cement 
95. The Chairman noted that the Philippines had made two notifications regarding its 
investigation on cement, as contained in documents G/SG/N/10/PHL/2/Suppl.1 and 
G/SG/N/11/PHL/2/Suppl.1. 
96. There were no comments or questions regarding these notifications. 
16. Poland  – Matches 
97. The Chairman noted that Poland had made three notifications regarding its investigation on 
matches, as contained in documents G/SG/N/10/ POL/4, G/SG/N/11/POL/5 and G/SG/N/8/POL/4. 
98. The delegate of Mexico  stated that consultations between Mexico and Poland had been 
initiated regarding the issues of concern to Mexico , which included the non-exclusion of Mexico from 
the scope of this measure and that Mexico would pursue these consultations. 
17. United States – Steel 
99. The Chairman  noted that the United States had made three notifications regarding its 
investigation on steel, as contained in documents G/SG/N/10/USA/6/Suppl. 8, G/C/15/Suppl. 2 and 
G/SG/44/Suppl. 2. 
100. There were no comments or questions regarding these notifications. 
18. Venezuela – Iron/Steel U Sections  
101. The Chairman noted that in document G/SG /Q2/VEN/3, the European Communities had 
asked questions regarding Venezuela's investigati on on iron/steel U sections and that Venezuela had 
responded to these questions in document G/SG/Q2/VEN/4. 
102. The delegate of the European Communities  noted that there were currently no measures applied 
since the provisional measures had expired.  He also noted, however, that the proceeding was still 
pending due to the fact that, as fa r as they knew, the President of Venezuela had not yet taken any 
decision to formally terminate the investigation.  The delegate of the European Communities  stated that  G/SG/M/25 
 Page 15 
 
 
 this was creating uncertainties in the market and inv ited Venezuela to clarify the current status of this 
investigation.  The delegate of the European Co mmunities asked whether or not there had been any 
development regarding the decision to terminate th e investigation and, if not, whether there was a 
timeframe for the adoption of this decision. 
103. The delegate of Venezuela  stated that, as mentioned by the EC, in document SG/Q2/VEN/4, 
Venezuela had provided its answers to EC's questions.  With regard to the first group of questions put by 
the European Communities, the representative of Venezu ela stated that the Technical Secretariat of the 
Anti-Dumping and Subsidies Committee which was responsible for these matters in Venezuela had 
completed its definitive report in March and had provided it to the Ministry of Trade and the Ministry of Finance, ministries responsible fo r decision-making in this area.  Th ese ministries had drafted a final 
recommendation for consideration by the President of the Republic who was the final arbiter of such 
matters.  Pursuant to the legal framework in Venezuela, the President had 20 working days to issue a 
decree confirming his decision on th is matter and that they would inform the Committee of any new 
developments in this field. The representative of Venezuela stated that although the technical report 
covered the risk of injury, causality and the other issues, the decision was at the discretion of the 
President.  Once the President rendered its decision, Venezuela was prepared to issue its final report 
under Article 12.1(b) of the Agreem ent on Safeguards as requested by the delegation of the European 
Communities. 
104. As to the second group of questio ns circulated by the European Communities, the delegate of 
Venezuela stated that the tax authority of Venezuela had informed that the provisional measure had been applied solely and exclusively duri ng the periods stipulated in the notification, i.e. 200 days.  The 
delegate of Venezuela pointed out  th at this confirmed the fact that this measure was no longer operative 
or that the authorities reimbursed the amounts levied as a provisional measure which was not the case in this particular matter. 
105. The Committee took note
 of the statements made. 
106. The Chairman recalled that any questions con cerning the notifications of actions taken for 
which written responses were requested had to be submitted to the Member concerned and to the 
Secretariat no later than 10 May 2004.  Written answer s had to be submitted to the Secretariat no later 
than 31May 2004. 
C. APPLICATION  OF ARTICLE  9.1 
107. The Chairman  recalled that the Committee had agreed at its last regular meeting to revert to 
this item at the present meeting.  The Chairman al so recalled that Malaysia  had submitted a paper on 
13 April 2004, which had been circulated in docume nt Job (04)/44 and that no other paper had been 
submitted on this matter. 
108. The Chairman  suggested that the Committee might revert to this item at a later date. 
109. The representative of the United States  stated that rather than reverting to this item again at a 
later date, the Committee could discuss this issue usi ng a formal written procedure rather than having 
it as a standing agenda item. 
110. With reference to the paper submitted by  Malaysia, the delegate of Colombia  made some 
suggestions to the Committee as to how the Committee could pursue its work regarding the 
application of Article 9.1.  In Colombia's view , Members had to seek to explore the possibility of 
making it mandatory that the period for the determina tion of serious injury coincide with the period 
used for the exclusion of developing countries from the scope of the measure.  Should this not be 
possible, the delegate of Colombia suggested to look  at the possibility of a notification by Members of G/SG/M/25 
Page 16  
 
 the period they used for purposes of 9.1, with a view to avoiding a situation where a Member would 
use different time periods in different investigations , which would also change the list of developing 
countries that would be exempted from the scope of the measure. 
111. The delegate of Cuba
 stated that their understanding was that the representative of Malaysia 
had planned to speak on this matter.  The delega te of Cuba expressed suppor t for the paper submitted 
by Malaysia.  Cuba considered that it was an in teresting document and that it contributed to the 
further consideration of the application of Article 9.1 within the Committee.  Cuba believed that the 
Agreement on Safeguards established a set of pro cedural rules that had to be respected by 
investigating authorities when they made their determ inations in investigations.  Any decisions made 
without respecting these procedural rules would, th erefore, violate the Agreement and would damage 
the rights of Members, particularly those of devel oping countries.  The delegate of Cuba stated that 
Article 9.1 of the Agreement defined under wh ich conditions measures would not apply to a 
product/good from a developing coun try Member.  The use of a criterion different from that 
established in Article 9.1 would, therefore, not be acceptable.  The delegate of Cuba noted that they 
had expressed their view on two of the issues raised in  the paper and reiterated that this was a valuable 
contribution to the continuing de bate on the application of Article 9.1 within the Committee. 
112. The delegate of China  stated that Malaysia's paper provided a good basis for future 
discussions in the Committee.  As a developing Memb er, China considered that the arguments raised 
in Malaysia's paper were legitimate given the rece nt increase in the use of safeguard measures by 
Members.  Since China had little experience on th e application of safeguard measures as a WTO 
Member, they wanted to receive further information regarding other Members' practice in this field.  
The delegate of China also mentioned that there we re several safeguard measures that had been taken 
by other Members towards Chinese products.  China not ed that there were some technical and legal 
problems in these investigations.  One of these proble ms related to the definition of the developing 
country status by an investigating authority.  In China's view, the discussion of this issue would improve the transparency and efficiency of the provisi on set out in Article 9.1.  The delegate of China 
noted that an increasing number of WTO Members ha d applied their own national criteria to identify 
developing country status for purposes of a safeguard i nvestigation.  This could lead to outcomes that 
were never transparent or predictable for WTO Memb ers, nor intended by the Safeguard Agreement.  
China considered that the identification of deve loping Member status should not be left to the 
arbitrary decision of the investigating authorities.  Regarding the other relevant and technical issues 
concerning the application of Article 9.1, the delega te of China stated that they wished to discuss 
them in depth in order to provide more clarifica tion.  China intended to participate in the future 
discussions on this issue. 
113. The delegate of Mexico
 stated that the definition of developing country Members was an 
interesting issue that had not been addressed in Arti cle 9.  In the view of Mexico, this issue was 
important and therefore whatever contributions could be made by Members on their practices would 
be interesting.  Some other important aspects that needed to be taken into account would be the period 
for the analysis which carried out subsequent to th e application of the measure to determine whether 
or not a country that had been excluded previously w ould be re-included in the scope of the measure.  
Another aspect concerned the issue of whether or not there had to be a new investigation or simply a 
re-determination and in that connection it was not clear whether or not the 3 per cent criterion needed 
to be maintained.  The delegate of Mexico expressed  a preliminary opinion along the lines that the re-
inclusion of a developing country in the scope of  application of a safeguard measure would only 
happen when that country substituted imports which were originally the basis of the determinations of 
serious injury. 
114. The delegate of Mexico mentioned that another im portant issue in this regard was to give the 
exporting country that was being considered for re -inclusion an opportunity to participate in the 
process and make its views known.  Mexico considered  that it would be important for Mexico to be  G/SG/M/25 
 Page 17 
 
 
 given such an opportunity in cases where it was being considered to be re-inc luded in the scope of 
application of a safeguard measure which did not origin ally apply to Mexico.  In the view of Mexico,  
therefore, it was important to hold discussions in the Committee in order to clarify the way in which the re-determinations were carried out by Members. 
115. The representative of Australia
 noted that Malaysia's paper was almost identical to a non-
paper that Malaysia had circulated for the cons ideration of Members at the Committee on Safeguards 
meeting of 20 October 2003.  The delegate of Aust ralia also noted that Australia had commented in 
detail on that non-paper at that meeting and those comments were recorded in the minutes of that 
Committee meeting.  The delegate of Australia stat ed that they stood by those comments.  Australia 
believed that they had raised a number of relevant  issues and would be interested in Malaysia's 
reaction to those issues in moving this item forward. 
116. The delegate of Egypt  stated that in their view the purpose of this contribution was to 
stimulate the discussion among Members to enhance tr ansparency in the implementation of Article 
9.1.  Secondly, Egypt stressed the fact that Ar ticle 9.1 was a special and differential treatment 
provision for developing countries.  The delegate of Egypt stated that their understanding was that the 
intention of the proponent was not to introduce any amendments or changes to the current text of 
Article 9.1, but to have clear disciplines regardi ng the timeframe.  Finally, the delegate of Egypt 
mentioned that to stimulate further discussion based on this contribution by Malaysia it would be very 
useful if the Secretariat could furnish the Comm ittee with data regarding the past and current 
experience of Members regarding the implementation of  Article 9.1. 
117. The Chairman  stated that this item would be put on the agenda of the next regular Committee 
meeting if requested by a Member. 
118. The Chairman encouraged Members to address questions or concerns at the following 
meeting rather than repeating what their positions  were.  In the meantime, Members could make 
comments in writing so that these could be circulated for consideration by other Members as well.    
119. The Committee took note of the statements made. 
D. DATE  OF NEXT  REGULAR  MEETING 
120. The Chairman  recalled that regular meetings normally w ould 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.  The Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices and subsidiary bodies would meet be tween 26–29 October 2004, and the Negotiating Group 
on Rules was likely to meet from 1-3 November  followed by the Committee on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures.  Accordingly, the Chairm an proposed that the Safeguards Committee meet 
on Monday, 25 October 2004. 
121. The Committee so agreed
. 
E. ELECTION  OF OFFICERS 
122. The Chairman  stated that the Chairman of the Council for Trade in Goods had not yet 
completed the necessary informal consultations on th e nomination of Chairpersons for the different 
bodies operating under the auspices of the Council for Trade in Goods.  He therefore proposed that the Committee postpone further discussion of this ag enda item until the beginning of the Committee's 
next meeting, and that the Chairman himself and the Vice-Chair, Mr. John Layton, continue to serve 
in their current positions until that time. G/SG/M/25 
Page 18  
 
 123. The Committee so agreed
. 
__________