./.RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SG/Q1/LTU/1
10 April 2002
(02-1922)
Committee on Safeguards Original:  English
NOTIFICATION OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER
ARTICLE 12.6 OF THE AGREEMENT
Questions Posed by the UNITED STATES
Regarding the Notification of LITHUANIA1
The following communication, dated 9 April 2002, has been received from the Permanent
Mission of the United States.
_______________
1. Article 2, paragraph 5, of the Lithuanian law appears to incorporate the “like product”
definition in the WTO Anti-Dumping and Subsidies Agreements, and does not use the term “like or
directly competitive” found in the Safeguards Agreement and in Article XIX of GATT 1994 or seekto define the domestic producers in terms contained in the Safeguards Agreement.  Please explain
how the Lithuanian law is consistent with the Safeguards Agreement in this respect.
2. The definitions in paragraphs 7 and 8 of Articl e 2 of the Lithuanian law, when read together,
could be read to suggest that a safeguard measure in the form of a customs duty may only be applied
as a provisional measure.  Such a reading would suggest that more permanent measures must be in the
form of a quota.  Please explain what is intended by these definitions, and how they are consistentwith the Safeguards Agreement.
3. Articles 4 and 5 of the Lithuanian law, which describe the purpose of the investigation and the
process for initiating an investigation, refer to “imports” causing serious injury, as opposed to
“increased imports” causing serious injury, although subsequent articles in the Lithuanian law refer to“increased imports” (e.g., Article 8, paragraph 1).  Is there a reason why the term “increased imports”
is used in some places and not others?
4. Article 8, paragraph 1 (5) of the Lithuanian law lists the various economic factors to be
considered in determining whether increased imports caused or threatened serious injury, and includesall the factors listed in Article 4, paragraph 2 (a) of the Safeguards Agreement except productivity.  Is
there a reason for the omission?
5. Article 8, para. 8, of the Lithuanian law stat es that the Institution normally would examine
information covering the last 3 years, but would allow the Institution to examine information for aslittle as 6 months.  Under what circumstances mi ght the Institution examine information for a period
as short as 6 months?  How would the Institution know that the industry’s condition during the most
recent 6 months is not its normal condition, and how would it establish a linkage between the increase
in imports and the serious injury or threat to the domestic industry based on a review of so short a
period?  Would 6 months data be sufficient to show increased imports?
                                                     
1 G/SG/N/1/LTU/2G/SG/Q1/LTU/1
Page 2
6. Article 10 of the Lithuanian law lists as an objective of a safeguard measure “to eliminate”
serious injury or the threat thereof.  Article 5, paragraph 1, of the Safeguards Agreement uses the term
“prevent or remedy serious injury”.  What does the Lithuanian law mean by “eliminate”, and is this
the same thing as “prevent or remedy”?
7. Article 11 of the Lithuanian law allows for the taking of a provisional safeguard measure.
However, unlike Article 6 of the Safeguards Agreement, it does not indicate the circumstances under
which such a measure might be taken (“critical circumstances”), or require that there be “clear
evidence” that increased imports are causing or threatening serious injury”.  Please explain how the
Lithuanian provision is consistent with the requirements of Article 6 of the Safeguards Agreement.
For example, does Lithuania believe that provisional measures could be applied when criticalcircumstances are not present?
8. Article 14, paragraph 3, of the Lithuanian law pr ovides, when there is no agreement with the
exporting countries with respect to the allocation of a quota, that the quota be allocated based on
country shares for the last 3 years.  Article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Safeguards Agreement refers toshares “during a previous representative period” and does not specify the duration of that period.  On
what basis does Lithuania conclude that the “previous representative period” shall be in all cases the
last 3 years?
__________