RESTRICTED  
  
G/SG/M/ 60 
16 September  2022 
(22-6842) Page: 1/17 
Committee on Safeguards   
 
  
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING  
HELD ON 25 APRIL  2022 
CHAIRPERSON : MS MARY LISA MADELL  
(THE UNITED KINGDOM)  
1.  The Committee on Safeguards (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 25 April 2022. 
2.  As the meeting was held in person as well as virtually via Interprefy, the Chair reminded Members 
of the different technical arrangements for participating remotely as r eflected in the "Technical 
Guide", a link to which had also been included in the airgram convening the meeting.  
3.  The Chair reiterated her request to delegations to provide their up -to-date contact details by 
email to the Secretariat, so that it can update i ts contact details list, contained in document RD/SG/3  
series . 
4.  The Committee adopted  the following agenda contained in document WTO/AIR/SG/14:  
1 NATIONAL LEGISLATION  ................................ ................................ ..............................  5 
1.1 Review of Notifications of New or Amended Legislation or Regulations Not Previously 
Reviewed by the Committee (Including Sup plemental Notifications of Existing Provisions 
Not Previously Reviewed)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 5 
1.1.1 Brazil – Review of New Legislative Notification (G /ADP/N/1/BRA/3/S uppl.14 - 
G/SCM/N/1/BRA/2/S uppl.17 - G/SG/N/1/BRA/3/S uppl.8; G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3/S uppl.15 - 
G/SCM/N/1/BRA/2/S uppl.18 - G/SG/N/1/BRA/3/S uppl.9; G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3/S uppl.16 - 
G/SCM/N/1/BRA/2/S uppl.19 - G/SG/N/1/BRA/3/S uppl.10; G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3/S uppl.17 - 
G/SCM/N/1/BRA/2/S uppl.20 - G/SG/N/1/BRA/3/S uppl.11) ................................ .....................  5 
1.1.2 Cameroon – Review of New Legislative Notif ication (G/ADP/N/1/CMR/2 - 
G/SCM/N/1/CMR/2 - G/SG/N/1/CMR/2; G/ADP/N/1/CMR/2/S uppl.1 - 
G/SCM/N/1/CMR/2/S uppl.1 - G/SG/N/1/CMR/2/S uppl.1; and 
G/ADP/N/1/CMR/2/S uppl.2 - G/SCM/N/1/CMR/2/S uppl.2 - G/SG/N/1/CMR/2/S uppl.2) ................  6 
1.2 Review of Notifications of New or Amended Legislation or Regulations with 
Outstanding Written Questions  ................................ ................................ ...........................  6 
1.2.1 Cameroon – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/ADP/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1 ‒ 
G/SCM/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1 ‒ G/SG/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1)  ................................ ........................  6 
1.2.2 Liberia – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/SG/N/1/LBR/1)  ................................ .. 6 
1.2.3 United Kingdom – Review of New Legislative Notification 
(/SG/N/1/GBR/1/S uppl.11) ................................ ................................ ................................  6 
2 NATIONAL LEGISLATION - CONTINUING REVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE 
NOTIFICATIONS PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE  ................................ ........  7 
2.1 Ghana – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications G/ADP/N/1/GHA/2 ‒ 
G/SCM/N/1/GHA/2 ‒ G/SG/N/1/GHA/2)  ................................ ................................ ...............  7 
2.2 India – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications 
(G/SG/N/1/IND/3/S uppl.2) ................................ ................................ ................................  7 G/SG/M/60  
 
- 2 - 
 
  2.3 Zimbabwe – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications 
(G/SG/N/1/ZWE/3)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  7 
3 NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RELATED TO SAFEGUARD MEASURES  .............................  8 
3.1 European Union ‒ Certain Steel Produ cts (G/SG/N/10/EU/1/S uppl.12, 
G/SG/N/10/EU/1/S uppl.13, G/SG/N/10/EU/1/S uppl.13/R ev.1, 
G/SG/N/10/EU/1/S uppl.14 - G/SG/N/11/EU/1/S uppl.9, G/L/1408 - G/SG/266)  ..........................  8 
3.2 India – Isopropyl Alcohol (G/SG/N/8/IND/33 - G/SG/N/10/IND/24 - 
G/SG/N/11/IND/19)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  10 
3.3 Indonesia – I and H Sections of Other Alloy Steel ( G/SG/N/6/IDN/25/S uppl.4/Corr.1) ..........  10 
3.4 Indonesia – Expansible Polystyrene in the form of Granule 
(G/SG/N/10/IDN/30/S uppl.1 - G/SG/N/11/IDN/26)  ................................ ..............................  10 
3.5 Indonesia – Cigarette Paper (G/SG/N/8/IDN/29/S uppl.1 - 
G/SG/N/10/IDN/29/S uppl.1) ................................ ................................ .............................  10 
3.6 Indonesia – Ceramic Flags and Paving, Hearth or Wall Tiles 
(G/SG/N/10/IDN/20/S uppl.3 - G/SG/N/11/IDN/17/S uppl.2) ................................ ...................  11 
3.7 Indonesia – Articles of Apparel and Clothing Accessories (G/SG/N/10/IDN/28/S uppl.1 
- G/SG/N/11/IDN/25 ) ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 11 
3.8 Madagascar – Pasta (G/L/1423 - G/SG/N/13/MDG/3)  ................................ ......................  11 
3.9 Madagascar – Edible Vegetable Oils and Margarines (G/SG/N/10/MDG/5/S uppl.1 - 
G/SG/N/11/MDG/7/S uppl.3) ................................ ................................ ..............................  11 
3.10 Madagascar – Lubricating Oils (G/SG/N/10/MDG/6/S uppl.1 - 
G/SG/N/11/MDG/6/S uppl.3) ................................ ................................ ..............................  11 
3.11 Morocco – Lighting Columns (G/SG/N/7/MAR/6/S uppl.1 - 
G/SG/N/11/MAR/9/S uppl.1) ................................ ................................ ..............................  12 
3.12 Morocco – Coated Wood Board (G/SG/N/6/MAR/10/S uppl.1 - G/SG/N/14/MAR/3 ) ..............  12 
3.13 Morocco – Wire Rods and Reinforcing Bars (G/SG/N/10/MAR/3/S uppl.5 - 
G/SG/N/11/MAR/2/S uppl.5) ................................ ................................ ..............................  12 
3.14 Morocco – Cold-Rolled Sheets (G/SG/N/10/MAR/4/S uppl.4 - 
G/SG/N/11/MAR/4/S uppl.5) ................................ ................................ ..............................  12 
3.15 Peru – Clothing (G/SG/N/6/PER/4 ) ................................ ................................ ..............  12 
3.16 South Africa – Bolts with Hexagon Heads of Iron or Steel (G/SG/N/8/ZAF/9 - 
G/SG/N/10/ZAF/7 - G/SG/N/11/ZA F/7/S uppl.1) ................................ ................................ ... 13 
3.17 South Africa – Threaded Fasteners of Iron and Steel Bolt Ends & Screw Studs, Screw 
Studding and Other Hexagon Nuts (G/SG/N/11/ZAF/5/S uppl.3) ................................ ..............  13 
3.18 Türkiye – Yarn of Nylon of Other Polyamides (G/SG/N/6/TUR/25/S uppl.1 - 
G/SG/N/14/TU R/12)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  13 
3.19 Ukraine – Certain Types of Cheese (G/SG/N/6/UKR/24)  ................................ .................  13 
3.20 Ukraine – Tricone Drilling Bits (G/SG/N/6/UKR/23)  ................................ ........................  13 
3.21 Ukraine – Wires (G/SG/N/8/UKR/11/S uppl.2 - G/SG/N/10/UKR/11/S uppl.2 - 
G/SG/N/11/UKR/9/S uppl.2) ................................ ................................ ..............................  13 
3.22 United Kingdom – Certain Steel Products (G/SG/N/10/GBR/1/S uppl.7 - 
G/SG/N/11/GBR/1/S uppl.7, G/L/1429 - G/SG/268, G/SG/N/6/GBR/1/S uppl.2 - 
G/SG/N/8/GBR/1/S uppl.6 - G/SG/N/10/GBR/1/S uppl.6 - G/SG/N/11/GBR/1/S uppl.6, 
G/SG/N/10/GBR/1/S uppl.5 - G/SG/N/11/GBR/1/S uppl.5, G/SG/N/10/GBR/1/S uppl.4 - 
G/SG/N/11/GBR/1/S uppl.4, G/SG/N/8/GBR/1/S uppl.5 - G/SG/N/10/GBR/1/S uppl.3 - 
G/SG/N/11/GBR/1/S uppl.3, G/L/1422 - G/SG/N/12/BRA/5,  G/L/1398/S uppl.1 - 
G/SG/263/S uppl.1) ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  13 G/SG/M/60  
 
- 3 - 
 
  3.23 United States – Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells (G/SG/N/10/USA/7/S uppl.14, 
G/SG/N/10/USA/7/S uppl.13, G/SG/N/10/USA/7/S uppl.13/C orr.1) ................................ ..........  15 
3.24 Viet Nam – Mineral of Chemical Fertilizers (G/SG/N/6/VNM/6/S uppl.2) .............................  15 
4 PHILIPPINES - HIGH -DENSITY POLYETHYLENE AND LINEAR LOW -DENSITY 
POLYETHYLENE PELLETS AND GRANULES (ITEM REQUESTED BY THE UNITED 
STATES)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................  16 
5 OBSERVATION BY THE EUROPEAN UNION ON MOROCCO 'S INVES TIGATION ON 
COATED WOOD PANELS (ITEM REQUESTED BY THE EUROPEAN UNION)  ........................  16 
6 INDONESIA - CARPETS AND OTHER TEXTILE FLOOR COVERINGS (ITEM 
REQUESTED BY JAPAN)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 16 
7 COSTA RICA - REFINED WHITE SUGAR (ITEM REQUESTED BY BRAZIL)  ......................  16 
8 OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  16 
9 DATE OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING  ................................ ................................ ....... 17 
10 ELECTION OF OFFICERS  ................................ ................................ ............................  17 
 
5.  Following the adoption of the agenda for the meeting, Ukraine  requested the floor. Ukraine stated 
that the growth of the world economy was  projected to slow significantly from 2021 to 2023, and 
that the war would cause a very severe contraction. For 2022, the Ukrainian economy was expected 
to contract by 35 %. Ukraine referred to the consequences of war for Ukraine's  economy and trade 
indicating by way of example the iron a nd steel industry, which before the war had contributed about 
11% to Ukrainian GDP and accounted for one third of Ukrainian exports. As a result of the Russian 
armed aggression starting from 2014, numerous steelmaking enterprises had already closed, and 
since that time the steel industry in Ukraine ha d shrunk. With its full -scale military invasion on the 
24 February 2022 Russia had put under threat the entire metallurgical complex of Ukraine.  
In Mariupol , which was the epicentre of the fight between the Ukrainian army and Russian occupiers , 
90% of the city had been wiped away from the surface of the Earth by Russian bombs. Russia's  
invasion  had left thousands of peaceful civilians dying on the streets of Mariupol, and tens of 
thousands were forcibly deported to Russia.  In order to ensure the safety of the steel plant for the 
city and the environment, leaders of the Ukrainian steel industry had decided to shut down its blast 
furnaces , meaning that the entire plant had had  to cease function ing. The prospects for resum ing 
production were obviously unclear. The c onsequences of war for the steel enterprises and their entire 
infrastructure ma de it impossible to consider that Ukrainian steel products could pose a threat to 
any market abroad and h ence be the subject of safeguard measures.  The war also had heavily 
affected Ukraine 's ability  to conduct safeguard investigations and reviews.  Since 24 February  2022, 
the day of Russia's military invasion, the investigative activities of the Ministry of Economy of 
Ukraine, as well as the decision -making by the Inter -Departmental Commission on International 
Trade, ha d been seriously disrupted. Furthermore, the military invasion had impeded the ability of 
domestic interested parties such as Ukra inian producers, importers, and users to effectively 
participate in the ongoing investigations. In addition, c ertain deadlines for the Ministry and interested 
parties in ongoing proceedings ha d already lapsed without the  relevant actions being taken. Many 
more deadlines were likely to be missed in the future. The Ministry was considering how to address 
this issue. Different options ha d been explored, ranging from extending certain specific deadlines to 
tolling all deadlines of proceedings that were ongoing on 24 February 2022, at least for the duration 
of the martial law. In March 2022 the Ministry had informed all interested parties in the ongoing 
procedures o f the postponement of the deadlines in trade remedies investigations. The Ukrainian 
investigating a uthorities would continue to develop appropriate mechanism s and would inform 
interested parties regarding further special procedure s regarding safeguard investigations . Ukraine 
appeal ed to Members to stop any engagements with the blatant aggressor within t he WTO, as well 
as any cooperation on a bilateral level.  
6.  The European Union  supported Ukraine's stat ement and condemned , in the strongest possible 
terms , the unprovoked invasion of Ukraine by Russia's armed forces. The European Union called on 
Russia to stop the act of aggression immediately. The European Union  firmly stood by the people of G/SG/M/60  
 
- 4 - 
 
  Ukraine. The European Union 's support included adoption of economi c and trade sanctions against 
Russia.  One form of such sanctions was the import ban on those steel products currently subject to 
the European Union 's safeguard measure. This amounted to 3.3 billion Euros of loss of export 
revenue for Russia. As was notifie d to the Committee, Russia's quota had been redistributed to other 
countries. The European Union  stood firmly with Ukraine and its people.  
7.  The United Kingdom  affirmed that it would not sit by and ignore the egregious violations of 
international law and  of the Charter of the United Nations ("UN  Charter ") committed by Russia 
against Ukraine. The United Kingdom noted that the economic repercussions of Russia's widespread 
and devastating actions were starting to show, including by the fact that Ukraine was no longer able 
to fully participate in the work of the WTO and in the global trading system. In the face of Russia's  
continued violat ion of  international law, human rights and multiple commitments to peace and 
security, the United Kingdom would cooperate with  its allies and partners across the multilateral 
system to condemn Russia's appalling actions.  
8.  Australia  condemned in the strongest possible terms Russia's unprovoked, unjust, and illegal 
invasion of Ukraine. This invasion was a gross violation of internat ional law, including the UN Charter. 
Australia strongly supported Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and called on Russia to 
cease its attacks on Ukraine and withdraw its forces from Ukrainian territory. Russia's war in Ukraine 
was exacting a  catastrophic humanitarian toll in addition to causing trade disruptions and the food 
crisis. Australia ha d worked in lockstep with its partners to support Ukraine and hold Russia 
accountable for its actions. Australia ha d imposed far -reaching sanctions to  inflict heavy costs on 
Russia and others who were responsible. International unity ha d underpinned the effective response 
to Russia's invasion.  
9.  The United States  supported the statements made by other Members. The United States recalled 
that it had made its position clear in document WT/GC/244, a joint statement on the aggression by 
Russia with the support of Belarus. This statement condemned Russia's actions as a violation of 
international law, t he UN Charter and the fundamental principles of international peace and security. 
The United States  supported Ukraine in th ese unimaginabl y difficult times, and paid tribute to the 
heroism of its people, its armed forces and its leaders.  
10.  Canada  strongly c ondemned Russia's unjustifiable and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine. This 
invasion continued to cause devastating humanitarian consequences and the senseless death of 
innocent people. Russi a's hostile act was not just an attack on Ukraine and its people,  or a reckless 
decision taken in a fragile moment in the global economic recovery from COVID -19, but it was also 
a blatant violation of international law and the rules -based international order. Russia was solely 
responsible for this crisis and its false narr atives could not change that. Russia ha d destroyed 
Ukraine's ability to supply the world with food and Russia ha d cut itself off from the global trading 
system. Canada was acting to protect its essential security interests which were inextricably linked 
to the rules -based international environment. Canada would continue to work closely with its allies 
and partners to promote peace and security for all states and their citizens.  
11.  The Republic of Korea  (Korea) strongly condemned Russia's armed invasion of Ukra ine as a 
violation of the principles of the UN Charter and the rules of the international community. Korea 
shared the international community's deep concern over the unfolding humanitarian situation in 
Ukraine. The use of force that had been causing innoce nt casualties could not be justified under any 
circumstances. Ukraine's sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence should be 
respected.  
12.  Japan  stated that Russia 's aggression against Ukraine evidently infringed the sovereignty and 
territo rial integrity of Ukraine and constituted a serious violation of the UN Charter which prohibits 
the use of force. It was an attempt to unilaterally change the status quo, and it challenged  the basis 
of the international order on which the WTO is based. Japan had zero tolerance toward such an 
attempt.  Japan condemn ed Russia 's aggression with the strongest possible  words , and urge d Russia 
to cease the military operations and withdraw its forces from Ukraine immediately.  Japan st ood in 
solidarity with Ukraine and the people of Ukraine,  and continue d to cooperate with the members of 
international community including G7 Members to normalize the situation.  
13.  Norway  stated that Russia 's military attack on Ukraine was an unprovoked and illegal attack  
against a peaceful neighbour. Norway condemned Russia's actions in the strongest possibl e terms. G/SG/M/60  
 
- 5 - 
 
  Russia's attack was a violation of Ukraine's independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity. 
The world order need ed to be defended. The relatio nship between states  needed to be regulat ed by 
international law, and not by power. Norway condemned the false narrative advocated by Russia  
regarding its military action and its effects, including the effects of sanctions implemented by other 
Members . The measures Norway had taken were fully consistent with its rights  and obligations under 
the WTO . Russia was fully responsible for t he impact on the global food supply. Russia had 
completely di sregarded the multilateral system , and ha d forfeited its right to participate in that 
system . 
14.  Chinese Taipei  condemned Russia's m ilitary aggression in Ukraine, which continued to cause 
devastating losses of human lives, millions of refugees, great turmoil in international trade, and 
serious worsening of the global food crisis. The unprovoked and unjustified attacks had to stop 
immed iately. Chinese Taipei called upon Russia to respect international law and the territorial 
sovereignty of Ukraine. Chinese Taipei stood firmly by Ukraine and its people during these 
unprecedented times.  
15.  Russia  stated that it  heard at this meeting another round of unfounded allegations. It was 
Russia's view that these political statements were, to a significant extent, based on fake news  
produced with the help of certain governments . Statements repeatedly made in the last two months 
had been basically the s ame, and were not related to the mandate of the WTO. Russia's clarifications 
had been provided in the United Nations, and so Russia would not delve into this matter at this 
meeting. Russia asked the relevant Members to respect this Committee and other Memb ers, and to 
stop sabotaging the relevant work at a time when the global economy was struggling to recover 
from the COVID -19 pandemic. Meanwhile, the  trade-related  fallout of the situation in Ukraine was 
significant. What Norway stated was telling . Russia r eferred Norway to the statement made by Russia 
on 22 April 2022 . Economic measures imposed by a small group of Members disrupted global trade 
and the global supply chain, driving up the prices of fuel and other co mmodities. The relevant 
Members were w asting time by choosing confrontat ion and disregarding WTO rules. Russia noted 
that it would raise, later in the meeting, issues concerning the European Union's safegu ard actions. 
Russia  understood that  rules on safeguards were forgot ten in Brussels .  
1  NATIONAL LEGISLATION1  
1.1  Review of Notifications of New or Amended Legislation or Regulations Not Previously 
Reviewed by the Committee (Including Supplemental Notifications of Existing Provisions 
Not Previously Reviewed)  
1.1.1   Brazil  – Review of New Legislative N otification ( G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3/S uppl.14 - 
G/SCM/N/1/BRA/2/S uppl.17 - G/SG/N/1/BRA/3/S uppl.8; 
G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3/S uppl.15 - G/SCM/N/1/BRA/2/S uppl.18 - 
G/SG/N/1/BRA/3/S uppl.9; G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3/S uppl.16 - 
G/SCM/N/1/BRA/2/S uppl.19 - G/SG/N/1/BRA/3/S uppl.10; 
G/ADP/N/ 1/BRA/3/S uppl.17 - G/SCM/N/1/BRA/2/S uppl.20 - 
G/SG/N/1/BRA/3/S uppl.11) 
16.  Brazil  explained that the three sets of laws and regulations concern ed, among other things, 
adaptation of the trade remedy investigations process and public interest analysis to the situation 
under the COVID 19 pandemic, specifically regarding on -the-spot verifications. They also regulated 
the electronic administrative proceedings related to trad e remedy investigations.  
17.  There were no comments or questions raised.  
 
1 Relevant deadlines for written questions and written answers regarding the notifications of legislation 
can be found in section 1 of doc ument G/ADP/W/50 9 - G/SCM/W/58 6 - G/SG/W/25 5.  G/SG/M/60  
 
- 6 - 
 
  1.1.2   Cameroon  – Review of New Legislative Notification ( G/ADP/N/1/CMR/2 - 
G/SCM/N/1/CMR/2 - G/SG/N/1/CMR/2; G/ADP/N/1/CMR/2/S uppl.1 - 
G/SCM/N/1/CMR/2/S uppl.1 - G/SG/N/1/CMR/2/S uppl.1; and 
G/ADP/N/1/CMR/2/S uppl.2 - G/SCM/N/1/CMR/2/S uppl.2 - 
G/SG/N/1/CMR/2/S uppl.2) 
18.  No written or oral questions regarding these notifications were posed.  
1.2  Review of Notifications of New or Amended Legislation or Regulations with 
Outstanding Written Questions  
1.2.1   Cameroon  – Review of New Legislative Notification ( G/ADP/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1 ‒ 
G/SCM/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1 ‒ G/SG/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1)  
19.  Written questions regarding this notification had been submitted and can be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/CMR/3 ‒ G/SCM/Q1/CMR/3 ‒ G/SG/Q1/ CMR/3 ‒ submitted by the 
United  States   
20.  Written answers were provided and can be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/CMR/4 ‒ G/SCM/Q1/CMR/4 ‒ G/SG/Q1/CMR/4 ‒ replies to the United States  
21.  The delegation of Cameroon did not take the floor . 
1.2.2   Liberia  – Review of New Le gislative Notification (G/SG/N/1/LBR/1)  
22.  Written questions regarding this notification had been submitted and can be found in document:  
• G/SG/Q1/LBR/1 – submitted by the United States  
23.  The delegation of Liberia did not take the floor.  
1.2.3   United Kingdom – Review of New Legislative Notification 
(/SG/N/1/GBR/1/S uppl.11) 
24.  Written questions regarding this notification had been submitted and can be found in document:  
• G/SG/Q1/GBR/7 – submitted by Japan  
25.  Written answers were provided and can be found in document:  
• G/SG/Q1/GBR/8 – replies to Japan  
26.  Japan  appreciated the United Kingdom 's response,  but its concerns had not been resolved. On 
11 June 2021, the UK's Trade Remedies Authority had recommended the revocation of the measures 
on certain product s. Nevertheless, the extended measures, published on 30 June and imposed from 
1 July, included these products. Japan wished to know what provision made this possible and where 
the findings on the  prerequisites for the measures on these products  were shown. In addition, Japan 
regretted that the United Kingdom  imposed safeguard measures for some products without 
examining the injury to the domestic industry in the United Kingdom . Unfortunately , the 
United  Kingdom 's responses did  not provide clear answer s. 
27.  The United Kingdom  stated that it would welcome follow -up questions.  G/SG/M/60  
 
- 7 - 
 
  2  NATIONAL LEGISLATION - CONTINUING REVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATIONS 
PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE2  
2.1  Ghana – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications 
G/ADP/N/1/GHA/2  - G/SCM/N/1/GHA/2 ‒ G/SG/N/1/GHA/2)  
28.  Written follow -up questions regarding this notification had been submitted and can be found in 
document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/GHA/3 ‒ G/SCM/Q1/GHA/3 ‒ G/SG/Q1/GH A/3 - submitted by the United  States  
29.  The delegation of Ghana did not take the floor.  
2.2  India  – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications 
(G/SG/N/1/IND/3/S uppl.2) 
30.  Written follow -up questions regarding this notification had been submitted and can be found in 
document:  
• G/SG/Q1 /IND/13 - submitted by Canada  
31.  Written answers were provided and can be found in document:  
• G/SG/Q1 /IND/14  - replies to Canada  
32.  No delegat ion took the floor at the meeting.  
2.3  Zimbabwe – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications 
(G/SG/N/1/ZWE/ 3) 
33.  Written follow -up questions regarding this notification had been submitted and can be found in 
document:  
• G/SG/Q1/ZWE/3 ‒ submitted by the United States  
34.  The delegation of Zimbabwe did not take the floor.  
35.  The Chair informed the Committee that 1 8 Members had not yet made a legislative notification .3 
This notification was one of the important obligations of the Safeguards Agreement (the Agreement) . 
Members that did not yet have any legislation need only submit a simple " nil" notification.   
36.   The United States  noted that while an increasing number of Members had notified their 
legislation, there still remained many Members which had not yet done so, as indicated in footnote  3 
of the minutes from the April 2021 meeting. For nearly all of those who had not made a  notification, 
their Trade Policy Review reports indicated whether they did or did not have any safeguard  
legislation. The United States continued to encourage all of the outstanding Members who had yet 
to make their respective notifications to review thei r individual situations and make the applicable 
notification s. In this context, the United States  referred to the transparency proposal, entitled 
Procedures to Enhance Transparency and Improve Compliance with Notification Requirements.4 This 
proposal call ed for an open, member -driven process to identify and recommend improvements to 
notification practices. It included suggestions for improvements of process es and other actions that 
would streamline submission of notifications and improve compliance. The Un ited States was of the 
view that t his proposal would  deliver practical and tangible changes in notification procedures that 
would bring greater transparency to the WTO, while fostering inclusivity and responding to Members ' 
 
2 Relevant deadlines for written questions and written answers regarding the notifications of legislation 
can be found in section 1 of document G/ADP/W/509 - G/SCM/W/586 - G/SG/W/255 .  
3 These Members were: Antigua and Barbuda , Cabo Verde, Central African Republic,  
Democratic  Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Eswatini, Grenada, Guinea -Bissau, Mauritania, Mozambique, Niger, 
Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tajikistan, Tanzania,  and Yemen.  
4 JOB/GC /204/Rev.8 -JOB/CTG/14/Rev.8.  G/SG/M/60  
 
- 8 - 
 
  needs. This proposal already had  broad support, and represented a reasonable step that Members 
could  take to introduce reform to the organization and contribute to a more stable and predictable 
trading environment.  
37.  The Committee took note  of the notifications  and statements, as well as questions and answers  
provided . 
3  NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RELATED TO SAFEGUARD MEASURES  
38.  China  expressed continued concern with the high level of safeguard  activities around the world. 
According to China's counting, there were 61 investigations initiated between 2019 and 2021, of 
which 34 investigations  had resulted in an imposition  of a measure.  China also noted that the 
duration of measures  was becoming lo nger, and extensions of measures  had become common. Some 
developed countries had set a duration of 8 years, the maximum duration for de veloped countries. 
Finally, China noted that a safeguard  measure w as sometimes imposed at the same time as an anti -
dumpin g measure or a countervailing  measure . China reiterated that  a safeguard  measure  was an 
instrument  to be used in emergency situations. Members needed to strictly respect the rules. China 
supported multilateralism, and encouraged Members to resolve  trade disputes  by dialogue.  
39.  Japan  stated that trade restrictive measures such as safeguards had been increasing recently, 
not only in developing Member s but also in developed Members. The number of safeguard measures 
imposed the previous year was still at a high level.  The world economy was still recovering from the 
economic crisis  caused by the outbreak of the COVID -19 pandemic . Applying trade restrictive 
measures inconsistent with the WTO Agreements would invoke retaliatory trade restrictive measures 
by other countries, which would depress world trade harm ing both exporters and importers. 
Member s should confirm all the prerequi sites under the WTO Agreements  before imposing a 
safeguard  measure . The Committee should closely monitor the process of safeguard investigations, 
and Members should carefully examine in their investigations whether  all the prerequisites under 
the WTO Agree ments were satisfied . 
40.  Australia  noted that safeguards continued be used frequently. The n umber of investigations 
initiated  still stood high, and several Members had impos ed provisional measures. Australia 
reminded Members that a safeguard  measure was an in strument to be used in emergency situations. 
Australia was also of the view that a safeguard  measure was not the adequate remedy in cases 
where  an import surge came from one single source. Australia welcomed those Members who had 
notified termination of me asures and those that had notified that they were intending or had 
commenced mid -term reviews, particularly where Australia had observed the trend to only notify 
once the mid -term reviews were completed. Timely notification was important. In this context, 
Australia was looking forward to partic ipating in the notification seminar arranged for th e afternoon.  
3.1  European Union  ‒ Certain Steel Products (G/SG/N/10/EU/1/S uppl.12, 
G/SG/N/10/EU/1/S uppl.13, G/SG/N/10/EU/1/S uppl.13/R ev.1, 
G/SG/N/10/EU/1/S uppl.14 - G/SG/N/11/EU/1/S uppl.9, G/L/1408 - G/SG/266 ) 
41.  The European Union  took the floor to explain the three sets of notifications.  The first notification 
related to the initiation of a process of seeking comments on whether certain techni cal adjustments 
to the measure was necessary. The second notification related to what the European Union stated 
at the beginning of the meeting on the action it had taken in relation to Russia's illegal invasion of 
Ukraine. The third notification related t o subjecting certain developing countries to the measure after 
the relevant Economic Partnership Agreement  had expired . 
42.  China  expressed continued concern  about th is measure. First, the European Union 's safeguard 
measure lack ed factual and legal basis and w as inconsistent with the WTO rules. There were 
problems in the analysis of key elements in the original safeguard measure, and such problems had 
not been corrected in the extension review. Since the original safeguard measure was flawed, there 
should be no  further extension of such measure. Second, changed circumstances during the 
implementation of the safeguard measure indicated that th is measure was no longer appropriate or 
necessary. During the implementation period, import volumes ha d dropped, and the market share 
of the European Union's  industry  had increased. These factors showed that the measure was no 
longer needed. China noted that the European Union  was reviewing the measure. China hoped that G/SG/M/60  
 
- 9 - 
 
  the investigating authority would take note of the issue s raised and terminate the measure as soon 
as possible.  
43.  Japan  regretted the decision of the European Union to extend the measure. A safeguard 
measure w as supposed to be progressively liberalized, and a review ha d to be implemented in order 
to, "if appropri ate, withdraw it or increase the pace of liberalization ", according to Article 7.4 of the 
Agreement. Adopting trade -restrictive measures in response to other trade restrictive measures 
would depress global trade and harm both exporters and importers. Takin g into account the strict 
requirements for the extension of safeguards, Japan requested the European Union to terminate the 
measure as soon as practicable.  
44.  The Russia n Federation  (Russia) expressed disappoint ment with the European Union's decision 
to exten d the measure. Russia remained  of the view that there was no ground for the European 
Union to have imposed the original measure to begin with. Russia was of the view that the European 
Union had now ceased to respect the rules. The European Union had recent ly reallocated to other 
exporters the tariff rate quota that was originally given to Russia and Belarus. Such action had no 
place in the Agreement. The rationale, apparently, was to avoid the import ban from these two 
countries from triggering a shortage  of supply in the European Union . This reasoning was puzzling , 
as in fact it showed that w hat the European Union paint ed as threat of injury was false. I n fact , there 
were not enough imports, and thus, there could not have been any threat to the producers in the 
European Union. The actions by the European Union violated many rules, for example, Articles 2.2, 
5.1, 5.2 and 7.4  of the Agreement . Russia asked the European Union  to withdraw the measure.  
45.  Switzerland  stated that it continued to be negatively affected by this measure. In particular,  
Switzerland drew the attention of the Members to the fact that the steel indu stry was af fected 
considerably by the  sharp rise in energy prices  as well as the disruption of the availability of 
intermediary product s. Swit zerland asked the European Union to terminate the measure. This was 
for the sake of all as well as for the European Union itself. The problem of overcapacity in the steel 
area should be tackled in a multilateral forum .   
46.  Türkiye  expressed  the view that the European Union's measure was not in compliance with the 
relevant provisions of the Agreement . Türkiye  recalled that it had so stated in previ ous meetings of 
this Committee  as well as in its written and oral submissions to the European Commission . Türkiye 
had initiated dispute settlement proceedings  against this measure,  and an arbitration process was 
ongoing at the moment. Therefore, Türkiye wo uld not mention the inconsistencies of the measure. 
On the other hand, due to the latest agreements with the United States, the European Union and 
several other countries were exempted from the US Section 232 steel measures. The share of 
exports from the e xempted countries to the United State s in the Section 232 steel measure had 
reached 85%. Türkiye believed that any trade diversion that might have been caused by the 
United  States' Section 232 measure, which was the main basis of the European Union's  safeg uard 
measure, had been  nullified. The European Union 's safeguard measure was no longer warranted.  
Türkiye had submitted comments in the review proceeding initiated on 17 December 2021. Türkiye 
noted that the European Union had reallocated the individual tariff rate quotas originally given to 
Russia and Belarus . Türkiye underst ood that these adjustments increased the tariff rate quotas for 
the remaining countries , and that these adjustments did not preclude any further adjustments that 
may result from the ongoing functioning review . Therefore, Türkiye  expect ed that the 
European  Union would meet its requests.  
47.  Brazil  reiterated the concerns it had expressed in previous meetings of this Committee regarding 
both the original investigati on and the review process. Brazil also recalled that this measure was 
currently under a dispute to which Brazil was a third party. In Brazil's view, the original measure 
was already inconsistent with WTO rules. Brazil disagreed, for instance, that global s teel 
overcapacity, which ha d been a problem since the 1970s, c ould be considered as an unforeseen 
development in the sense of GATT Article XIX. Brazil also disagreed with the idea that diversion due 
to the US Section 232 measure could constitute the basis for the application of the measure. The 
Agreement did not allow for "preventive" safeguard measures. With respect to the review process, 
any alleged injury to the European industry could be due to factors other than the alleged surge in 
imports, notably th e COVID -19 pandemic. This measure should have been terminated, and not 
prolonged. Moreover, the European Union had not provide d adequate and proportionate 
compensation to Brazil. For this reason, the suspension of concessions by Brazil w as legitimate. 
Referring to the initiation of a review investigation by the European Union, Brazil expected that this 
process would result in the exclusion from the measure exports from Brazil that were below G/SG/M/60  
 
- 10 - 
 
  de minimis  level. Referring to the recent adjustments bringing cer tain Economic Partnership 
Agreement (EPA) countries within the scope of the measure, Brazil was of the view that the exclusion 
of EPA countries from the alleged surge in imports during the original investigation had resulted in 
an artificial reduction of the denominator for purposes of de minimis  calculations.  
48.  India recalled that it had circulated a proposal for suspension of concessions in reaction to this 
measure.  Due to this measure, e xports from India to the European Union had decreased by 
1.1 billion Euros , on which the duty collection would be 292 million Euros. India was proposing a 
suspension of concession s of an equivalent level. India asked the European Union to terminate the 
measure. If that was not possible, it asked the European Union to continue to liberalize the measure 
by 5% per yea r, as originally planned. Further, the country -specific tariff rate quota given to India 
in product  category 6 should be increased. The result of the review was awaited. If it was not 
favourable,  India was ready to revise its proposal of suspension of concessions.   
49.  Korea  pointed out that a safeguard measure was an ex traordinary remedy , and so the 
requirements of its imp osition and extension need to be strictly respected . In this regard, Korea was 
of the view that the Europ ean Union's measure was not in accordance with Article XIX of the 
GATT  1994 and Articles 2, 4 and 7.2 of the Agreement. It requested t he European Union to address 
these problems in the review and ensure that it complied with WTO rules . Korea had reserved i ts 
rights under Article 8.2 of the Agreement.  
50.  The European Union  asked those Members that had taken  the floor to send their comments in 
writing . It also urged those Members to make their points in the course of the review investigation 
under way. Referring  specifically to Russia's statement, the European Union found it incredible that 
it accused the European Union for not following the rules. In the view of the European Union, it was 
Russia that was blatantly disregarding fundamental rules of the internatio nal order.  
3.2  India  – Isopropyl Alcohol (G/SG/N/8/IND/33 - G/SG/N/10/IND/24 - 
G/SG/N/11/IND/19 ) 
51.  India explained that while this investigation was initiated in November 2019, the process had 
been delayed due to the COPVID -10 pandemic. This notification contained the findings and 
recommendations of the investigating authorit y.  
52.  There were no questions or com ments raised.  
3.3  Indonesia  – I and H Sections of Other Alloy Steel 
(G/SG/N/6/IDN/25/S uppl.4/Corr.1) 
53.  There were no questions or comments under this item . 
3.4  Indonesia  – Expansible Polystyrene in the form of Granule  
(G/SG/N/10/IDN/30/S uppl.1 - G/SG/N/11/IDN/26 ) 
54.  There were no questions or comments raised under this item . 
3.5  Indonesia  – Cigarette Paper  (G/SG/N/8/IDN/29/S uppl.1 - 
G/SG/N/10/IDN/29/S uppl.1) 
55.  The European Union  took the floor to comment on this notification was well as on the notification  
taken up under agenda item 3.7 (articles of apparel and clothing accessories). The European Union  
was disappointed with these two investigations. First, the investigations had not been concluded in 
time. The European Union  understood that the Indonesian l aw required that a decree to apply a 
measure, if any, should be published within 45 days  after the issuance of the recommendation of 
the investigating authority. That was not the case for these two investigations. Second, Indonesia 
had not observe d Article  12 of the Agreement since both notifications were made almost one month 
after the imposition.  G/SG/M/60  
 
- 11 - 
 
  3.6  Indonesia  – Ceramic Flags and Paving, Hearth or Wall Tiles  
(G/SG/N/10/IDN/20/S uppl.3 - G/SG/N/11/IDN/17/S uppl.2) 
56.  There were no questions or comments raised under this item . 
3.7  Indonesia  – Articles of Apparel and Clothing Accessories 
(G/SG/N/10/IDN/28/S uppl.1 - G/SG/N/11/IDN/25 ) 
57.  Japan  regretted Indonesia's decision to impose the proposed safeguard measure. The 
Indonesian  authority initially had used trade data covering the two periods of January to June 2019 
and January to June 2020. Indonesia subsequently had changed the period of investigation to a 
period running from 2017 to 2019. Japan was of the view that Indonesia had arbitrarily determined 
the increase of imports by proceeding in that manner . Japan requested that the measure be made 
consistent with the relevant rules.  
58.  Indonesia  first commented on the comments of the European Union  on this agenda item as well 
as on agenda item 3.5 (cigarette paper). Indonesia was confident that it was abiding by the 
Agreement. It had held consultations, and the schedule of the investigation had been made clear at 
the beginning of the investigation. Regarding the comments of Japan, Indonesia recalled that it had 
held consultations with Japan.  
3.8  Madagascar  – Pasta  (G/L/1423 - G/SG/N/13/MDG/3 ) 
59.  Madagascar  explained that the notification contained the results of the mid -term review. 
Madagascar had conclude d that the measure continued to be necessary.  
60.  Mauritius  stated that it ha d been raising concerns regarding this measure for the past three 
years. In its view, the measure was not in line with WTO rules. In its notification contained in 
document G/SG/247, Madagascar had informed that it was applying a tariff rate quota. However, 
due to complex administrative procedures and import con trols, Mauritian exporters were facing 
tremendous difficulties to fulfil the quota. Madagascar had informed that the safeguard duty would 
begin at 30% and be decreased by 1% every year until July 2023. However, Mauritian exporters 
were paying up to 36% dut y on their exports of instant noodles to Madagascar. Mauritius asked 
Madagascar to explain why exporters were still being subject to this high tariff. Furthermore, 
importers were required to submit an expression of interest and the Madagascar authorities w ould 
decide to which importer the quota would be allocated. Consequently, some importers that had 
traditionally been buying from Mauritius had not obtained a quota. Since the current mechanism 
was harming the relationship between traditional exporters and importers, Mauritius urged 
Madagascar to review its administrative procedures and allow exporters to engage directly with 
buyers of their choice in Madagascar. In addition, importers were required to pay duty even for the 
in-quota imports and later apply f or refund which c ould take between 60 and 90 days to process. 
This requirement was a major deterrent for exporters . Mauritius asked Madagascar to address this 
problem urgently. Mauritius called on Madagascar to address these issues in a spirit of mutual 
understanding, taking into account the excellent relations and historical ties between the two 
countries . 
61.  Madagascar  stated that these issues had indeed been raised in the bilateral consultations with 
Mauritius. As a result of these consultations, Madagascar understood that a common understanding 
had been reached. Madagascar was improving the system, and it was now prepa ring for the third 
phase of the tariff rate quota .  
3.9  Madagascar  – Edible Vegetable Oils and Margarines (G/SG/N/10/MDG/5/S uppl.1 - 
G/SG/N/11/MDG/7/S uppl.3) 
62.  There were no comments or questions raised under this item . 
3.10  Madagascar  – Lubricating Oils  (G/SG/N/10/M DG/6/S uppl.1 - 
G/SG/N/11/MDG/6/S uppl.3) 
63.  There were no comments or questions raised under this item .  G/SG/M/60  
 
- 12 - 
 
  3.11  Morocco  – Lighting Columns  (G/SG/N/7/MAR/6/S uppl.1 - 
G/SG/N/11/MAR/9/S uppl.1) 
64.  There were no comments or questions raised under this item.  
3.12  Morocco  – Coated Wood Board  (G/SG/N/6/MAR/10/S uppl.1 - G/SG/N/14/MAR/3 ) 
65.  Türkiye  stated that its official views regarding this initiation of the review would be submitted 
to the investigation auth ority. Türkiye would specify in that submission that the conditions 
warranting the continuation of the measure w ere lacking. Türkiye asked Morocco to terminate this 
proceeding. Türkiye reserved all its rights under the relevant WTO Agreements.  
66.  The European  Union  pointed out that a safeguard  measure  was an exceptional instrument, and 
a more targeted instrument should be used when  the increase of imports came from a single source.  
In addition , since the imposition of the original measure , imports ha d decrease d, and the status of 
the domestic industry ha d improved. Therefore, this measure should not be extended. 
The European  Union  clarified that having made this statement, it did not need to speak under agenda 
item 5.  
67.  Morocco  took note of the statements, and recalled that the review was ongoing. Regarding the 
European Union 's first point, Morocco stated that the increased imports i n fact came from several  
Members.  
3.13  Morocco  – Wire Rods and Reinforcing Bars  (G/SG/N/10/MAR/3/S uppl.5 - 
G/SG/N/11/MAR/2/S uppl.5) 
68.  There were no comments or questions raised under this item.  
3.14  Morocco  – Cold-Rolled Sheets  (G/SG/N/10/MAR/4/S uppl.4 - 
G/SG/N/11/MAR/4/S uppl.5) 
69.  There were no comments or questions raised under this item.  
3.15  Peru  – Clothing  (G/SG/N/6/PER/4 ) 
70.  Peru explained that this investigation was initiated on 15 December 2021.  
71.  Brazil  expressed concern with this in vestigation . In April 2021 , Peru had terminated a previous 
investigation on the same product without application of any safeguard measure since it could not 
determine the existence of a threat of serious injury to the domestic industry. The current 
investigation was very similar to  the previous one. Moreover, as in the previous investigation, the 
scope of the investigated product was too broad, since it encompasse d goods that, in addition to not 
being similar, were not direct competitors in the sense of Article 2.1 of the Agreement . Brazil recalled 
that in 2015, Peru had discontinued an antidumping measure that had been applied to similar 
clothing on the basis that there was no evidence that the products competed in the same market. 
Brazil also pointed out that Brazilian exports to P eru represented less than 0.7% of the total imports 
in all periods between 2016 and 2020. Brazil should therefore be excluded from an eventual 
measure, in accor dance with  Article 9.1 of the Agreement.  
72.  Indonesia  recalled that safeguard measures were emergency instruments and should be applied 
carefully with limitations. These limitations ensured that safeguard measures would not arbitrarily 
restrict the competition between imported and domestically produced produ cts. In this case, 
however, the product scope in the investigation was extremely broad and m ight lead to the arbitrary 
use of safeguard measures to limit the competition. Indonesia requested Peru to clearly see the facts 
and objectively conduct the investi gation.  
73.  Peru took note of the statements.  G/SG/M/60  
 
- 13 - 
 
  3.16  South Africa  – Bolts with Hexagon Heads of Iron or Steel ( G/SG/N/8/ZAF/9 - 
G/SG/N/10/ZAF/7 - G/SG/N/11/ZAF/7/S uppl.1) 
74.  South Africa  explained that this notification contained the findings of the investigating autho rity 
and its recommendation to impose a measure.  
75.  There were no comments or questions raised.  
3.17  South Africa  – Threaded Fasteners of Iron and Steel Bolt Ends & Screw Studs, Screw 
Studding and Other Hexagon Nuts  (G/SG/N/11/ZAF/5/S uppl.3) 
76.  There were no comments or questions raised under this item.  
3.18  Türkiye – Yarn of Nylon of Other Polyamides  (G/SG/N/6/TUR/25/S uppl.1 - 
G/SG/N/14/TUR/12 ) 
77.  Indonesia  stated that given the data found in the non-confidential files, exten sion of the 
measure was not  necessary . Even if  injury still exist ed, it was most likely caused by other factors, 
and not from increasing import s. There had been major improvements of the situation surrounding 
the domestic industry  in the period January -September 2021 , inter alia , in terms of domestic sales, 
export sales, and production. Evidence of the industry adjustment plan was also missing . In addition, 
Türkiye's import s from Indonesia had steadily decreas ed from 2017 to September 2021, and only 
accounted for 1% of the Turkish domestic market. Furthermore, Indonesia 's export s to Türkiye had 
decreased by 22% during the period of investigation (2020 –2021).  Therefore, Indonesia believe d 
that it should be excluded from application of the by virtue of Article 9 of the Agreement.  
78.  The European Union  stated  that the safeguard  measure  was an exceptional instrument. It also 
noted  that the profit indicator for the  domestic industry  had improved by 75%. In addition, ther e 
was no adjustment plan. The European Union  asked Türkiye  not to extend the measure.   
79.  Türkiye  stated that the review was ongoing.  
3.19  Ukraine  – Certain Types of Cheese  (G/SG/N/6/UKR/24 ) 
80.  There were no comments or questions raised under this item . 
3.20  Ukraine  – Tricone Drilling Bits  (G/SG/N/6/UKR/23 ) 
81.  There were no comments or questions raised under this item .  
3.21  Ukraine  – Wires (G/SG/N/8/UKR/11/S uppl.2 - G/SG/N/10/UKR/11/S uppl.2 - 
G/SG/N/11/UKR/9 /Suppl.2) 
82.  There were no comments or questions raised under this item .  
3.22  United Kingdom  – Certain Steel Products  (G/SG/N/10/GBR/1/S uppl.7 - 
G/SG/N/11/GBR/1/S uppl.7, G/L/1429 - G/SG/268, G/SG/N/6/GBR/1/S uppl.2 - 
G/SG/N/8/GBR/1/S uppl.6 - G/SG/N/10/GBR/1/S uppl.6 - G/SG/N/11/GBR/1/S uppl.6, 
G/SG/N/10/GBR/1/S uppl.5 - G/SG/N/11/GBR/1/S uppl.5, 
G/SG/N/10/GBR/1/S uppl.4 - G/SG/N/11/GBR/1/S uppl.4, G/SG/N/8/GBR/1/S uppl.5 - 
G/SG/N/10/GBR/1/S uppl.3 - G/SG/N/11/GBR/1/S uppl.3, G/L/1422 - 
G/SG/N/12/BRA/5,  G/L/1398/S uppl.1 - G/SG/263/S uppl.1) 
83.  After briefly recapping the developments that happened immediately after it left the 
European  Union,  the United Kingdom  explained the notifications on the agenda as follows : 
On 12 January  2021, it notified certain amen dments to the measure. On 10 February 2022, it 
notified the initiation of a tariff rate quota review.  On 28 February 2022, it notified the initiation of 
a second tariff rate quota review.  On 6 April 2022, it notified a change of legal framework relating 
to the reconsideration process that was initiated in September 2021. On 12 April 2022, it notified 
the initiation of a third tariff rate quota review. In this review, the effect of the intro duction of trade 
sanctions on certain goods imported from Russia and the Republic of Belarus would also be G/SG/M/60  
 
- 14 - 
 
  investigated. The United Kingdom further explained that i nterested parties had been offered 
opportunities to comment, as appropriate.   
84.   Japan  noted t hat the UK Trade Remedies Authority had recommended the revocation of the 
measure on certain products, but the extended measures imposed from 1 July 2021 covered those 
products. Japan wished to know how this was possible, and where the findings addressed t his issue. 
Unfortunately, the United Kingdom  had not been clear in its responses. In addition, Japan understood 
that the United Kingdom's examination of injury was limited to certain products , which  Japan 
regretted. The United Kingdom 's responses also did not provide a clear answer on this issue.  
85.  Korea  was of the view that the safeguard measure by the United Kingdom  violated WTO rules. 
The United Kingdom  seem ed to claim that it could grandfather the safeguard  measure by the 
European Union , but that was wro ng. The United Kingdom  also seemed to assume that the 
United  Kingdom  could rely on the analysis that the European Union  had carried out in the context of 
the European Union 's safeguard investigation , which . also was wrong. Among other problems, the 
United Kingdom  had not observe d the principle of "para llelism", because the United Kingdom 's 
measure was imposed on exports from the European Union . Korea asked that the United Kingdom  
withdraw this measure or offer compens ation. Korea reserved the right to suspend an equivalent 
level of concessions against imports from the United Kingdom .   
86.  Türkiye  stated that it continued to believe that the United Kingdom 's measure should have been 
terminated after 31 December 2020, becau se the United Kingdom 's measure did not meet WTO 
rules. Nevertheless, the United Kingdom  had decided to extend its measure. Although the Trade 
Remedies Authority proposed to extend the measures for three more years for only 11 categories 
and revoke the mea sures for the other categories, the United Kingdom  ultimately had decided to 
extend the measures for five additional categories  for one year.  Türkiye was of the view that 
extension of these five categories was not compatible with Article 7.1 of the Agreement.  
Furthermore, on 7 September 2021, the United Kingdom  had initiated a reconsideration process of 
the original decision . Türkiye understood that th e subject of this reconsideration included certain 
product categories where the m easure  had already been terminated. Article 7.5 of the Agreement 
stipulates that "No safeguard measure shall be applied again to the import of a product which has 
been subject to such a measure (…) for a period of time equal to that during which such measu re 
had been previously applied, provided that the period of non -application is at least two years. " Thus, 
Türkiye was of the view that including the se product categories into the review was a violation of 
the Agreement.  
87.  Russia  was deeply disappointed by t he state of compliance of the United Kingdom  with its 
obligations under the relevant rules . Russia had raised numerous concerns about this investigation 
and measure. The United Kingdom  was conducting a review of this measure to reallocate the quotas 
origin ally allocated to Russia. The reason given was the impact on the domestic economy of trade 
sanctions imposed by the United Kingdom  against Russia and Belarus. The United Kingdom  had 
imposed 35% additional duty on goods imported from Russia in March 2022, and then totally banned 
the import of Russia's  steel in April 2022. It seemed that the United Kingdom  was, on the one hand, 
pushing Russia out of the market, and on the other hand, tr ying to alleviate the shortage of steel or 
to establish better conditions f or other exporters. Russia reminded the United Kingdom  that the 
application of safeguard measures was strictly regulated by Article XIX of the GATT 1994 and by the 
Agreement. Russia  recall ed, first,  that the United Kingdom  had no grounds to apply a measure to 
begin with. Second, the ongoing modification of the measure would introduce further inconsistencies 
with the relevant rules. Russia referred to Articles 2.2, 5.1, 5.2, 7.4 of th e Agreement.  Russia urged 
the United Kingdom  to withdraw the measure.   
88.  Brazil  disagre ed with the extension of the measure . To begin with, Brazil believe d that the 
original measure was inconsistent with WTO rules. Brazil also had serious concerns with the f act that 
the measure had been extended in five categories for which the investigating authority had 
recommended termination. One of these categories was where export s from Brazil  were included.  
Brazil r ecalled that the criteri a provided in the Agreement in order to extend a measure were: the 
existence of import surge, injury to the domestic industry and causal link . None of these elements 
was present in the case of those five categories.  Moreover , the procedural requirement under 
Article  12.3 had not been respected, since the United Kingdom had extended the measure before 
holding consultations with interested Members. Brazil also believe d there was a violation of 
Article  7.4, since the measure became more restrictive  by having included Brazil into the measure. 
Brazil also express ed disappointment with the fact that the United Kingdom had not sought  to G/SG/M/60  
 
- 15 - 
 
  maintain a n equivalent  level of concessions vis a vis  Brazil . This situation had led Brazil to reserve 
its rights to suspend concessions as provided  for in document G/L/1422 - G/SG/N/12/BRA/5.  
89.  India noted that in the new extended measure, the United Kingdom  had decreased the tariff 
rate quota of product categories 4, 5 and 19. This negatively affected India. India was of the view 
that such a way of proceeding was inconsistent with Article 7.4 of the Agreement  
90.  Switzerland  disagreed that the United Kingdom  could "transition" a safeguard  measure of the 
European Union . Switzerland recalled that it had made this point in several Committee meetings. In 
Switzerland's view, this measure was inconsistent with the Agreement, and so must be terminated. 
It also recalled that in addition to the latest tariff rate quota review notified, the United Kingdom  
had notified in February 2022 initiations of two such reviews. Switzerland noted that these reviews 
were separate processes to the "reconsideration  process" . It asked the United Kingdom  to clarify the 
situation, since these reviews would affect the reconsideration. Switzerland  also considered that 
making the measure more restrictive was inconsistent with Article 7.4 of the Agreement.  
91.  The United Kingdom  stated that it stood ready to h old consult ations bilaterally. In relation to 
the comment  from Russia, it reiterated  that the United Kingdom  condemned the violation of 
international  law by Russia.  
3.23  United States  – Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells  (G/SG/N/10/USA/7/S uppl.14, 
G/SG/N/10/USA/7/S uppl.13, G/SG/N/10/USA/7/S uppl.13/C orr.1) 
92.  Japan  noted  that according to the Agreement, a safeguard measure is supposed to be 
"progressively liberalized", and can be extended only when it "conti nues to be necessary". Japan 
looked forward to having discussion s with the United States on  the further liberalization of the 
measure. If not, Japan asked that this measure be terminat ed. 
93.  The European Union  was disappointed with the United States'  decision  to extend the measure. 
The subject product was necessary to decrease carbon emission. The European Union  did not 
consider it  an opportune time for the United States to impose  a safeguard measure on this product. 
Moreover, the United  States'  domestic indus try was short of supply of solar cells. 
The European  Union  was of the view that this measure was no longer necessary.  
94.  Singapore  stated that it would continue to monitor the situation , and asked the United States  
to phase out the measure sooner rather than later.   
95.  Malaysia  stated that its solar industry was aggrieved by the United States'  decision to extend 
this measure , which would affect the solar energy industry world -wide and its supply chain, 
particularly in Southeast Asia. Malaysia noted that t he United States'  solar industry had obtained 
trade relief in the form of other trade remedy measures, for example, the current anti -circumvention 
investigation on imports of photovoltaic cells from Malaysia and other A sian countries. This extension 
would slow the expansion of solar energy in the United States , and would retard the economic 
recovery and increase unemployment rate in the solar industry downstream businesses  in Malaysia , 
while it was fighting  the COVID -19 pandemic . Malaysia recalled that the instrument of safeguards is 
an emergency action that could  be extended  only if certain conditions were met . In this light, 
Malaysia did not agree with the extension .  
96.  The United States  explained that this measure was currently under litigation in the 
United  States , and therefore, not much could be said in the meeting . It took note of the statements, 
and encouraged those Members who ha d comment s to engage  bilaterally.  
3.24  Viet Nam  – Mineral  of Chemical Fertilizers  (G/SG/N/6/VNM/6/S uppl.2) 
97.  Viet Nam  explained that this investigation was initiated on 28 January 2022.  
98.  There were no comments or questions raised under this item .  G/SG/M/60  
 
- 16 - 
 
  4  PHILIPPINES - HIGH -DENSITY POLYETHYLENE AND LINEAR LOW -DENSITY 
POLYETHYLENE PELLETS AND GRANULES (ITEM REQUESTED BY THE UNITED STATES)  
99.  The United States  stated that it understood that the Philippines' Department of Trade and 
Industry (DTI) was under taking  a process to decide whether to impose a safeguard measure on 
imports of high -density polyethylene and linear low -density polyethylene pellets and granules. The 
United States  further understood that interested parties had submitted comments for consideration 
by the competent authorities. The United States  encouraged DTI to give full consideration to those 
comments before final action was taken and to make a determination consistent with the Philippines ' 
obligations under the Agreement.  
100.  The Philippines  stated that it took note of the statement by the United S tates and would 
approach the United States  bilaterally.    
5  OBSERVATION BY THE EUROPEAN UNION ON MOROCCO 'S INVESTIGATION ON COATED 
WOOD PANELS (ITEM REQUESTED BY THE EUROPEAN UNION)  
101.  The European Union  clarified that it ha d made the pertinent statement under item 3.12 . 
No other comments or questions were raised under this agenda item.  
6  INDONESIA - CARPETS AND OTHER TEXTILE FLOOR COVERINGS (ITEM REQUESTED BY 
JAPAN)  
102.  Japan  noted that Indonesia had imposed a safeguard measure on the importation of carpet 
products since February last year. Although Japan repeatedly had expressed its concerns on the 
WTO inconsistency of this measure, regrettably the measure was still ongoing.  The measure was 
part of a quantitative restriction regime that could not be justified under the WTO rules. Also, the 
measure appl ied extremely high tariff duties of around 150 -200%.  Moreover, during the 
investigation, the Indonesian authorities had arbitrarily  determined the increase of imports  without 
considering the sharp decrease of imports caused by the newly created import registration and 
approval system. In fact, the volume of imports of the subject product in 2020 had amounted to 
approximately  one-tenth  of that in 2019. This authority's affirmative determination had been made 
possible by setting the period of investigation as 2017 to 2019, immediately prior to the 
aforementioned decrease of imports caused by the import registration system.  Japan request ed, 
once again,  that Indonesia terminate the measure immediately, or exclude imported products which 
did not compete with Indonesian domestic products. Japan propose d continuing discussions on a 
bilateral basis.  
103.  Indonesia  stated that it had been taking good note of Japan's comments, and had indeed 
considered those comments. This measure was an important one for Indonesia  and Indonesia's 
action was consistent with the WTO rules. Indonesia was ready to discuss further with Japan.  
7  COSTA RICA - REFINE D WHITE SUGAR (ITEM REQUESTED BY BRAZIL)  
104.  Brazil  reiterate d its disappointment with the decision to im pose this measure , which  was not 
supported by sound analysis.  Brazil recall ed that the investigating authority had recommended no t 
to apply the measure, si nce it had found no injury to the domestic industry. That recommendation, 
however, was not accepted by the decision -making authority, which decided to apply the measure 
based on a supposed threat of injury.  Besides the lack of injury, the investigation had not found  
unforeseen developments or the effect of the obligations incurred by the importing country. 
Furthermore, the supposed import surge was not sudden, sharp or significant enough.  Given these 
circumstances, Brazil  had had no choice but to propose su spension of concessions. Brazil had, 
however, exercised restraint in determining the amount of suspension. In spite of Brazil's willingness 
to reach an agreement on compensation, the negotiations had not yet succeeded.  Brazil looked 
forward to further disc ussing th e issue  bilaterally.  
8  OTHER BUSINESS  
105.  There were no issues raised under this item.  G/SG/M/60  
 
- 17 - 
 
  9  DATE OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING  
106.  The next regular meeting of the Committee  would be held in the week of 2 4 October  2022. 
10  ELECTION OF OFFICERS  
107.  The Chair recalled Rule 12 of the Committee's Rules of Procedure which provides that the 
election of the new Chair shall take place at the first regular meeting of the year and that the election 
shall take effect at the end of that meeting. The Chair stated that co nsultation s at the Council for 
Trade in Goods (CTG) level regarding the selection of the new chair of this Committee as well as of 
other subsidiary bodies under the CTG were still under way, and therefore a new Chair c ould not be  
elected at this meeting. I n these circumstances, the Chair suggested that the Secretariat send a 
communication once the CTG had completed its work, indicating the Chair identified by the CTG. 
The new Chair would be deemed to be elected by the Committee absent any objection. 
This approach, which had been taken in previous years, would obviate the need for an additional 
meeting of the Committee.  
108.  On the Vice -Chair, the Chair proposed to postpone the election of the new Vice -Chair until the 
new Chair was appointed  and had held the usual  consultations and sen t the usual communication 
nominating a new Vice -Chair who, absent any objection, would be deemed to be elected by the 
Committee.  
109.  The Committee so decided . 
110.  Finally, the Chair reminded  Members that there would be a notification seminar immediately 
after the meeting.5 
__________  
 
5 The presentation made by the Secretariat can be found in document RD/SG/58 .