G/SG/N/8/TUR/19  
G/SG/N/10/TUR/19  
G/SG/N/11/TUR/26  
30 August  2021 
(21-6481) Page: 1/9 
Committee on Safeguards  Original:  English  
 
  
NOTIFICATION UNDER ARTICLE 12.1(B) OF THE AGREEMENT  ON 
SAFEGUARDS ON FINDING A SERIOUS INJURY OR THREAT  
THEREOF CAUSED BY INCREASED IMPORTS  
 
NOTIFICATION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 12.1(C)  
OF THE AGREEMENT ON SAFEGUARDS  
 
NOTIFICATION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 9, FOOTNOTE 2  
OF THE AGREEMENT ON SAFEGUARDS  
TURKEY 
(Polyester Staple Fibre ) 
The following notification, dated and received on 26 August 2021 , is being circulated at the request 
of the delegation of Turkey.  
 
_______________  
 
 
Concerning imports of staple fibres of polyesters, not carded, combed or otherwise processed for 
spinning, Turkey had notified the initiation of a safeguard investigation with the WTO Document 
G/SG/N/6/TUR/26, dated 8 June 2020.  
Turkey hereby provides notification to the Committee on Safeguards of findings of serious injury or 
threat thereof caused by increased imports and notification of a proposed definitive safeguard 
measure. The public version of the investigation report (in Turkish) togeth er with references and 
sources can be found at the following internet address below.  
https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2021/08/20210824 -6.htm  
Consistent with Article 12.3 of  the Agreement on Safeguards , Turkey is prepared to consult with 
those Members having a substantial interest as exporters of the product concerned.  
I. EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS INJURY OR THREAT THEREOF CAUSED BY INCREASED 
IMPORTS  
A. EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS INJURY  
In order to make a determination of serious injury or threat thereof to the domestic producers of 
the like product, an evaluation of all relevant factors of an objective and quantifiable nature having 
a bearing on the situation of the domestic industry was u ndertaken. The data, which were submitted 
by the applicant companies and utilized in this analysis, represent major proportion of the total 
domestic production of the product subject to investigation.  G/SG/N/8/TUR/19 • G/SG/N/10/TUR/19 • G/SG/N/11/TUR/26  
- 2 - 
  1. Consumption  
Unit (Tons)  2016  2017  2018  2019  2019(9)  2020(9)  
Consumption 
(Indexed)  100 170 266 297 100 103 
Consumption index rose during the period under consideration (PUC). In 2019, consumption reached 
its peak which is 197% higher than its level in 2016.  
2. Production  
Unit (Tons)  2016  2017  2018  2019  2019(9)  2020(9)  
Production 
(Indexed)  100 103 107 138 100 156 
Production index increased continuously during the PUC. Production level increased by 38% from 
2016 to 2019.  
3. Domestic Sales  
Unit (Tons)  2016  2017  2018  2019  2019(9)  2020(9)  
Domestic Sales 
(Indexed)  100 132 132 167 100 141 
Domestic sales index was stable from 2017 to 2018; overall, it increased during the PUC. The index 
rose to 167 as its highest point in 2019.  
4. Capacity and Capacity Utilization Ratio (CUR)  
Unit (Tons)  2016  2017  2018  2019  2019(9)  2020(9)  
Capacity 
(Indexed)  100 104 141 412 100 100 
CUR (%) 
(Indexed)  100 99 76 34 100 156 
Production capacity increased throughout the PUC and the index reached 412 in 2019. Capacity 
utilization ratio (CUR) index declined continuously from 100 in 2016 to 34 in 2019.  
5. Inventories  
Unit (Tons)  2016  2017  2018  2019  2019(9)  2020(9)  
Stocks (Indexed)  100 129 549 900 100 121 
During the PUC, inventory index continuously increased and reached 900 in 2019. In particular, the 
inventory indicator marked a rapid increase in 2018 and 2019. The rise in inventories continued 
in 2020.  
6. Employment  
Workers  2016  2017  2018  2019  2019(9)  2020(9)  
Employment 
(Indexed)  100 120 108 165 100 106 
Employment index showed an ascending pattern throughout the PUC (with the exception of 2018).  G/SG/N/8/TUR/19 • G/SG/N/10/TUR/19 • G/SG/N/11/TUR/26  
- 3 - 
  7. Labor Productivity  
Unit (Tons) 
per Worker  2016  2017  2018  2019  2019(9)  2020(9)  
Productivity 
(Indexed)  100 86 99 84 100 147 
Labor productivity index displayed a fluctuating trend during the PUC. The index increased by 47% 
in the first 9 months of 2020, compared to the same period of 2019.  
8. Profitability  
Net Profit/Total 
Sales  2016  2017  2018  2019  2019(9)  2020(9)  
Profitability 
(Indexed) (%)  100 155 177 -4 100 304 
While  its profitability was positive in 2016 -2018 period, the domestic industry incurred loss from the 
sales of the product concerned in 2019.  
9. Conclusion  
When the economic indicators of the domestic industry are examined, it is seen that the polyester 
fiber consumption in Turkey has increased continuously throughout the PUC. Under these market 
conditions, the domestic industry recorded a significant increase in its production capacity in 2018 
and 2019, in line with the growth in consumption. In this regard, the market share of the domestic 
industry increased to X% in 2019, the highest level of the PUC. However, in this year, when a 
significant capacity increase was experienced and the market share of the domestic industry 
increased, profitability took a negat ive value. Indeed, it is noteworthy that the market share of the 
domestic industry could only slightly increase from X% to X% with a rate of growth X%, given the 
production capacity increased by X% in 2019. In line with this, the capacity utilization rate in 2019 
remained at the level of X%, below the expected level.  
In 2019, the end -of-period stocks of the domestic industry reached its highest level of the analyzed 
period with X thousand tons. In the same year, general imports also reached its peak with 
214 thousand tons. Moreover, imports from Malaysia, which is the first and lowest priced main 
supplier, increased by 39% annually. It is also remarkable that price undercutting existed between 
2016-2018 periods, and there was no undercutting in the first 9 m onths of 2019 and 2020 due to 
the decrease in the domestic sales price. On the other hand, imports from Malaysia and Egypt, which 
are the leading suppliers whose imports are not subject to customs duty and anti -dumping 
measures, continued to undercut the p rices of domestic industry in 2019 and in the 9 -month period 
of 2020. In addition, while total imports increased by 21% in the first 6 months of 2021, the rates 
of change in imports from the suppliers having relatively low unit price, namely Egypt and Indi a, 
were 172% and 203%, respectively, in this period.  
When evaluated as a whole, the domestic industry was far from making the expected breakthrough 
with the investment that came into effect in 2019, due to increased imports. Accordingly, the 
domestic indus try had to reduce its prices and therefore its profitability below the sustainable level 
in order to maintain its position in the domestic market in the face of increasing imports. In this 
respect, it is considered that as of 2019, the domestic industry is  exposed to a threat of serious 
injury due to increased imports.  
On the other hand, there were temporary significant changes in market conditions in 2020 due to 
the impact of the Covid -19 outbreak. In this context, the increase in the demand for hygiene 
products, especially masks, due to Covid -19 has led to an increase in the demand for polyester fiber 
used in non -woven fabric production. In fact, in the first 9 months of 2020, despite the epidemic 
conditions in other economic sectors, there appeared an inc rease in domestic consumption of 
polyester fiber. However, polyester fiber users had to turn to domestic sources in supply in 2020  
due to the problems that arose in the international supply channels and the logistics sector, as well 
as the increases in raw  material and freight prices due to the impact of Covid -19. In this sense, G/SG/N/8/TUR/19 • G/SG/N/10/TUR/19 • G/SG/N/11/TUR/26  
- 4 - 
  domestic sales of the domestic industry increased significantly in the said year. Likewise, despite 
the extraordinary conditions, the foreign sales of the domestic industry also inc reased significantly 
in 2020. However, the profitability of the domestic production branch was still recorded at the level 
of X%, behind the first period of the PUC. Furthermore, this year, the capacity utilization rate of the 
domestic industry was realize d at the level of X%, remaining below the sustainable level. In this 
context, the positive course in certain indicators due to the impact of the Covid -19 epidemic does 
not change the findings on the threat of serious injury based on the data of the previou s period, due 
to the temporary nature of these conditions.  
Taking into account all these factors, it is concluded that the domestic industry as a whole is exposed 
to threat of serious injury for the product concerned.  
B. CAUSATION ANALYSIS  
In order to examine the existence of a causal link between increased imports and the serious injury 
or threat thereof and in order to ensure that injury caused by other factors is not attributed to 
increased imports, the investigating authority analyzed the effects of  the following factors:  
1. Analysis of Causation Factors  
(a) Effect of Increased Imports  
Imports of the product concerned increased constantly during the PUC. From 2017 to 2019 increase 
rate in imports became 26%, 10% and 1%, respectively.  
Likewise, the ma rket share of imports increased by 5% between 2016 and 2018. Therefore, it is 
concluded that the increase in imports and the deterioration in the economic indicators of the 
domestic industry followed a similar pattern throughout the period analyzed.  
In con clusion, it is inferred that there is a correlation between the increase in imports and threat of 
serious injury that the domestic industry is exposed to.  
(b) Conditions of Competition  
Despite being used in various fields of industry, polyester fibre  shoul d be regarded as an intermediate 
good whose mostly marketed types have a homogeneous character. According to the information 
obtained during the investigation, the investigation authority concluded that price of the product 
was the most significant factor for user preference in the domestic market. In this respect, it is 
evident that price level directly determines the sales volumes of domestic and imported goods.  
Unit Price Comparison 
(USD/Kilograms)  2016 2017 2018 2019 2019 (9) 2020( 9) 
Unit Domestic Ex -Works Sales Price 
of the Domestic Product  X X X X X X 
Constructed Unit Price of the 
Domestic Product (Unit Commercial 
Cost + 5% Profit Margin)  X X X X X X 
Weighted Average Cost of the 
Imported Product  1,18 1,28 1,48 1,3 1,34 1,07 
Price Undercutting  X X X -X -X -X 
Price Suppression  X -X -X -X -X -X 
Price Depression  
(Real Price of the Domestic Product)  X X X X X X 
When the imported unit costs of the products under investigation are compared with the unit 
domestic sales prices of the domestic product, it is seen that the unit costs of imported products are 
below the domestic sales prices of domestic products in 2016 -2018. In this framework, the price 
undercutting ratios calculated for the years 2016 -2018 are X %, X % and X %, respectively. There 
was no undercutting in the first 9 months of 2019 and 2020 due to the decrease in the domestic 
sales price. On the other han d, it has been observed that imports from Malaysia and Egypt, which G/SG/N/8/TUR/19 • G/SG/N/10/TUR/19 • G/SG/N/11/TUR/26  
- 5 - 
  are among the most important suppliers whose imports are not subject to customs duty and anti -
dumping measures, have recently undercut the prices of domestic producers. The price undercutt ing 
rates were X% in 2019 and X% in the 9 -month period of 2020 for Malaysia and X% in 2019 and X% 
in the 9 -month period of 2020 for Egypt.  
While calculating the price suppression, the "reasonable sale price ", which is found with a reasonable 
profit added by 5% to the average commercial cost of the domestic producer, and the imported unit 
costs are compared. In this context, it is seen that the price suppression occurred only in 2016.  
In addition, real domestic sales prices, calculated with Consumer P rice Index in order to adjust for 
the inflation effect on the domestic sales price of the domestic producer, decreased from X TL/Kg 
in 2016 to X TL/Kg in the 9 -month period of 2020.  
(c) Coinciding Trends  
It is understood that there is parallelism between a ll the relevant factors of an objective and 
quantifiable nature having a bearing on the situation of the domestic industry such as the decline in 
the profitability and the recent increase in the imports of the product concerned.  
Moreover, although the appl icant company have increased its capacity, due to the constraining 
impacts of the imports, total consumption has increased in the period from 2016 to 2018 mostly by 
import increase. In this period, while the imports increased significantly, the domestic pr oduction 
did not increase as much as the production capacity. Likewise, the capacity utilization ratio decreased 
harmoniously in the same period.  
Taking into account these evaluations, it is concluded that the surge in the imports of the product 
concerned and the deterioration in the economic figures of domestic producers indicate a coincidence 
in terms of time frame.  
(d) Other Factors  
(i) Production capacity of domestic producers  
The polyester fiber  production capacity of the domestic industry wa s X thousand tons in 2016 and 
increased to X thousand tons in 2018. However, in 2019, the last complete year of the PUC, a large -
scale capacity increase was realized and the installed capacity increased to X thousand tons. First, 
it is seen that the domest ic consumption of the product under investigation has been following a 
constantly increasing trend in the period under review and the domestic production branch has been 
operating with excess capacity until 2019. In this context, it is seen that the capaci ty increase was 
in line with the domestic market conditions. In addition, despite the large -scale capacity increase 
that came into effect in 2019, the market share of the domestic production branch increased by only 
X % and X points. In this respect, it ha s been evaluated that the deterioration in economic indicators 
has not been caused by the losses due to capacity increase, and that the increase in capacity does 
not have an effect on the threat of serious injury.  
(ii) Production Technology of the Domestic  Producers  
During the investigation, some interested parties claimed that the domestic producers could not 
compete with imported products in terms of quality. However, not only the findings from on the spot 
investigations but also other documents submitted  by the interested parties throughout  the 
investigation reveal that the production technologies of the domestic producers are broadly identical 
with that of the exporter companies. In this respect, the domestic producers manufacture the 
products in a larg e variety. As a result, it appears that technology did not play a role in the threat 
of serious injury that the domestic industry has been facing.  
(iii) Domestic Sale Prices  
A number of related parties claim that the domestic products are not preferred by consumers since 
the domestic sales prices of domestic products are higher than the unit prices of imported products. 
However, the unit prices of imported products undercut domestic product prices for most part of the 
investigation period. In addition, the main reason for the higher domestic sales prices is that the G/SG/N/8/TUR/19 • G/SG/N/10/TUR/19 • G/SG/N/11/TUR/26  
- 6 - 
  commercial costs of the domestic industry are above the weighted import unit costs. Accordingly, 
the profitability rate from the sales of the domestic producer also decreased, especially in 2019.  In 
this context, domestic sales prices cannot be considered as a factor that has an impact on the threat 
of serious injury.  
2. Conclusion on Causation  
From 2016 to 2019, the quantities of imports increased significantly at the rate of 40%. In this 
framework, having concluded that there is a correlation between the increase in imports and the 
threat of serious injury that the domestic industry has been facing; having examined the effects of 
other known factors and having determined that no injurious effects resulted from these; the 
investigating authority reached to the conclusion that there is a causal link between increased 
imports and the threat of serious injury that the domestic industry has been exposed to.  
II. INFORMATION ON WHETHER THERE IS AN  ABSOLUTE INCREASE IN IMPORTS OR AN 
INCREASE IN IMPORTS RELATIVE TO DOMESTIC PRODUCTION  
1. Unforeseen Developments  
Global Exports of the Main Supplier Countries  
Country  2017  2018  2019  2017-2019  
Tons  Tons  Tons  % ∆ 
China  1.003.140 1.026.635 978.464 -2% 
Republic of Korea  766.191 800.144 731.970 -4% 
Thailand  276.182 306.007 332.232 20% 
Chinese Taipei  382.210 352.505 302.757 -21% 
India  218.421 250.886 274.274 26% 
Indonesia  141.463 180.048 264.734 87% 
Vietnam 57.753 107.414 193.364 235%  
Malaysia  118.042 103.306 130.519 11% 
Ireland  86.199 85.174 82.972 -4% 
Romania  52.232 70.122 73.763 41% 
When the export data of the main supplier countries are evaluated, it is seen that China was the 
largest exporter country in the world in terms of quantity in 2017 and 2018, while there was a 
decrease in exports in 2019. In addition, it is understood that Republic of  Korea maintained its 
position as the second largest supplier in the 2017 -2019 period. Furthermore, it is remarkable that 
Malaysia has increased its exports significantly in this 3 -year period.  
It is noteworthy that there was an unforeseen incre ase in the export amounts of countries such as 
China, Republic of  Korea and Thailand in 2018 and in the exports of countries such as Indonesia, 
Vietnam and Malaysia in 2019, in line with the import data of Turkey. It is thought that this situation 
arises f rom the capacity and production increases in the aforementioned countries, and it is 
considered that the mentioned export figures might increase in the following years. Accordingly, it 
seems highly probable for the aforementioned exports to tend to Turkey given the domestic market 
growth. For this reason, it is thought that the global exports of polyester fiber increased in an 
unpredictable manner and that the leading exporting countries of the aforementioned product 
directed their exports Turkey as the tar get market.  
While examining the export of Malaysia, it is observed that a significant part of Malaysia's exports 
of polyester fiber was carried out to Turkey. Indonesia and China , which have equal shares, come 
in the second and third ranks of the aforement ioned exports. It is understood that Malaysia's exports 
to Turkey increased in terms of quantity in the period of 2017 -2019, the export from 72 .6 thousand 
tons to 78 .6 thousand tons, and Turkey's share in Malaysia's total exports was preserved. In 
addition , when the import unit costs are analyzed by countries, the unit prices of imports from 
countries such as Malaysia, Vietnam and China to Turkey decreased significantly and unpredictably 
in 2020. In this context, the increase in the world exports of the pro duct covered by the investigation, 
the increase in the production capacities and exports of the supplier countries with relatively low 
unit prices, accordingly the export from the said countries to the domestic market are evaluated as G/SG/N/8/TUR/19 • G/SG/N/10/TUR/19 • G/SG/N/11/TUR/26  
- 7 - 
  the unforeseen develo pments that led to an increase in the import amount of the product under 
investigation.  
In the light of the above evaluations, the investigating authority concluded that the unforeseen 
recent developments in the world market led to a surge in imports of th e product concerned during 
the investigation period.  
2. Increase in Imports  
An analysis of the increase in imports into Turkey of the product concerned in absolute terms was 
carried out over the period from 2016 to January -September of 2020. Imports of the product 
concerned increased considerably, in absolute terms during the period of investigation. In addition 
to the figures covered by the PUC, imports statistics of 2020 and the first 6 -month periods of 2020 
and 2021 are provided as supplementary infor mation.  
a) General View of Imports  
IMPORTS  Quantity  Value  Unit Price  Change  
Period  Kg $ ($/Kg)  Kg $ ($/Kg)  
2016  152.218.854 169.802.043 1,12 - - - 
2017  192.040.046 233.953.155 1,22 26% 38% 9% 
2018  211.764.816 292.815.820 1,38 10% 25% 14% 
2019  214.311.376 261.695.847 1,22 1% -11% -12% 
2019(9)  161.994.286 203.756.826 1,26 - - - 
2020(9)  141.929.125 142.597.807 1,00 -%12 -%30 -%20 
It is observed that the decline in imports in the first 9 months of 2020 due to the effects of the 
pandemic conditions has spread to the whole of 2020. On the other hand, as the effect of the 
epidemic conditions started to decrease, it is seen that there is a significant increase in imports in 
the first 6 months of 2021 compared to the same period of 2020. In th is context, when evaluated 
as a whole, it is observed that imports increased every year during the period examined, except 
for 2020.  
IMPORTS  Quantity  Value  Unit Price  Change  
Period  Kg $ ($/Kg)  Kg $ ($/Kg)  
2020  184.370.920 183.482.487 1,00 -%14 -%30 -%19 
2020(6)  94.773.385 99.457.469 1,05 - - - 
2021(6)  114.240.891 138.533.749 1,21 %21 %39 %16 
b) Absolute Imports  
Imports  
(Tons)  2016  2017  2018  2019  2019  
(1-9) 2020  
(1-9) 
152.219 192.040 211.765 214.311 161.994 141.929 
Imports of the product concerned increased continuously during the period analyzed. Additionally, 
imports grew by 21% in the first 6 -month period of 2021 compared with the same period of 2020.  
c) Relative  Imports  
Imports/Production  
(% – Index)  2016  2017  2018  2019  2019  
(1-9) 2020  
(1-9) 
100 122 106 78 100 56 
The ratio of imports to domestic production rose in 2017, and fell at the end of the PUC.  G/SG/N/8/TUR/19 • G/SG/N/10/TUR/19 • G/SG/N/11/TUR/26  
- 8 - 
  d) Market Share of  Imports  
Market Share of Imports  
(% - Index)  2016  2017  2018  2019  2019  
(1-9) 2020  
(1-9) 
100 98 105 89 100 76 
The market share of the imported products increased from 2016 to 2018 and then decreased in the 
next period.  
e) Share of Countries in Turkey’s Imports  
Country  2016  2017  2018  2019  
Qty. 
(%) Qty. 
(%) Qty. 
(%) Qty. 
(%) 
Malaysia  34% 36% 20% 28% 
China  15% 10% 18% 16% 
Vietnam 14% 12% 14% 12% 
Republic of Korea  7% 8% 11% 8% 
Egypt  9% 10% 12% 10% 
India  4% 6% 7% 6% 
Chinese Taipei  4% 5% 5% 4% 
Belarus  1% 2% 2% 6% 
Romania  5% 5% 3% 4% 
Germany  1% 1% 2% 1% 
Others  5% 4% 6% 4% 
The breakdown of quantity of imports among supplying countries remained almost stable during the 
PUC. Particularly, the share of the products originated in Malaysia and Vietnam , which are 
characterized with relatively low unit price levels, maintained their high share in the last 4 -year 
period.  
III. PRECISE DESCRIPTION OF THE PRODUCT INVOLVED  
The subject product is classified under Turkish Customs Codes 5503.20.00.00.00 in Turkish Customs 
Tariff Schedule of 2021.  
IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED MEASURE  
The imposition of a definitive safeguard measure is proposed in the form of specific duty per 
kilogram, which will be implemented as shown in the table below.  
Customs Tariff 
Statistics Code  Definition  Proposed Measure  
1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year 
5503.20.00.00.00  Staple fibres of polyesters, not 
carded, combed or otherwise 
processed for spinning  0,060 USD/Kg  0,058 USD/Kg  0,056 USD/Kg  
Below is the list of developing countries excluded from the measure, according to Article 9.1 of the 
Agreement on Safeguards , as they constitute less than 3% individually and 9% collectively of 
imports of Turkey. The exemption will be applied in the form o f tariff quotas. To that end, each 
country will be granted, for each period, a tariff quota of 5 .531 tons, the amount that represents 
3% of imports of Turkey of the product concerned in the year 2020. Overall, total amount of tariff 
quota shall not exceed 16.593 tons, 9% of total imports of Turkey in 2020.  
Afghanistan, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Albania, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Barbados, 
Belize, Benin, Bolivia (Plurinational State Of), Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, 
Burkina  Faso, Bur undi, Bhutan, Algeria, Djibouti, Cook Islands, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, 
Dominican Republic, Dominica, E cuador, Equatorial Guinea, El Salvador, Indonesia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, 
Morocco, Fiji, Côte d'Ivoire, Philippines, Palestine, French Polynesia, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, G/SG/N/8/TUR/19 • G/SG/N/10/TUR/19 • G/SG/N/11/TUR/26  
- 9 - 
  Guinea -Bissau, Grenada , Guatemala, Guyana, Republic of South Africa, South Sudan, Georg ia, Haiti, 
Honduras, Iraq, Iran, Jamaica, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Montenegro, Kazakhstan, Kenya, 
Kyrgyzstan, Kiribati, Colombia, Comoros, Congo, Kosovo, Costa Rica, Democratic People's Republic 
Of Korea, Cuba, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Leso tho, Liberia, Libya, Lebanon, Madagascar, 
Republic of North Macedonia, Malawi, Maldives, Mali, Marshal Islands, Mozambique, Mexico, 
Micronesia (Federated States of), Mongolia, Republic of Moldova, Montserrat, Mauritania, Mauritius, 
Myanmar, Namibia, Nauru,  Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Nicaragua, Niue, Central  African Republic, 
Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Palau, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Rwanda, 
Russian  Federation, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Seychelles, Serbia, Sierra  Leone, 
Solomon Islands, Somalia, Sri Lanka, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the 
Grenadines, Sudan, Suriname, Eswatini, Chile, Tajikistan, United Republic of Tanzania, Thailand, 
Timor -Leste, Togo, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Tuvalu, Turkmenistan, Uga nda, Ukraine, 
Oman, Uruguay, Jordan, Vanuatu, Venezuela  (Bolivarian Republic of), Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.  
V. PROPOSED DATE OF INTRODUCTION OF THE MEASURE  
The measure will enter into force on 23 /09/2021. The related Presidential Decree was published in 
the Official Gazette on 24 /08/2021.  
VI. EXPECTED DURATION OF THE MEASURE  
The expected duration of the proposed measure is three years.  
VII. PROPOSED DATE FOR THE REVIEW  
Not applicable.  
VIII.  EXPECTED TIMETABLE FOR PROGRESSIVE LIBERALIZATION OF THE MEASURE  
In order to induce adjustment, the proposed measure will be subject to liberalization on a regular 
basis following its imposition, thereby ensuring that there is a strong incentive for domestic 
producers to undertake progressively the necessary restructuring and adjustment programs. The 
proposed measure is to be progressively liberalized as indicated in item IV above.  
IX. INFORMATION RELATING TO THE EXTENSION OF A SAFEGUARD MEASURE  
Not applicable.  
__________