RESTRICTED  
  
G/SG/M/62  
 
19 June 2023  
(23-4191) Page: 1/21 
Committee on Safeguards    
 
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING  
HELD ON 1 MAY 2023  
CHAIRPERSON: MS MARYAM A. ALDOSERI  
(KINGDOM OF BAHRAIN)  
1. The Committee on Safeguards (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 1 May 2023.  
 
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 reflected in the 
"Technical Guide", a link to which had also been included in the airgra m convening the meeting.  
 
3. The Chair stated that although she would normally make an announcement at this time about 
E-Subscription and the Contact List, she would make the announcement under that item  since that 
issue had a link with item 7 (functioning of  the Committee) of the day's Agenda . 
 
4. The draft agenda was contained in document WTO/AIR/SG/16.  
 
5. The Chair stated that she wished to explain about the latest status of the Article 13.1 requests 
under Other Business.  
 
6. The Committee adopted  the following agenda:  
1 NATIONAL LEGISLATION – NEW NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ...................  3 
1.1   Review of notifications of new or amended legislation or regulations not previously reviewed 
by the Committe e (including supplemental notifications of existing provisions not previously 
reviewed)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  3 
1.1.1   El Salvador (G/ADP/N/1/SLV/3/Sup pl.2 - G/SCM/N/1/SLV/3/Suppl.2 - 
G/SG/N/1/SLV/3/Suppl.2)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 3 
1.1.2   United  States (G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.32 - G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Supp l.33 - 
G/SG/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.3)  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 3 
1.2   Review of notifications of new or amended legislation or regulations with outstanding  
written questions  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  4 
1.2.1   Liberia  (G/SG/N/1/LBR/1 and G/SG/N/1/LBR/1/Corr.1)  ................................ ................  4 
2 NATIONAL LEGISLATION – CONTINUING REVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE 
NOTIFICATIONS PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE  ................................ ........  4 
2.1 United Kingdom (G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.13 - G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.12 -
G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.12; G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.14 - G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.13 - 
G/SG/N /1/GBR/1/Suppl.13; and G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.15 - G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.14 - 
G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.14)  ................................ ................................ ...............................  4 
2.2 Cameroon  (G/ADP/N/1/CMR/2 - G/SCM/N/1/CMR/2 – G/SG/N/1/CMR/2)  .........................  5 
2.3 Ghana  (G/ADP/N/1/GHA/2 - G/SCM/N/1/GHA/2 - G/SG/N/1/GHA/2)  ...............................  5 
2.4 Zimbabwe  (G/SG/N/1/ZWE/3)  ................................ ................................ ...................  5 
3 NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS  RELATED TO SAFEGUARD MEASURES  .......................  6 
3.1 Costa Rica – Sugar  (G/L/1480 - G/SG/ 280*)  ................................ ................................  7 G/SG/M/62  
 
- 2 - 
 
  3.2 European Union ‒ Certain Steel Products (G/SG/N/10/EU/1/Suppl.16/Corr.2, 
G/SG/N/10/EU/1/Suppl.16/Corr.1, G/SG/N/10/EU/1/Suppl.16, G/SG/278*)  ..............................  7 
3.3 India – Isopropyl Alcohol (G/SG/N/8/IND/33/Suppl.1 - G/SG/N/10/IND/24/Suppl.1 - 
G/SG/N/11/IND/19/Suppl.1)  ................................ ................................ ..............................  9 
3.4 Indonesia – I And H Sections of Other Alloy Steel (G/SG/N/8/IDN/17/Suppl.5  - 
G/SG/N/10/IDN/17/Suppl.5 - G/SG/N/11/IDN/15/Suppl.2)  ................................ .....................  9 
3.5 Indonesia – Evaporators (G/SG/N/8/IDN/22/Suppl.1 - G/SG/N/10/IDN/22/Suppl.2)  ..........  9 
3.6 Madagascar – Pasta (G/SG/N/6/MDG/4/Suppl.1)  ................................ ..........................  9 
3.7 Madagascar - Blankets and Travelling Rugs (G/SG/N/6/MDG/2/Suppl.1)  ..........................  10 
3.8 Madagascar – Detergent Powder (G/SG/N/6/MDG/3/Suppl.1)  ................................ ........  10 
3.9 Madagascar – Flour (G/SG/N/6/MDG/10 - G/SG/N/7/MDG/10 - G/SG/N/11/MDG/10)  ........  10 
3.10  Madagascar – Concentrated Milk (G/SG/N/6/MDG/9 - G/SG/N/7/MDG/9 - 
G/SG/N/11/MDG/9)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  11 
3.11  Madagascar – Paints (G/SG/N/8/MDG/8 - G/SG/N/10/MDG/8 - 
G/SG/N/11/MDG/8/Suppl.1, G/SG/N/7/MDG/8 - G/SG/N/11/MDG/8)  ................................ ...... 11 
3.12  Morocco – Hot-Rolled Sheets (G/SG/N/6/MAR/11/Suppl.1) ................................ ........  11 
3.13  Morocco – Inner Tubes for Bicycles, Mop eds, Motorcycles and Scooters 
(G/SG/N/6/MAR/14)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  12 
3.14  Philippines – Cement (G/SG/N/10/PHL/9/Suppl.3)  ................................ ...................  12 
3.15  Philippines – High-density polyethylene and linear low -density polyethylene  
pellets and granules (G/SG/N/8/PHL/14/Suppl.1/Rev.1 - G/SG/N/10/PHL/10/Rev.1 - 
G/SG/N/11/PHL/15/Rev.1, G/SG/N/8/PHL/14/Suppl.1 - G/SG/N/10/PHL/10 - 
G/SG/N/11/PHL/15)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  12 
3.16  Philippines – Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Cylinders (G/SG/N/6/PHL/20)  ..................  12 
3.17  South Africa – Threaded Fas teners of Iron or Steel (G/SG/N/6/ZAF/7/Suppl.1)  ............  12 
3.18  Türkiye – Yarn of Nylon or Other Polyamides (G/SG/N/8/TUR/17/Suppl.1 - 
G/SG/N/10/TUR/17/Suppl.1 - G/SG/N/11/TUR/24/Suppl.1, G/L/1473 - G/SG/279*  
(RESULTS OF THE CONSULTATIONS), G/SG/275* (REQUEST FOR CONSULTATION)  ..................  13 
3.19  Ukraine – Polymeric Material  
(G/SG/N/10/UKR/9/Suppl.2 - G/SG/N/11/UKR/7/Suppl.3)  ................................ .....................  13 
3.20  Ukraine – PVC Profile (G/SG/N/9/UKR/13)  ................................ ..............................  13 
3.21  United Kingdom – Certain Steel Products (G/SG/N/10/GBR/1/Suppl.12 - 
G/SG/N/11/GBR/1/Suppl.12, G/SG/N/10/GBR/1/Suppl.11 - G/SG/N/11/GBR/1/Suppl.11, 
G/SG/N/10/GBR/1/Suppl.10 - G/SG/N/11/GBR/1/Suppl.10)  ................................ ...................  14 
3.22  United States – Large Residential Washers (G/SG/N/10/USA/8/Suppl.8)  .....................  16 
3.23  Viet Nam – Certain Semi -Finished and Finished Products of Alloy and Non -Alloy Steel 
(G/SG/N/6/VNM/5/Suppl.2, G/SG/N/8/VNM/3/Suppl.4 - G/SG/N/10/VNM/2/Suppl.3 -
G/SG/N/11/VNM/4/Suppl.4)  ................................ ................................ ..............................  16 
3.24  Viet Nam - Diammonium Phosphate and Monoammonium Phosphate Fertilizers 
(G/SG/N/6/VNM/6/Suppl.3 - G/SG/N/10/VNM/5/Suppl.2)  ................................ ......................  16 
4 UNITED STATES - CRYSTALLINE SILICON PHOTOVOLTAIC CELLS  
(ITEM REQUESTED BY JAPAN)  ................................ ................................ .......................  16 
5 INDONESIA - CARPETS AND OTHER TEXTILE FLOOR COVERINGS  
(ITEM REQUESTED BY JAPAN)  ................................ ................................ .......................  16 
6 INDONESIA - ARTICLES OF APPAREL AND CLOTHING ACCESSORIES  
(ITEM REQUESTED BY JAPAN)  ................................ ................................ .......................  17 G/SG/M/62  
 
- 3 - 
 
  7 REPORTING BY THE CHAIRPERSON TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE REPORTS 
SUBMITTED TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE 
COMMITTEE AND THE RESPONSE TO THE PANDEMIC AND THE CONSULTATIONS  
HELD BY THE CHAIR OF THE CTG IN THIS REGARD  ................................ ........................  17 
8 POSSIBLE REVISION OF THE FORMAT OF ANNEX 3 OF THE ANNUAL REPORT  ....... 19 
9 DISCUSSION GROUP REGARDING SAFEGUARD PROCEEDINGS  
(ITEM REQUESTED BY AUSTRALIA, CANADA, THE EUROPEAN UNION, ISRAEL,  
JAPAN, REPUBLIC OF KOREA, NEW  ZEALAND, NORWAY, CHINESE TAIPEI,  
SINGAPORE, UKRAINE, AND THE UNITED  STATES)  ................................ ........................  20 
10 OTHER BUSINESS: ARTICLE 13.1 REQUESTS  ................................ .........................  20 
11 DATE OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING  ................................ ................................ . 21 
12 ELECTION OF OFFICERS  ................................ ................................ ........................  21 
 
1 NATIONAL LEGISLATION – NEW NOTIFICATIONS  
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 
7. The Chair stated that the review would be conducted in accordance with the relevant 
procedures adopted by the Committee, as describ ed in document G/SG/W/116. Item  1.2.1 pertain ed 
to the legislative notification with outstanding written questions.  
 
8. The Chair referred to the past and future deadlines concerning the review of the new legislative 
notifications as follows: any written ques tions were to be submitted to the Member concerned, and 
to the Secretariat by 11  April 2023. Oral questions might have been asked at this meeting, and any 
Member wishing to receive a written answer would submit the questions asked orally also in writing, 
not later than 25  May 2023. Written answers to all written questions should be submitted to the 
Member posing the questions, and to the Secretariat by 15  June 2023.  
1.1.1   El Salvador (G/ADP/N/1/SLV/3/Suppl.2 - G/SCM/N/1/SLV/3/Suppl.2 - 
G/SG/N/1/SLV/3/Suppl.2)  
9. Written questions had been posed regarding this notification and could be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/SLV/14 - G/SCM/Q1/SLV/14 - G/SG/Q1/SLV/13 – Questions from the 
United  States  
 
10. The Chair explained that the United States had suggested that the review for questions 10 -12 
be reviewed in this Committee.  
11. El Salvador  indicated that the questions had been conveyed to Capital and that it hoped to 
provide responses as soon as possible.  
12. The United States  looked forward to receiving the written answers.  
13. Answers from El Salvador were received on 30 May 2023 .2  
1.1.2   United  States (G/ADP/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.32 - G/SCM/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.33 - 
G/SG/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.3)  
14. No written or oral questions were posed by any Member regarding this notification.  
 
1 Relevant deadlines for written questions and written answers regarding the notifications of legislation 
reviewed in the May 2023 meeting can be found in section 1 of document G/ADP/W/510 - G/SCM/W/587 - 
G/SG/W/256.  
2 Circulated in document G/ADP/Q1/SLV/15  - G/SCM/Q1/SLV/15  - G/SG/Q1/SLV/14 . G/SG/M/62  
 
- 4 - 
 
  15. No statements were made by any Member.  
1.2  Review of notifications of new or amended legislation or regulations with outstanding 
written questions  
1.2.1   Liberia  (G/SG/N/1/ LBR/1 and G/SG/N/1/LBR/1 /Corr.1 ) 
16. Written questions regarding this notification had been posed and could be found in document:  
• G/SG/Q1/LBR/1 – Submitted by the United States  
17. The Chair noted that these questions had been pending since the Committee meeting of 
April 2018. 
18. Liberia  was not present at the time. Oral answers had not been provided at the meeting, nor 
had written answers been received to date.  
19. No statements were made  by any Member.  
20. The Committee took note  of the notifications, questions and statement  made under this 
section . 
2 NATIONAL LEGISLATION – CONTINUING REVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATIONS 
PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE3 
21. The Chair reminded the Committee that  Members that wished to ask questions about 
notifications of legislation or regulations previously reviewed by the Committee were to have 
submitted those questions in writing to the notifying  Member and to the Secretariat no later than 
20 March  2023. Members receiving such questions were to have submit ted their written responses 
by close of business on 17  April 2023.  
2.1 United Kingdom  (G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.13 - G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.12 -
G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.12;  G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.14 - 
G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.13 - G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.13; and 
G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.15 - G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.14 - 
G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.14)  
22. Written follow -up questions had been posed regarding this notification and could be found in 
document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/GBR/9 - G/SCM/Q1/GBR/9 - G/SG/Q1/GBR/11 – Follow -up questions from 
Canada  
 
23. Written replies were submitted and could be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/GBR/10 - G/SCM/Q1/GBR/10 - G/SG/Q1/GBR/1 2 – Replies from the 
United  Kingdom  
24. Switzerland  thanked Canada  for its questions, and stated that Switzerland had similar queries 
as what Canada asked. Switzerland hoped that more details could be provided by the 
United  Kingdom.  
 
3 Relevant deadlines for written follow -up questions and written answers regarding the notifications of 
legislation reviewed in the May 2023 meeting can be found in section 1 of do cument G/ADP/W/510 - 
G/SCM/W/587 - G/SG/W/256.  G/SG/M/62  
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.2 Cameroon  (G/ADP/N/1/CMR/2 - G/SCM/N/1/CMR/2 – G/SG/N/1/CMR/2)  
25. Written follow -up questions had been posed regarding this notification and could be found in 
document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/CMR/5 - G/SCM/Q1/CMR/5 - G/SG/Q1/CMR/5 – Submitted by the United States  
26. The Chair noted that these questions had been pending since the Committee meeting of 
October 2022.  
27. Cameroon  was not present at the time. Oral answers had not been provided at the meeting, 
nor had written answers been received to date.  
28. No statements were made by any  Member.  
2.3 Ghana  (G/ADP/N/1/GHA/2 - G/SCM/N/1/GHA/2 - G/SG/N/1/GHA/2)  
29. Written follow -up questions had been posed regarding this notification and could be found in 
document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/GHA/3 - G/SCM/Q1/GHA/3 - G/SG/Q1/GHA/3 – Follow -up questions from the 
United  States  
30. The Chair noted that these questions had been pending since the Committee meeting of 
April 2021.  
31. Ghana  was not present at the time. Oral answers had not been provided at the meeting, nor 
had written answers been received to date . 
32. No statements were made by any Member.  
2.4 Zimbabwe  (G/SG/N/1/ZWE/3 ) 
33. Written follow -up questions had been posed regarding this notification and could be found in 
document:  
• G/SG/Q1/ZWE/3 – Follow -up questions from the United States  
34. The Chair noted that these quest ions had been pending since the Committee meeting of 
October  2021. 
35. Zimbabwe  explain ed that the Zimbabwe Competition and Tariff Commission would publish a 
notice in the Gazette inviting interested parties to respond in writing to the Commission in the 
prescribed form and manner. In order to participate in a specific proceeding, there were specific 
requirements that interested parties needed to follow, for example, submission of a letter of interest 
to participate. When the Commission publishes a notice in the Gazette, it would indicate the 
requirements in that notice, which needed to be fulfilled by those who wished to participate.4 
36. The United States  thanked Zimbabwe for the information  and stated that it looked forward to 
receiving the responses in wri ting.  
37. Written responses  from Zimbabwe were received on 1 June 2023.5 
 
4 The statement recorded in this paragraph was made immediately before the Committee took up 
item 3.1. The delegation of Zimbabwe explained that she had a scheduling conflict and could not take the floor 
earlier. The statement of the United States recorded in paragraph 36 was made immediately after this 
statement of Zimbabwe.  
5 Circulated in document G/SG/Q1/ZWE/4 . G/SG/M/62  
 
- 6 - 
 
  38. Having concluded this part of the agenda, t he Chair informed the Committee that 17 Members 
had not yet made a legislative notification.6 This notification was one of the important obligations of 
the Agreement on Safeguards ("Agreement"). Members  that did not yet have any legislation needed 
only to submit a simple "nil" notificati on.  
39. The United States  recalled that it had stated in past Committee meetings that there remained 
quite a number of countries that had not yet made that notification.  In reviewing the list, 
the United  States noted that nearly every Member in question had informed the WTO throug h the 
TPR process whether it did or did not have safeguards legislation in place.  In other words, most of 
them had already informed the WTO of their safeguards legislation status, albeit in another forum. 
Notification was not overly burdensome and, for mos t of those Members, would likely result in a nil 
notification. Therefore, the United States continued to encourage all of the Members who had not 
yet made their respective notifications to review their individual situations and make the applicable 
notifica tion. In this context, the United States reminded Members that it had put an agenda item to 
the Council for Trade in Goods (CTG)  that identified certain Members’ non -notification of items 
pursuant to certain WTO agreements, including this Agreement. By bri nging this matter to the CTG, 
the United States wished to raise awareness of this issue beyond this Committee. Many of these 
notifications had been outstanding for over 25 years, so if Members had questions about their 
notification obligations, they should  approach the Secretariat for guidance.  Alternatively, Members 
could reach out to other Members for guidance or assistance.  Timely and complete notifications 
would allow the WTO’s negotiating arm to function, improve the operation of WTO  agreements, and 
allow Members to better understand the trade practices of other Members.  The United States also 
called the Members' attention to the continuing work by the Friends of Transparency Group.  On 
March 30, the Group organized a session named "Who Notices Notificat ions?" . At this session, private 
sector representatives discussed why the information in WTO  notifications is important to traders 
and enables them to make informed business decisions. A summary of that session was available in 
CTG room document RD/CTG/18,  including a link to a recording of the session. The United States 
encouraged Members to join the Friends of Transparency Group, which was planning other activities 
for the year 2023. The United States also welcomed discussion on possible technical level n otification 
reforms, including how to assist Members to make their requisite notifications.  
40. The Chair informed Members that for the autumn meeting of 2023, according to the 
Committee's agreed procedures, any new legislative notification to be placed on the agenda of that 
meeting must be circulated in all three WTO languages not later than 11  September  2023. Shortly 
after this date, on 15  September  2023, the Secretariat would circulate the annotated draft agenda 
informing Members of all legislative notifications to be reviewed at the autumn meeting. As 
concern ed the new and previously reviewed legislative notifications taken up at this meeting, 
Members were reminded that past the set deadlines, all unanswered writt en questions would 
automatically be retained on the agenda of the next Committee meeting and on the agendas of 
subsequent Committee meetings under the respective agenda items until written answers were 
submitted.  
41. Concerning previously reviewed legislation,  in order to place any such item on the agenda of 
the autumn meeting for further review, questions would be submitted in writing to the Member 
concerned, and to the Secretariat, not later than 11  September  2023. Written answers to any such 
questions would be submitted to the Member posing the questions and to the Secretariat not later 
than 9  October  2023.  As usual , a document containing all these relevant deadlines would be 
circulated soon after this Committee's meeting .7 
42. The Committee took note  of the not ifications, questions, replies and statements.  
3 NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS  RELATED TO SAFEGUARD MEASURES  
43. Japan  noted that the number of safeguard investigations and safeguard measures had 
decreased significantly since 2022. However, problematic measures and trade restrictive measures 
other than safeguards still existed while the world economy faced various issues such as Russia's 
 
6 These Members were: Antigua and Barbuda, Cabo Verde, Central African Republic, 
Democratic  Republic of the Congo, Eswatini, Grenada, Guinea -Bissau, Mauritania, Mo zambique, Niger, Rwanda, 
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tajikistan, Tanzania, and Yemen.  
7 Relevant deadlines can be found in Section 1 of document G/ADP/W/511 - G/SCM/W/588 - 
G/SG/W/257.  G/SG/M/62  
 
- 7 - 
 
  aggression against Ukraine. Applying trade restrictive measures inconsistent with the 
WTO agreement s would  invoke retaliatory trade restrictive measures by other countries , which 
would then depress world trade.  Japan stated that a Member s hould ensure that the prerequisites 
under the WTO agreements were satisfied before imposing a safeguard measure . It also reminded 
that a measure should be imposed only "to the extent necessary".  
44. Australia  recalled that safeguard measures were emergency ac tions relating to imports of 
fairly traded goods  and impact ed imports from all sources. These actions were subject to strict 
conditions under WTO rules, including where measures may be extended.  Australia noted that the 
actions relating to safeguard measur es remained high. In addition, statistics  on safeguards reflected 
initiations and measures, but not other actions such as midterm reviews and decisions relating to 
them. Thus, these types of actions belied the activity in the Committee. Expanding the stati stical 
data could be an idea. Australia also emphasised the importance of transparency. In this regard, 
Australia pointed out the absence of important information such as submission deadlines and contact 
details in notifications pertaining to initiation of  midterm reviews. It would be helpful if key 
information relating to midterm reviews could be included in the notification s in accordance with the 
agreed notification formats.  
45. China  noted that the number of initiations of safeguard investigations was on the decrease 
since 2020, specifically in 2022 with only four new initiations. This was in sharp contrast to the 
number of initiations in 2018 and 2019. However, certain problems still  remained: (i) safeguard 
measures that were in effect still remained at a high level, covering important sectors such as steel, 
chemicals, light industry and agricultural products ; (ii) most safeguard measures were taken by a 
few Members; (iii) the safegua rd measures were implemented beyond what was necessary. On the 
one hand, measures were being applied for an increasingly longer period. Extension of measures 
had become common. Certain measures extended to a period of eight years. On the other hand, 
some s afeguard measures were applied concurrently with anti -dumping and countervailing 
measures. These practices had resulted in multiple and excessive remedies.  Members should strictly 
abide by the WTO rules. China believe d it was necessary to further clarify a nd improve the 
WTO safeguard rules  and enhance the  Committee 's review function to help  Members improve their  
practice s. China expressed its support for free trade and opposed protectionism, and encouraged 
Members to resolve trade dispute s through dialogue.  
3.1 Costa Rica – Sugar  (G/L/1480 - G/SG/280*)  
46. Brazil  thanked Costa Rica for its efforts to negotiate a joint solution on the application of th is 
measure, which had severely impacted Brazil's exports . Brazil stated that the solution , which had 
been communicat ed to the WTO,  bolstered  commercial and trade links between the two countries.  
3.2 European Union ‒ Certain Steel Products (G/SG/N/10/EU/1/ Suppl .16/C orr.2, 
G/SG/N/10/EU/1/S uppl.16/C orr.1, G/SG/N/10/EU/1/S uppl.16, G/SG/278*)  
47. Japan  expressed  its regret that the measure was still in place  even though it had stated its 
concern s regarding the extension review. The European Union had conducted the review 
investigation to comply with the recommendation by the panel in DS595. The status report , 
circulated by the European Union,  supplement ed the determination s made in 2019 in response to 
the panel report's finding of the measure's inconsistency with prerequisites such as "unforeseen 
developments " and "threat of serious injury ". However, t he measure was continued despite its 
inconsistency  with these fundamental prerequisites which could not be eliminated by such an 
approach. Japan  had submitted its opinion s on the review investigation  in December 2022 . Japan 
reiterated its request that the European Uni on withdraw the measure as soon as possible.   
48. India expressed its concern on the safeguard measure , including its extension. India stated 
that the measure was no longer appropriate nor necessary . Increase in global steel capacity over a 
period of 17 years could not be considered as unforeseen development s. Moreover, import volumes 
had dropped, the market share of the European Union industry had increased, and the 
US Section  232 measures were no long er affecting the European Union. In addition, the 
European  Union's safeguard measure had been declared inconsistent by the DS595 panel. India had 
held consultations with the European Union in 2020 -21 and had notified its proposed suspension of 
concessions under Article 12.5 of the Agreement. India was awaiting the outcome of the latest review 
initiated by the European Union. India urged the European  Union to terminat e the measure.  G/SG/M/62  
 
- 8 - 
 
  49. Switzerland  referred to its statements made at previous meetings of this Committee and 
stated that it continued to be negatively affected by the safeguard measure imposed by the 
European  Union. Switzerland considered it was in the shared interest of the European Union  and all 
WTO Members that the European Union's safeguard measure on certain steel imports be terminated.  
50. The Russian Federation  recalled that in 2022, the panel found the European Union's safeguard 
measure on certain steel products to be WTO -inconsistent. The European Union subsequently 
initiated a review of the measure to implement the ruling of the panel. However, the 
Russian  Federation drew the attention of the Committee to the fact that the European Union had 
reallocated to other Members the quotas that  had originally been assigned to Russia, after imposing 
an import ban on Russian.  The Russian Federation referred to its statements made at previous 
meetings of the Committee regarding the detailed explanations on the inconsistency of the measure 
with Arti cles 2.2, 5.1  and 5.2 of the Agreement.  The Russian  Federation urged the European Union  
to comply with WTO obligations and withdraw the measure.  
51. Korea  was of the view that the European Union's safeguard measure did not comply with the 
Agreement. Changes in  the conditions in global steel market had made the safeguard measure less 
necessary . Such changes included: the war between  Ukraine and Russia, the quota agreement 
between United States and European Union and between the United States and Japan. Korea hop ed 
that the European Union would give full consideration to the elements pointed out by the panel in 
DS595. Korea reiterated its request that the European Union withdraw the measure, and it recalled 
that it had reserved its right to suspend substantially e quivalent concessions and other obligations . 
52. China  reiterated its concerns over this measure and noted that the decision to extend the 
measure was inconsistent with the WTO rules, apart from the fact that the original measure was 
WTO-inconsistent to begin with. In the extension review, the European Union h ad failed to provide 
sufficient evidence to prove that the domestic industry was adjusting, had not adequately examined 
the relationship between imported products and injuries suffered by the domestic industry, and had 
not adequately examine d other factors  that caused injury. In addition, the changed circumstances 
made the measure no longer necessary. According to the bilateral agreement between the 
European  Union and the United States, the European Union was exempted from the US Section 232 
steel measure, and the European Union's export to the US increased significantly.  The 
European  Union downstream industry was thus in need of imports of steel. Combined with the clear 
upward price trend , it showed that the measure was no  longer  necessary . The panel report  in DS595 
confirmed that the original measure was inconsisten t with the WTO rules . The European Union had 
failed to establish "unforeseen developments" and "threat of serious injury". China asked the 
European Union to withdraw the measure immediately.  
53. Türkiye recalled that in the past Committee meetings, Türkiye had underlined that the 
European Union's measur e was not in compliance with the Agreement. Therefore, Türkiye initiated 
dispute settlement proceedings accordingly. The DS595 panel confirmed that the  European Union's 
measure was lacking constituent features of a safeguard measure. The panel specifically concluded 
that the European Union did not ascertain that the increase in imports took place as a result of 
unforeseen developments, and that the Europ ean Union's determination of threat of serious injury 
was not based on facts. Although the European Union reopened the original safeguard investigation 
on 24 August 2022, Türkiye was disappointed that the European Union continued to impose the 
measure. Tür kiye explained that the panel's recommendation did not suggest that the European 
Union update its report with new analysis to justify the measure as conforming to WTO rules.  
Members should change the measure in substance to eliminate inconsistencies if po ssible. If not, 
they should terminate the measure. In that sense, the European Union undermined the constituent 
features of the multilateral trading system and the WTO dispute settlement system with this 
approach.  On the other hand, Türkiye  noted that the European Union had initiated a review to 
determine whether the safeguard measure should be terminated by 30 June 2023, one year earlier 
than the current duration.  Türkiye  expect ed the European Union to immediately terminate the 
measure . 
54. Brazil reiterated its concerns regarding this measure. Brazil emphasised that 
safeguard  measures were exceptional  and should be used with special circumspection by Members. 
The measure currently maintained by the European  Union was expressly aimed at addressin g the 
problem of excess global capacity of steel products. Such an issue should not be addressed by 
unilateral restrictive measures. Brazil urged the European Union to reassess its decision to maintain 
and extend the safeguard measure.  G/SG/M/62  
 
- 9 - 
 
  55. The European Union  clarified that the ongoing review was not related to the implementation 
of the panel report DS595. The European Union had already addressed that matter in early 
January  2023. The European Union also clarified that it was not excluded from the application of the 
US Section 232. It was subject to a system of tariff rate quotas. The ongoing review aimed to assess 
whether the measure could be terminated a year earlier than its current expiry date. The 
European  Union would consult with all those WTO  Members concerned before taking the final 
decision.  
3.3 India – Isopropyl Alcohol (G/SG/N/8/IND/33/S uppl.1 - 
G/SG/N/10/IND/24/S uppl.1 - G/SG/N/11/IND/19/S uppl.1)  
56. India stated that it had imposed a safeguard measure in the form of a quantitative restriction. 
The country -wise quota available to various countries and the conditions  thereof  had been provided 
in the notification. The quantitative restrictions would last until 31 March 2024 . But India could 
amend the  measure , if necessary . 
57. Singapore  regretted the f act that India decided to impose the measure. It encouraged India 
to review and lift measure as soon as possible.  
58. Korea  was of the view that the measure did not comply with the WTO agreement. Specifically, 
India submitted the notification  only after 130 days of its final determination . India also  failed to 
meet the requirement of finding a "recent increase " of imports when India imposed the  measure 
three years and four months after the termination of investigation. In this regard, Korea requested  
India to withdraw the measure prompt ly.  
3.4 Indonesia – I And H Sections of Other Alloy Steel (G/SG/N/8/IDN/17/ Suppl. 5 - 
G/SG/N/10/IDN/17/ Suppl. 5 - G/SG/N/11/IDN/15/ Suppl. 2) 
59. There were no comments or questions raised.  
3.5 Indonesia – Evaporators (G/SG/N/8/ IDN/22/ Suppl. 1 - 
G/SG/N/10/IDN/22/ Suppl. 2) 
60. There were no comments or questions raised.  
3.6 Madagascar – Pasta (G/SG/N/6/MDG/4/ Suppl. 1) 
61. Madagascar  explained that a review investigation was initiated since the current measure was 
due to expire end of July 2023.  
62. Mauritius  reiterated the concerns it had raised for the last four years regarding th is measure . 
Due to complex administrative procedures and import controls, Mauritian exporters faced difficulties 
to fulfil the  quota. For example, importers were required to submit an expression of interest, and 
the Madagascar authorities decide d to which importer the quota would be allocated. Since the 
current mechanism was harming the relation between traditional exporters and importers, Mauritius 
urged Madagascar to revi ew these procedures. In addition, importers were required to pay their 
duty even for the in -quota imports and apply for a refund later . That  was a major deterrent due to 
the long process ing time. Mauritius also note d that Madagascar intende d to exten d the measure 
beyond the initial four -year period . The Mauritian exporters had submitted the required documents 
to the Madagascar authorities. Mauritius hoped for fruitful discussion s during the consultation s with 
the Madagascar authorities and requested that the Madagascar authorities address these issues in 
a spirit of mutual understanding taking into consideration relations and historical ties between the 
two countries.  
63. Madagascar  acknowledged the receipt of a letter from Mauritius regarding the difficulties 
related to the implementation of the tariffs. Madagascar  explained that it had responded in writing 
stating that the administrative procedure related to the examination of the imports was a temporary 
measure that had been adopted by customs authorities whil e they awaited new parameters for the 
system. Regarding the quota allocation among importers, Madagascar explained that the quota was 
not allocated on a first come first served basis, but rather to those who had carried out activities in G/SG/M/62  
 
- 10 - 
 
  the last three yea rs. This also involved asking whether the importers were interested in continuing 
imports or not.  
64. Türkiye  stated that since Madagascar's imports of pasta from Türkiye was below the 3% 
threshold and, thus as a developing country, in line with Article 9.1 o f the Agreement, Türkiye 
requested to be excluded from the measure.  
65. Madagasca r explained that in the few months after the application of the measure , the volume 
of subject imports from developing countries exceeded 9% of the total subject imports. Thus, 
Madagascar extended the scope of application of the measure to all the developing countries. 
Madagascar would prepare the responses to all the concerns  and comments from relevant countries 
as soon as possible.  
3.7 Madagascar - Blankets and Travelling Rugs (G/SG/N/6/MDG/2/Suppl.1)  
66. There were no comments or questions raised.  
3.8 Madagascar – Detergent Powder (G/SG/N/6/MDG/3/ Suppl. 1) 
67. There were no comments or questi ons raised.  
3.9 Madagascar – Flour (G/SG/N/6/MDG/10 - G/SG/N/7/MDG/10 - 
G/SG/N/11/MDG/10)  
68. Türkiye  stated that it had submitted its views to Madagascar regarding the initiation of the 
investigation. Türkiye was of the view that the causal link between imports and the industry's 
performance was not sufficiently established because of the insufficient da ta and information 
provided by the quite recently emergent complainant. Furthermore, the complainant's economic 
indicators showed positive results during the injury investigation period. Türkiye hoped that 
Madagascar would terminate the current proceeding without a definitive measure.  
69. The United States  stated that according to the notification, Madagascar had initiated this 
investigation on 18 February 2023 and imposed provisional measure just 11 days later, on 
1 March  2023. The Unite d States stated that 11 days was not sufficient for the competent authorities 
to gather information from interested parties, analyse and assess the information, make a 
determination based on the information gathered and place in the administrative record t hat there 
was clear evidence, as required under Article 6, that increased imports have caused or threatening 
to cause serious injury, determine that a certain duty level was sufficient to prevent or remedy 
serious injury and to facilitate adjustment, and t hen draft a legal determination with a 
recommendation for the imposition of a provisional measure. Furthermore, Madagascar had 
gathered and analysed the information supposedly before the 30 -day deadline for interested parties 
to make themselves known to th e competent authorities and the same  30-day deadline for replies 
to the questionnaire. The United States requested Madagascar to explain how the hasty action of 
the competent authorities to impose provisional measure was consistent with Article 6 of the 
Agreement and what was utilised as clear evidence of serious injury.  
70. Madagascar  stated that it believed that the current information was sufficient to find increase 
of imports and the injury caused during the period covered by the investigation. It was not just a n 
11-day process  because  Madagascar's  regulation and legislation provided that the investigation 
should not be opened unless the re was necessary evidence with regard to an increase in imports 
and the existence of injury caused. Given all the evidence , Madagascar thus decided to impose 
provisional measure .  
71. Madagascar took this opportunity to also refer to the written questions received from Egypt.  
Madagascar stated that they had been unable to conduct consultations on 3 April 2023 due to 
technical pro blems, and hence Madagascar had offered to conduct consultations at a later date. 
Furthermore, Madagascar also had responded to the questions sent by Egypt before the planned 
consultations.  G/SG/M/62  
 
- 11 - 
 
  72. Egypt  stated8 that it found the following problems with this inv estigation. First, no legal basis 
was found to justify the imposition of provisional safeguard measure  in accordance with Article 6 of 
the Agreement . Second, the authorities had failed to define a domestic industry either on the basis 
of producers of the like or directly competitive products, or on the basis of producers whose collective 
output of the like or directly competitive products constitute d a major proportion of the total 
domestic product ion. In addition, there was no adequate determination of unforeseen developments. 
Thus, the Ma dagascar  Authority's initiation of a safeguard investigation and imposition of provisional 
duties were inconsistent with the Agreement. Furthermore, there was no justification for the 
provisional measure since there was no increase in imports in an absolute manner during  2020 
to 2022. Moreover, other factors that could have cause d serious injury were not mentioned in the 
notification. For the aforementioned reasons , Egypt reiterated that the initiation of the investigation 
was inconsistent with Agreement . It requested Madagascar to terminat e the investigation and the 
provisional measure . 
73. Madagascar  thanked Egypt for its interest in taking part in the investigation a nd stated that it 
had already responded to these questions in writing and would bear in mind these concerns in the 
next steps of the process.  
3.10  Madagascar – Concentrated Milk (G/SG/N/6/MDG/9 - G/SG/N/7/MDG/9 - 
G/SG/N/11/MDG/9)  
74. The United States  stated its concern regarding this investigation, which was similar to the 
investigation on flour. Madagascar had initiated the investigation on 11 February 2023 and  imposed 
the provisional measure on the same day. The United States noted that that timing was insufficient 
for the competent authorities to gather information from interested parties, analyse and assess the 
information, make a determination based on the information gathered and place in the 
administrative record that there is clear evidence, as  required under Article 6, that increased imports 
have caused or are threatening to cause serious injury, determine that a certain duty level is 
sufficient to prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitate adjustment, and then draft a legal 
determinati on with a recommendation for the imposition of a provisional measure. In addition, 
Madagascar gathered and analysed the information supposedly before the 30 -day deadline for 
interested parties to make themselves known to the competent authorities and the 
same 30-day deadline for replies to the questionnaire. The United States requested Madagascar to 
explain how the initiation and imposition of the provision measure on the same day was consistent 
with Article  6 of the Agreement.  
75. Madagascar  thanked the United States for its concerns and stated that it had previously 
responded to the question.  
3.11  Madagascar – Paints (G/SG/N/8/MDG/8 - G/SG/N/10/MDG/8 - 
G/SG/N/11/MDG/8/ Suppl. 1, G/SG/N/7/MDG/8 - G/SG/N/11/MDG/8)  
76. There were no comments or questions raised.  
3.12  Morocco – Hot-Rolled Sheets (G/SG/N/6/MAR/11/ Suppl. 1) 
77. Ukraine  stated that exports from Ukraine to Morocco had significantly decreased in the period 
2018-2021 and were absent in 2022. Ukraine stated that in the current conditions of Russia's war 
against Ukraine, the  Ukrainian steel industry was forced to reduce production capacities, logistics 
were destroyed, and supply chains within Ukraine were constantly interrupted. The war played a 
decisive role. Compared to 2013, Ukraine had lost approximately 80% of its steel production volume 
in 2022. Russia's attacks on railway infrastructure and blockade of seaports had become one of the 
most serious tests for the industry , as around 65% of exports of metal products were made through 
ports. Ukraine requested the Morocc an authorities to take into account the damage caused by 
Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine.  
 
8 The delegate of Egypt had a technical p roblem with remote access, and so this statement was read out 
by the chair at the end of agenda item 3.14.  Madagascar's statement reproduced in paragraph 73 was als o 
made at that time.   G/SG/M/62  
 
- 12 - 
 
  78. Morocco  thanked Ukraine and took note of its statement.  
3.13  Morocco – Inner Tubes for Bicycles, Mopeds, Motorcycles and Scooters 
(G/SG/N/6/MAR/14)  
79. There were  no comments or questions raised.  
3.14  Philippines – Cement (G/SG/N/10/PHL/9/Suppl.3)  
80. The Philippine s explained that it had dismissed the petition for extension  of the measure . 
81. There were no comments or questions raised.   
3.15  Philippines – High -density polyethylene  and linear low -density polyethylene pellets 
and granules (G/SG/N/8/PHL/14/ Suppl. 1/Rev.1 - G/SG/N/10/PHL/10/ Rev.1 - 
G/SG/N/11/PHL/15/ Rev.1, G/SG/N/8/PHL/14/ Suppl. 1 - G/SG/N/10/PHL/10 - 
G/SG/N/11/PHL/15)  
82. The Philippines  stated that the safeguard investigation on linear low density polyethylene 
pellets and granules (LLDPE) had been terminated on 3 June 2022. However, with regard to 
high-density polyethylene pellets and granules (H DPE), having determined the presence of all 
elements for the impositi on of the safeguard measure, it had issued an order to impose a measure 
for a period of three years.  
83. Indonesia  expressed its concerns regarding the imposition of safeguard measure on HDPE and 
stated that it wished to highlight two serious issues: First, in June 2022, the Philippines Tariff 
Commission (TC) made recommendations to the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) regarding 
the imposition of the measure. Annex M of the final report issued by the TC clearly mentioned 
Indonesia as a developing country with diminished import and thus excluded it from the measure. 
However, the document issued by the DTI on  30 September of 2022, entitled  "the Definitive General 
Safeguard Measure",  did not contain the same exclusion for Indonesia. Indonesia requested 
Philip pines for clarification . Second, the  notification made by the Philippines  was very brief and did 
not provide sufficient information . Most importantly, it did not refer to prior consultation s with the 
affected Members. Indonesia noted that as one of the aff ected Members, it did not have any 
opportunity to consult, as provided under Article  12.3 of the Agreement. Indonesia requested further 
clarification on these issues.  
84. The Philippines  thanked Indonesia and  stated that it would examine the issues raised.  
3.16  Philippines – Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Cylinders (G/SG/N/6/PHL/20)  
85. The Philippines  stated that it had initiated the investigation on the said product and was 
accepting comments and inputs from all interested parties.  
86. There were no comments or questions raised.  
3.17  South Africa – Threaded Fasteners of Iron or Steel (G/SG/N/6/ZAF/7/ Suppl. 1) 
87. South Africa  explained that the notification related to an initiation of an investigation into 
whether or not to extend the measure. The investigation had been initiated after the investigating 
authority found that the affected industry had submitted prima facie  information to indicate that the 
expiry of the current safeguard measure would likely lead to a recurrence of serious injury to the 
South African Customs U nion industry and that there was evidence that the South African 
Customs  Union industry was adjusting.  
88. There were no comments or questions raised.  G/SG/M/62  
 
- 13 - 
 
  3.18  Türkiye – Yarn of Nylon or Other Polyamides 9 (G/SG/N/8/TUR/17/ Suppl. 1 - 
G/SG/N/10/TUR/17/ Suppl. 1 - G/SG/N/1 1/TUR/24/ Suppl. 1, G/L/1473 - G/SG/279* 
(RESULTS OF THE CONSULTATIONS), G/SG/275* (REQUEST FOR CONSULTATION)  
89. Türkiye  explained that Türkiye and Indonesia had filed a joint notification 
on 16 December  2022, in which they agreed to extend the 90 -day consultation period  until 
31 May 2023. Türkiye and Indonesia were continuing the consultations in a positive and constructive 
manner.  
3.19  Ukraine – Polymeric Material (G/SG/N/10/UKR/9/Suppl.2 - 
G/SG/N/11/UKR/7/Su ppl.3)  
3.20  Ukraine – PVC Profile (G/SG/N/9/UKR/13)  
90. Ukraine  stated that it would explain items 3.19 and 3.20 together. S ince the Committee's 
previous meeting , Ukraine  had suspended the safeguard measure on polymeric materials and 
terminated the safeguard measur e on PVC profile . One of the reasons was the blatant act of Russia's 
aggression against Ukraine through its brutal and unprovoked full -scale military invasion which had 
affected Ukraine's entire territory. Some production facilities of the products concern ed were  located 
in the occupied territories or were under constant fire. This affected the Ukrainian industry's 
capacities, production, cost of production and export potential. These circumstances deprived the 
Ukrainian industry and other interested partie s of their right to participate in these procedures 
effectively, and impeded the ability to prepare, submit and verify information necessary for reaching 
an objective conclusion, as envisaged by the Agreement. Ukraine appreciated the support it received 
from the global community and was deeply grateful to all Members that were standing by Ukraine 
during these unprecedented times and believed that together they could isolate and hold Russia 
accountable on the multilateral trading system.  
91. The European Union  thanked Ukraine for its intervention and the notifications. It also 
commended Ukraine for its efforts to comply with WTO notification obligations during the brutal and 
illegal invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation. The European Union condemned the 
Russian  Federation in the strongest possible terms. It was not a coincidence that the polymeric 
material investigation was suspended until the end of martial law in Ukraine, and in the case of PVC 
profiles the investigation was terminated. The European Union noted that it was impossible to 
conduct a proper investigation in the presence of Russia's attacks on non -military targets and in a 
situation where Russia illegally occupied part of Ukrainian territory. The European Union would stand 
by Ukraine and its people in this unparalleled crisis and would provide further political, financial, 
military and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine.  
92. Canada  thanked Ukraine for its notification and report on the circumstances affecting its 
participation in t he multilateral trading system. It also condemned Russia's illegal, unprovoked and 
unjustifiable invasion of Ukraine, which was a blatant violation of international law and the rules -
based international system . Canada commended Ukraine's commitment to the multilateral trading 
system and its upholding the rule of law while under attack . Canada expressed its unwavering 
support for Ukraine and its people to find ways to use trade to support Ukraine in rebuilding its 
economy and its society. Finally, Canada onc e again called on Russia to immediately cease all hostile 
actions against Ukraine.  
93. Australia  thanked Ukraine for its statement and expressed concerns regarding Ukraine's ability  
to fully exercise its rights under the Agreement and to conduct proper safegu ard investigations. 
Australia condemned Russia's illegal and immoral full-scale invasion of Ukraine . Australia stated that 
the invasion was a gross violation of international law. Australia extended its support for Ukraine's 
sovereignty and territorial int egrity. Australia was working closely with their partners to support 
Ukraine. Its objective, along with their partners, was to empower Ukraine to resolve this conflict on 
its own terms. Australia also noted that aside from the terrible damage and loss of l ife in Ukraine, 
 
9 Document G/SG/N/10/TUR/21 - G/SG/N/11/TUR/28 was recirculated as G/SG/N/8/TUR/17/Suppl.1 - 
G/SG/N/10/TUR/17/Suppl.1 - G/SG/N/11/TUR/24/Suppl.1, without any change in the content, to ensure the 
consistency of the symbolling system. Document G/SG/N/10/TUR/21 - G/SG/N/11/TUR/28 should be 
considered null and void.  G/SG/M/62  
 
- 14 - 
 
  the war was also compounding human suffering and propelling the global crisis in food and energy 
security.  
94. Norway  thanked Ukraine for its notification and commended  Ukraine for its efforts to comply 
with the notification obligations  even u nder the extremely difficult circumstances . Norway 
condemned in the strongest possible terms  Russia's military  aggression  on Ukraine  and reiterated 
its full solidarity with Ukraine . 
95. Switzerland  thanked Ukraine for its efforts to respect the notification obligations despite the 
current difficult circumstances. Switzerland condemned the illegal military action by Russia against 
Ukraine in the strongest terms. The aggression constituted a flagrant violation of international law, 
notably the proh ibition of the use of force and the principle of territorial integrity of states. 
Switzerland called upon Russia to respect its international obligations, to cease hostilities, to 
immediately withdraw its troops from Ukrainian territory and to contribute t o de-escalation. 
Switzerland also called upon all parties to strictly respect international law, specifically international 
humanitarian law. Parties must ensure that the civil population were protected and that people who 
were not taking part in the comba t were protected, along with respecting the rules of war. Attacks 
against civilians or civilian infrastructure were prohibited, and Switzerland insisted that such actions 
should cease. Switzerland was concerned with the consequences of this military aggres sion, which 
affected, in particular, the most vulnerable ones.  
96. The United Kingdom  thanked Ukraine for its continued efforts to comply with WTO obligations, 
despite the invasion of its territory by Russia. The United Kingdom condemned  Russia's reprehensible  
actions, which was an egregious violation of international law and the UN Charter.  
97. The United States  thanked Ukraine for its notification and condemned Russia's illegal, 
unjustifiable, unprovoked war and the disregard for the UN Charter and indifference t o the impacts 
of the war on the people worldwide . Russia's actions contravened the principles and values of the 
WTO including other Members' shared notions of fairness and openness . The United States noted 
that Ukraine continue d to participate actively in WTO committees and bodies, despite the 
unimaginable conditions at home  and commended its  commitment to th e WTO . 
98. Japan  appreciated Ukraine's efforts to notify amidst difficult times, and condemned Russia's 
aggression against Ukraine and its missile attacks against civilian infrastructure and cities across 
Ukraine. Japan stated that, as the only country to have suffered atomic bombings during wartime, 
it would not accept Russia's nuclear threats or its use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances. 
Japan once again strongly urge d Russia to  stop the aggression and to withdraw its forces from the 
international ly recognized borders  of Ukraine . Japan would continue to work on the two pillars of 
imposing strong sanctions against Russia and support ing Ukraine, in c ooperation with the 
international community.   
99. Korea  commend ed Ukraine's effort to comply with  its WTO rules despite the difficult 
conditions. Korea  condemned Russia's illegal  armed invasion  against Ukraine as a violation of the 
international laws and the UN  Charter.  
100.  The Russian Federation  expressed its disappoint ment in hearing these interventions since last 
year and emphasized  that the WTO was not a political forum . Russia regretted that some Members 
shifted the focus away from  trade issues  and pushed their political interests. It stressed that the 
actions of the Russian Federation in Ukraine were not directed against civilians or civil infrastructures 
that were not connected to military actions. Russia considered that certain i ssues raised by some 
Members in this Committee's meeting were outside the mandate of the WTO or this Committee. 
Russia requested Members to respect the purely economic nature of this organisation.  
3.21  United Kingdom – Certain Steel Products (G/SG/N/10/GBR/1/Suppl.12 - 
G/SG/N/11/GBR/1/Suppl.12, G/SG/N/10/GBR/1/ Suppl. 11 - 
G/SG/N/11/GBR/1/ Suppl. 11, G/SG/N/10/GBR/1/ Suppl. 10 - 
G/SG/N/11/GBR/1/ Suppl. 10) 
101.  The United  Kingdom  explained that on 16 January 2023, the Trade Remedies Authority (TRA) 
initiated a tariff rate quota review relating to the safeguard measure on certain steel products. 
Specifically, the review concerned the exemption status of developing country Members pursuant to G/SG/M/62  
 
- 15 - 
 
  Article 9.1  of the Agreement. The review was initiated following an application received from the UK 
industry indicating an increase in imports between January and June  2022 from certain developing 
countries exempted from the measure in product category 13. The Unite d Kingdom notified the 
initiation on 18 January 2023 . On initiation of the review, the  TRA invited interested parties to 
comment on a proposal to revise the scope of the review to include all categories of steel subject to 
the measure and to expand the rev iew to include all developing countries. The TRA considered 
comments from interested parties and subsequently decided to revise and expand the scope based 
on the import data from  1 January 2022 to 31 December 2022. The United Kingdom notified the 
expanded scope of the review on 16  February 2023. On 17 April, the TRA published its initial 
conclusions and found that the 3% import threshold for developing countries exemption was 
exceeded for some product categories in  2022. For these countries, the TRA recomme nded country -
specific quotas if their import shares exceeded 5% during 2017 to 2019. Otherwise, the TRA 
proposed that non -exempt developing countries would still access the residual quota. The details of 
the proposed adjustments were notified on 18 April 2 023. Interested parties were provided 
opportunities to submit comments. The United Kingdom also offered to the Members affected by the 
proposed changes to consult in accordance with Article 12.3 of the Agreement. The TRA would now 
consider further comments  and make a final recommendation to the Secretary of State for Business 
and Trade.  
102.  Brazil  expressed its concern over the recent inclusion of Brazilian exports within the scope of 
the measure. Brazil would reach out to the United Kingdom bilaterally in orde r to clarify. Brazil also 
recalled the obligation of the Member applying a safeguard measure to offer adequate compensation 
to affected Members. Compensation was essential to maintain an appropriate level of concessions 
since safeguard measures restrict im ports which do not result from unfair trade practices. Brazil 
reiterated its serious concern with the application of the measure.  
103.  Japan  stated that it had expressed its concerns in this Committee as well as directly to the 
United Kingdom. Japan  regrett ed the fact that the U nited Kingdom  had decided to further extend 
the measure on some products which were originally supposed to be extended only for one year. 
The U nited Kingdom  had extended the measure without the initial investigation and without a solid 
basis in the Agreement. Japan saw no adequate explanation  regarding why  the measure continue d 
to be necessary. Japan urge d the U nited Kingdom  to terminate the measure .  
104.  India stated that it had expressed its concerns regarding the measure during the consultations 
with the United Kingdom held under Article  12.3 of the Agreement as well as during the previous 
meetings of this Committee . The United Kingdom had disagreed with India's views and so India had 
reserved its rights, under Article 8.2 of the Agreement , to suspend concessions or other obligations 
substantially equivalent to the adverse effects of the measure.  India had notified to the Committee 
in September 2022  the estimated compensation and  the products identified for imposing additional 
duties. Both countries were engaged in bilateral consultations.  
105.  Switzerland  recalled its concerns that it had expressed previously in this Committee as well 
as bilaterally. Switzerland stated that the measu re applied by the United Kingdom must respect the 
material and procedural requirements provided for in the Agreement, and once again urged the 
United  Kingdom to terminate the measures as soon as possible.  
106.  Korea  reiterated its concerns previously expressed  in this Committee as well as bilaterally. 
The review of the TRA failed to comply with the principle of "parallelism" when the imports considered 
for the purpose of safeguards investigation and those on which the safeguards measure was applied 
were not the  same . In addition, the TRA's report was not clear on matter of causal relationship, and 
possibly violated Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement. Korea requested the United Kingdom to 
promptly withdraw the measure. It also recalled that it had reserved its  right to suspend substantially 
equivalent concessions and other obligations with respect to the trade with the United Kingdom.  
107.  The Russian Federation  referred to its statements made at the previous Committee meetings. 
In particular, it had raised concerns  about the reallocation of the quotas originally provided to Russia , 
after imports from Russia were banned. Although the United Kingdom decided to review the 
allocation of quotas, the review did not address Russia's concerns. The Russian Federation reiterated 
that the reallocation of quotas provided to Russia led to viola tion of Articles 2.2, 5.1 and 5.2 of the 
Agreement. Russia urged the United  Kingdom to comply with the WTO rules and to terminate the 
application of the measure.  G/SG/M/62  
 
- 16 - 
 
  108.  The United Kingdom  took note of all the comments and referred Members to its previous 
stateme nts with regard to concerns on the overall application of the measure. Concerning Brazil's 
statement, the United  Kingdom expressed its readiness to conduct bilateral consultations with Brazil 
as well as with any other Members affected by the proposed chang es to the review.  
3.22  United States – Large Residential Washers (G/SG/N/10/USA/8/Suppl.8)  
109.  There were no comments or questions raised.  
3.23  Viet Nam – Certain Semi -Finished and Finished Products of Alloy and Non -Alloy Steel 
(G/SG/N/6/VNM/5/Suppl.2, G/SG/N/8/VNM/3/ Suppl. 4 - G/SG/N/10/VNM/2/ Suppl. 3 
- G/SG/N/11/VNM/4/ Suppl. 4) 
110.  Viet Nam  explained that it decided to extend the safeguard measure since the domestic 
industry experienced a decline in production , in output capacity utilization rate, in domestic sale 
volume, in domestic sale profit and in profit margin in 2022 as compared to 2021 . In addition, some 
of the largest companies in the industry suspended their operations while others failed to achieve 
their production plans . Viet Nam explain ed that for certain semi -finished products of alloy and non -
alloy steel, the measure  was not extended. Viet Nam had conducted the investigation in an objective 
and transparent manner, in compliance with domestic law, as well as international commitments, 
including the WTO Regulation . 
111.  Japan  stated that the measure did not fulfil the requirements under Article XIX.1 (a) of GATT  
which require d that the increase in imports need to be connected to unforeseen developments and 
to the effects of obligations under the GATT . Japan had pointed out these issues in its written 
comments  as well as at the public hearings . Japan  regretted that there had been no improvement 
and the measure was extended again from March 2023. With respect to the anti-circumvention 
investigation and measure, Japan stated that there was no clear provision for an anti -circumvention 
investigation in the context of safeguards, though  it had been discussed in the area of anti -dumping. 
Expansion of the scope of safeguard  measure in the name of anti -circumvention would deprive the 
safeguard measure of its essence as an emergency import restriction. Japan requested an early 
termination of the measure.  
3.24  Viet Nam - Diammonium Phosphate and Monoammonium Phosphate Fertilizers 
(G/SG/N/6/VNM/6/Suppl.3 - G/SG/N/10/VNM/5/Suppl.2)  
112.  Viet Nam  explained that it terminated the investigation.  
113.  The Committee took note  of the notifications and statements, as well as questions and answers 
provided.  
4 UNITED STATES - CRYSTALLINE SILICON PHOTOVOLT AIC CELLS (ITEM REQUESTED 
BY JAPAN)  
114.  Japan  stated that in July 2022, the imports from Canada had been exempted from the measure 
based on the bilateral agreement with Canada. Japan had concerns regarding the consistency of the 
measure with Article 2.2 of the  Agreement, which provided that safeguards should be applied 
irrespective of its source. Japan requested for a review to determine whether the measure continued 
to be necessary.  
115.  The United States  took note of Japan 's concerns and comments.  
116.  The Committee took note  of the statements.  
5 INDONESIA - CARPETS AND OTHER TEXTILE FLOOR COVERINGS (ITEM REQUESTED 
BY JAPAN)  
117.  Japan  stated that a lthough it had repeatedly expressed concerns, the measure  was still 
ongoing. The measure practically constituted quantitative restriction s prohibited under the 
WTO Agreement . The measure applied extremely high duties of around 150 -200% ad valorem . In 
addition, d uring the investigation, the Indonesian authorities had arbitrarily determined the increase G/SG/M/62  
 
- 17 - 
 
  in imports without considering the sharp decrease of imports caused by the import registration and 
approval system introduced in 2019. In fact, imports of the subject product in 2020 w ere 
approximately one -tenth of th eir level in 2019. Th e positive determination had been  made possible 
by setting the period of investigation as 2017 -2019, immediately prior to the aforementioned 
decrease of imports caused by the import registration system. Japan request ed Indonesia to 
terminate the measure immediately  or to exclude imported products which d id not compete with 
Indonesian domestic products because of their different characteristics  in terms of price and usage . 
Japan further noted that Indonesia had earlier e xplained that imports from Japan had begun to 
increase by 40% over the past year . However, there was no such data. Japan stated that the high 
tariffs had completely disrupted exports from Japan.  Japan was not seeking a country -based 
exclusion. Japan's main  concern was the WTO inconsistency of the measure and the excessive import 
restriction effect . Japan was requesting that the measure be corrected and eliminated soon. Japan 
noted that, in addition, Indonesia introduced a commodity balance system for import s of various 
commodities, whereby only quantities in line with the supply -demand balance set by the Indonesian 
government were approved. Japan understood that the import approval procedures were delayed 
for some commodities and for some  products , and impor t was not possible at all. Japan understood 
that textile products were included in the scope of this system . Japan requested an explanation as 
to whether carpets and rugs had been subjected to this system. In any case, Japan did not see the 
need for safegu ards in a situation where import restrictions and the import registration system 
continue d to be implemented . Japan strongly urged the early elimination of the measure.  
118.  Indonesia  stated that as it had responded in previous meeting s, it had followed the re quisite 
procedure before deciding to impose a safeguard measure, including notification and consultation. 
All concerns raised by the interested parties had been taken into consideration before making its 
decision. Indonesia believed that the entire process  had been carried out in an objective  and 
transparent manner, as well as in compliance with the WTO rules . 
119.  The Committee took note  of the statements.  
6 INDONESIA - ARTICLES OF APPAREL AND CLOTHING ACCESSORIES (ITEM 
REQUESTED BY JAPAN)  
120.  Japan  stated that during the investigation, the Indonesian authority had requested the 
interested parties to submit trade data covering the period January -June 2019 and 
January -June 2020. Indonesia then found that the amount  of import s of the relevant products 
in 2020 had decreased from 2019 by 30%. Having recognized these data, Indonesia then set the 
period of investigation as 2017 -2019 so that it could arbitrarily determine an increase of imports. 
Japan request ed that the measure be corrected. In addition, Ind onesia introduced a commodity 
balance system for imports, whereby only quantities in line with the supply -demand balance set by 
the government are approved. Japan understood that textile products were included in the scope of 
this system. However, although  the import application and approval system ceased operation in 
December 2022, no alternative mechanism had been launched, and some products could not even 
be imported because the application for import approval was not accepted. Japan stated that it was 
concerned about such a serious import restriction system,  and that it believed that there was no 
longer any need to continue a separate safeguard measure.  
121.  Indonesia  stated that it had already responded that it consistently followed the procedure of 
investi gation and the imposition of safeguard measures. The responses, views or comments made 
by interested parties had been taken into consideration by the Indonesian government. Indonesia 
emphasized that the entire process had been carried out in an objective a nd transparent manner, 
and in compliance with WTO rules.  
122.  The Committee took note  of the statements.  
7 REPORTING BY THE CHAIRPERSON TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE REPORTS 
SUBMITTED TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE 
COMMITTEE AND THE RESPONSE TO THE PANDEMIC AND THE CONSULTATIONS HELD BY 
THE CHAIR OF THE CTG IN THIS REGARD  
123.  The Chair stated that under this item, she would report on the discussions that had been 
taking place at the CTG regarding WTO reform, in particular, on the two repo rts she submitted under G/SG/M/62  
 
- 18 - 
 
  her own resp onsibility to the Chair of the CTG . These reports were submitted upon the request  of 
the CTG chair, and concerned: (i) the functioning of the Committee and (ii) the response to the 
pandemic. These two reports were contai ned in documents G/SG/276  - G/L/1451 and 
G/SG/277  - G/L/1452. A revision had been  circulated for the latter – in document G/SG/277/Rev.1.  
124.  The first report  concern ing the current functioning of the Committee  include d the concrete 
actions that the Committee had taken over the past years to improve its work. This report was an 
overview of the reforms that had already been introduced and where the Committee currently st ood. 
This exercise only focused on past actions and discussions. Since this was meant to be a  stocktaking  
exercise , she had refrained from including recommendations or assessments of what need ed to be 
improved . That was for the Members to consider , if they so wish ed. 
125.  The second report  pertained to the WTO  response to the Pandemic. It described the  activities 
that the Committee had undertaken in the context of the pandemic over the past two  years.  
126.  The Chair recall ed that on 21  November  2022, she sent both of these reports to the 
Membership in a draft form in order to provide Members with the opportunity to make comments. 
On 28  November  2022, she submitted both report s to the CTG. A  revision was submitted 
subsequently for the report on the functioning of the Committee.  
127.  Based on all the reports submitted by the chair s of the subsidiary bodies  of the CTG, the 
CTG Secretariat circulated on 11  January  2023 a "Comparison Matrix" contained in document 
G/C/W/824. It provided a general overview of the main elements that seem ed to be comparable 
across the various bodies. As e xplained in the introductory part of that Matrix, this matrix d id not 
replace the reports submitted by the Chairs , nor reflect all the information contained in those reports.  
128.  On 31 January  2023, the CTG had held an informal meeting to which all 14 chairs of the CTG 
subsidiary bodies were invited. At that meeting, the Chair  provided a brief overview of both reports 
and listened to Members' comments. On the functioning of the Committees, while the vast majority 
of the comments were not related to this Committ ee, Members made suggestions based on their 
reading of the different reports and of the Matrix. Their views reflected their own vision as to how 
to replicate what they considered to be good practices. On the other hand, Members understood 
that the individu ality of each Committee needed to be preserved since there cannot be a 
one-size-fits-all solution. It would be up to the Members of each Committee to discuss and decide 
whether any procedures, practices, or means of conducting business need ed an improvemen t or 
change. The CTG Chair recommended and encouraged discussion s of those issues at the level of the 
Committee s. On the response to the pandemic, no specific questions or comments were made on 
the SG chair's report a t that CTG meeting. The main message wa s that all subsidiary bodies should 
apply lessons learnt from the pandemic in line with their own mandates. The CTG Chair indicated 
that this was a steppingstone along the way and that discussions on the issue would continue.  
129.  On 9  March  2023, the CTG Chair sent to the chairs of the 14 subsidiary bodies a 
communication requesting them to start discussions in the respective bodies on the issue of the 
functioning of the respective Committees. This would allow Members to identify possible areas for 
improvement in that particular body, taking into account the comparative matrix that was prepared 
by the Secretariat. A revised version of t he matrix was circulated in mid -February in document 
G/C/W/824/Rev.1 . The CTG Chair also emphasized that a t a later stage, all subsidiary bodies would 
be requested to submit a written report to the CTG describing the discussions held and improvements 
introduced. To the extent possible, such written reports are to be submitted to the CTG for 
consideration at the last formal meeting of the CTG, which was tentatively scheduled to take place 
on 30  November  2023. In other words, such reports should be submitted to the CTG by 
mid-November at the latest.   
130.  On 22 March  2023, the CTG chair invited the chairs of the subsidiary bodies to an informal 
meeting to exchange views. The Chair  explained that she stated at that meeting that this matter 
would be placed on the age nda of the upcoming meeting where she would report on the two 
documents submitted, and then open the floor for discussion. Th e Chair stated that that was what 
she was doing under this agenda item .  
131.  At its formal CTG meeting of 3 -4 April, under the agenda i tem entitled: "MC12 Implementation 
Matters: Functioning of the CTG and its Subsidiary Bodies and WTO Response to the Pandemic", the G/SG/M/62  
 
- 19 - 
 
  CTG chair provided a status report on his consultations. At that CTG meeting, Members requested 
the CTG c hair to share with the 14 chairs of the subsidiary bodies the current status of work at the 
CTG. It was circulated in document  JOB/CTG/28.  
132.  In a communication sent to all 14 chairs on 5 April 2023, the CTG chair highlighted that the 
CTG had thus far been able to reach formal  agreement on the following four  issues for the CTG itself. 
These issues were: (i) adopting the use of the e -Agenda in the work of the CTG on a trial basis; 
(ii) extending the deadline for the inclusion of agenda items to 15  calendar days before the formal  
meeting to allow Members to better prepare for the high number of trade concerns raised at the 
CTG; (iii) instructing the Secretariat to separate newly raised trade concerns and place them in the 
agenda before previously raised concerns; and (iv) instruct ing the Secretariat to integrate the 
CTG data concerning trade concerns into the Trade Concerns Database , subject to budgetary 
constraints.  In addition, there were approximately 11  other issues that the CTG would not discuss 
again, at least for the moment.  The Chair invited delegates to take a look at the Annex of document 
JOB/CTG/28 for details.  
133.  At the same CTG meeting, some Member s expressed their view that there seemed to be broad 
convergence on a number of issues that could be taken up for discussion i n the subsidiary bodies. 
The issues referred to were: (i) assistance to capital -based and Geneva -based delegates, 
(ii) planning and organization of meetings, and (iii) working procedures.  
134.  While the CTG c hair indicated in his communication that the subsidia ry bodies may find 
inspiration in some of the actions that have been taken by the CTG, he emphasized that it was up 
to each subsidiary body to decide which issue to discuss and what kind of action to take to improve 
its functioning. He reminded once more t hat each subsidiary body was  to submit by 
mid-November  2023 the written reports to the CTG describing the discussions held and 
improvements introduced.  
135.  The Chair stated that as she clarified at the beginning of the meeting, she would make the 
usual announcement s at this point.  This announcement was indeed linked to some of the discussions 
in the CTG. First, she stated that the best way for delegates to ke ep track of the vast majority of 
Committee -related documents was to register online to the "E -Subscription". Delegates could 
designate a symbol of the type of documents they wished to be automatically delivered to their 
e-mail address. In addition, delegat es were strongly encouraged to provide their contact details to 
the Secretariat, so that the Secretariat can update its Contact Details List. This list was currently 
available in document RD/ADP/3/Rev.20 – RD/SCM/4/Rev.20 – RD/SG/3/Rev.20.  
136.  The Chair propos ed that she first open the floor in informal mode to allow for  a frank and open 
discussion  on the matter . Delegates could comment on the issue of the response to the pandemic 
as well as on the issue of the functioning of the Committee.  
137.  Once the Committee e ngaged in the discussion in informal mode, the Chair presented the 
Committee with a list of issues raised  in the informal discussion . She explained that she would 
convey to her colleague chairs of the Anti -dumping Committee and of the Committee on Subsidie s 
and Countervailing Measures the Members' views expressed, together with th e list. She would  
suggest to these two outgoing chairs that once the two Committees meetings  were over, the three 
chairs should send a joint communication on the way forward regard ing how to follow -up on these 
issues . Since t he three chairs would leave their respective posts shortly, the way forward would be 
picked up by the new chair s. The Chair added that she was not ruling out the possibility that any 
other proposal could be tabl ed in the future.  
138.  The Committee agreed  to the Chair's suggested way of proceeding.10  
8 POSSIBLE REVISION OF THE FORMAT OF ANNEX 3 OF THE ANNUAL REPORT  
139.  The Chair recalled that this agenda item related to the United States' suggestion made at the 
October 2022 Committee meeting that from the 2023 version of the annual report, additional 
information could be included into Annex 3 regarding whether a measure had expired or was 
 
10 The list was subsequently circulated as RD/SG/65 (dated 2 May), and the joint communication was 
sent on 10 May 2023.  G/SG/M/62  
 
- 20 - 
 
  extended. The United States had asked the Secretariat to produce an example to be shared with the 
Members for their consideration. In order to facilitate the Member's discussion on this issue, a mock 
example of the possible new format was produced and had been share d with the Members in 
document RD/SG/64. Annex 3 of the 2022 Annual Report was used as a basis. The column named 
"Anticipated end time of the final measure" was new, and the mock example  listed 5 typical 
examples.  
140.  The United Kingdom, Chinese Taipei, Singap ore, Australia, Canada, Brazil, the European Union  
stated that they had no problem with the proposed example.  
141.  India stated that it was still considering the idea.  
142.  The Chair stated that she understood that Members needed more time to consider this matter, 
and that she would ask the incoming chair to continue the discussion.  
143.  The Committee took note  of the statements.  
9 DISCUSSION GROUP REGARDING SAFEGUARD PROCEEDINGS (ITEM REQUESTED BY 
AUSTRALIA, CANADA, THE EUROPEAN UNION, ISRAEL, JAPAN, REPUBLIC OF KOREA, 
NEW ZEALAND, NORWAY, CHINESE TAIPEI, SINGAPORE, UKRAINE, AND THE 
UNITED  STATES)  
144.  The United States  stated that it was originally planning to remind Members about the informal 
discussion group meeting that had been scheduled to take place immediately after the Committee 
meeting.  However, given the time left before the working hour ended for the day, the United States 
proposed that the informal discussion group meeting  not be held this time, but rather be held in 
conjunction with the October meeting of the Co mmittee. However, the United States wanted to make 
a propos al for the Members to consider. The idea behind th e discussion groups was to provide a 
broader perspective on safeguards proceedings than the one Members normally ha d in Committee  
meetings . It was a group for the benefit of all Members.  One idea that the proponents were 
considering was how to gradually migrate the discussions into the Committee.  It appear ed that 
Members had become comfortable with the format followed up to now, and there ha d not  been 
complaints or ideas for alternatives.  However, currently , the informal discussions , including selection 
of topic and formulation of discussion questions , were organized by a few Members . The proponents 
believe d that it would be better if the organiz ation was done  by all Members . This was  because  this 
discussion group was for the benefit of all the Members, and not just for those who were organizing 
it. The proponents were open to ideas on how to migrat e the discussions , and look ed forward to 
hearing from Members . 
145.  The Committee took note  of the statement.  
10 OTHER BUSINESS: ARTICLE 13.1 REQUESTS  
146.  The Chair made a statement regarding the status of the two Article 13.1 Requests. She 
recalled that there were two requests that had been made based on Article 13.1 of the Agreement 
that were currently pending: one by the European Union based on Article 13.1 (e) and the other by 
Ecuador based on Article 13.1 (b). There had been  no movement on either of these matters, and so 
neither of the tw o requests were on the agenda of this meeting. She wished to make this short 
report for the sake of transparency.  
147.  Ecuador  stated that although Ecuador had good legal and technical reasonings behind its 
request, it was aware of the effect that the invasion  in Ukraine had and continued to have on 
Ukraine's economy. Ecu ador regretted such situation. Under such circumstances, Ecuador would not 
insist on proceeding with this matter at this point in time, and would analyse future actions in this 
regard.  
148.  The Comm ittee took note  of the statement s.  G/SG/M/62  
 
- 21 - 
 
  11 DATE OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING  
149.  The Chair recalled that by decision of the Committee, its two regular meetings take place in 
the spring and the autumn of each year, in the last week of April and the last week of October , 
respectively. For the autumn 2023 meeting, the next regular meeting of the Committee would be 
held in the week of 23 October 2023. The  exact date would be confirmed later.  
150.  The Committee so decided . 
12 ELECTION OF OFFICERS  
151.  The Chair recalled that Rule 12 of the Rules of Procedures for the Committee  reads as follows: 
"The Committee on Safeguards shall elect a Chairperson and may elect a Vice Chairperson from 
among the representatives of Members. The election shall take place at the fi rst regular meeting of 
the year and shall take effect at the end of the meeting. The Chairperson and the Vice Chairperson 
shall hold office until the end of the first regular meeting of the following year."  As the consultations 
at the CTG level regarding t he selection of the new Chair of this Committee as well as of other 
Committees under the CTG were still under way, a new Chair could not be elected at the end of the 
meeting. In these circumstances, the Chair suggested that the Secretariat send a communica tion 
once the CTG has completed its work, indicating the proposed Committee Chair identified by the 
CTG. The new Chair would be deemed to be elected by the Committee absent any objection. This 
approach, which ha d been taken in previous years, would obviate  the need for an additional meeting 
of the Committee.  
152.  The Committee so decided . 
153.  The Chair thanked the Members for their cooperation and collaboration during her tenure.  
 
__________