RESTRICTED  
  
G/SG/M/58  
27 July 2021 
(21-5830) Page: 1/19 
Committee on Safeguards   
 
  
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING  
HELD ON 26 APRIL 2021  
CHAIR : MR MUSTAFA TUZCU (TURKEY)  
1.  The Committee on Safeguards ("Committee") held a regular meeting on 26 April 2021. 
2.  As the meeting was held only virtually via Interprefy, with no delegations joining the meeting in 
person, the Chair reminded Members of the different technical arrangements for participating 
remotely as included in the "Technical Guide", a link to which ha d been included in the airgram 
convening the meeting.  
3.  The Chair  drew to the attention of the Members that the draft agenda was contained in document 
WTO/AIR/SG/1 2 and its Corrigendum  WTO/AIR/SG/12/Corr.1 . 
4.  The Chair informed Members that the Vice-Chair had requested to make a statement under 
''Other Business'' regarding the request from the European Union  made  under Article 13.1. 
5.  The Committee adopted  the agenda as follows:  
1  NATIONAL LEGISLATION  ................................ ................................ .............................  3 
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)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 3 
1.1.1   Brazil – Review  of New Legislative  Notification  (G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.12  -  G/S
CM/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.15  - G/SG/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.6  and 
G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.13  – G/SCM/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.16  -  G/SG/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.7)  ............  3 
1.1.2   Saint Kitts and Nevis – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/SG/N/1/KNA/1)  ..............  3 
1.1.3   United States – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/SG/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.2)  ............  3 
1.2  Review of Notifications of New or Amended Legislation or Regulations with 
Outstanding Written Questions  ................................ ................................ .............................  4 
1.2.1   Bolivia – Review of New Legislation Notification with Written Questions 
(G/ADP/N/1/BOL/3 – G/SCM/N/1/BOL/3 ‒ G/SG/N/1/BOL/2)  ................................ ...................  4 
1.2.2   Cameroon – Review of New Legislation Notifications with Written Questions 
(G/ADP/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1  – G/SCM/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1  –  G/SG/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1)  .............  4 
1.2.3   Liberia – Review of New or Amended Legislation Notifications with Written 
Questions (G/SG/N/1/LBR/1)  ................................ ................................ ...............................  4 
1.2.4   United Kingdom – Review of New or Amended Legislation Notifications with Written 
Questions (G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1 – G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1 - G/SG/N/1/GBR/1, 
G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.2, and G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.4 – 
G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.4 - G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.4)  ................................ ..........................  5 
1.2.5   Zimbabwe – Review of Ne w or Amended Legislation Notifications with Written 
Questions (G/SG/N/1/ZWE/3)  ................................ ................................ ..............................  5 
2  CONTINUING REVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATIONS PREVIOUSLY 
REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE  ................................ ................................ .......................  6 G/SG/M/58  
- 2 - 
  2.1  Costa Rica – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications 
(G/ADP/ N/1/CRI/3/Suppl.1  ‒ G/SCM/N/1/CRI/4/Suppl.1  ‒  G/SG/N/1/CRI/4/Suppl.1)  ................  6 
2.2  Ghana – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifi cations (G/ADP/N/1/GHA/2 
‒ G/SCM/N/1/GHA/2 ‒ G/SG/N/1/GHA/2)  ................................ ................................ ..................  6 
2.3  Kenya – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications 
(G/ADP/N/1/KEN/3 - G/SCM/N/1/KEN/3 - G/SG/N/1/KEN/2)  ................................ ........................  6 
3  NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RELATED TO SAFEGUARD MEASURES  ............................  7 
3.1  Costa  Rica – Refined  White  Sugar  (G/L/1364/Suppl.1 - G/SG/N/12/BRA/4/S uppl.1, 
G/L/1374 - G/SG/N/12/CAN/1 and G/L/1374/Rev.1 - G/SG/N/12/CAN/1/Rev.1)  .........................  8 
3.2  Egypt – Raw Aluminium (Ingots, Billets and Wire Rod) (G/SG/N/8/EGY/10 – 
G/SG/N/10/EGY/10 – G/SG/N/11/ EGY/12)  ................................ ................................ .............  8 
3.3  European  Union  – Certain  Steel Products  (G/SG/N/10/EU/1/Suppl.9  ‒ 
G/SG/N/11/EU/1/Suppl.6, G/SG/N/10/EU/1/Suppl.10 ‒ G /SG/N/11/EU/1/Suppl.7, 
G/SG/N/6/EU/1/Suppl.2 and G/SG/252)  ................................ ................................ ................  8 
3.4  Member Countries of the GCC – Certain Steel Products ( G/SG/N/6/ARE/3/S uppl.1 ‒ 
G/SG/N/6/BHR/4/Suppl.1  ‒ G/SG/N/6/KWT/4/Suppl.1  ‒ G/SG/N/6/OMN/3/S uppl.1 ‒ 
G/SG/N/6/QAT/3/Suppl.1 ‒ G/SG/N/6/SAU/3/Suppl.1)  ................................ ............................  9 
3.5  India – Single Mode Optical Fibre (G/SG/N/8/IND/32/Suppl.2 – 
G/SG/N/10/IND/23/Suppl.2 – G/SG/N/11/IND/18/Suppl.2)  ................................ ...................  10 
3.6  Indonesia – Carpets and Other Textile Floor Coverings 
(G/SG/N/8/IDN/27/Suppl.1 - G/SG/N/10/IDN/27/Suppl.1 - G/SG/N/11/IDN/24)  ......................  10 
3.7  Indonesia – I and H Sections of Other Alloy Steel (G/SG/N/6/IDN/25/Suppl.4 and 
G/SG/N/6/IDN/25/Suppl.5)  ................................ ................................ ................................  11 
3.8  Indonesia – Articles of Apparel and Clothing Accessories (G/SG/N/6/IDN/36/Suppl.1 
and G/SG/N/8/IDN/28 ‒ G/SG/N/10/IDN/28)  ................................ ................................ ....... 11 
3.9  Indonesia – Expansible Polystyrene (EPS) (G/SG/N/6/IDN/38, 
G/SG/N/6/IDN/38/suppl.1 and G/SG/N/8/IDN/30 – G/SG/N/10/IDN/30)  ................................ . 11 
3.10  Indonesia – Cigarette Paper (G/SG/N/6/IDN/37, G/SG/N/8/IDN/29 – 
G/SG/N/10/IDN/29 and G/SG/254)  ................................ ................................ .....................  11 
3.11  Madagascar  – Pasta  (2) (G/SG/N/8/MDG/4/S uppl.1 ‒ G/SG/N/10/MDG/4/S uppl.1 ‒ 
G/SG/N/11/MDG/4/Suppl.2,  G/SG/N/8/MDG/4/Suppl.2  ‒ G/SG/N/10/MDG/4/Suppl.2  ‒ 
G/SG/N/11/MDG/4/Suppl.3 and G/SG/Q2/MDG/5)  ................................ ................................  11 
3.12  Malaysia – Ceramic Floor and Wall Tiles (G/SG/N/9/MYS/3)  ................................ ...........  12 
3.13  Morocco – Hot Rolled Sheets (G/SG/N/8/MAR/7/Suppl.1 ‒ 
G/SG/N/10/MAR/7/Suppl.1 ‒ G/SG/N/11/MAR/7/Suppl.2 and G/SG/N/11/MAR/7/Suppl.3)  ........  12 
3.14  Peru – Clothing (G/SG/N/6/PER/3)  ................................ ................................ ..............  12 
3.15  Philippines – Cement (G/SG/N/8/PHL/11/Suppl.2 ‒ G/SG/N/10/PHL/9/S uppl.1 ‒ 
G/SG/N/11/PHL/11/Suppl.2, G/SG/N/8/PHL/11/Suppl.3 – G/SG/N/10/PHL/9/Suppl.2 – 
G/SG/N/11/PHL/11/Suppl.3 and G/SG/N/8/PHL/11/Suppl.3/Corr.1 – 
G/SG/N/10/PHL/9/Supp l.2/Corr.1 – G/SG/N/11/PHL/11/Suppl.3/Corr.1)  ................................ . 12 
3.16  Philippines – Motor Vehicles (G/SG/N/7/PHL/12 ‒ G/SG/N/8/PHL/13 ‒ 
G/SG/N/11/PHL/14, G/SG/N/7/PHL/12/Rev.1 ‒ G/SG/N/8/PHL/13/Rev.1 ‒ 
G/SG/N/11/PHL/14/Rev.1, G/SG/N/7/PHL/12/Rev.1/Corr.1 ‒ 
G/SG/N/8/PHL/13/Rev.1/Corr.1 ‒ G/SG/N/11/PHL/14/Rev.1/Corr.1 and G/SG/253)  .................  12 
3.17  South Africa – U, I, H, L and  T Sections of Iron or Non -Alloy Steel (G/SG/N/8/ZAF/8 
and G/SG/N/8/ZAF/8/Rev.1)  ................................ ................................ ..............................  13 
3.18  Turkey ‒ Polyethylene Terephthalate Chips (G/SG/N/8/TUR/18 ‒ 
G/SG/N/10/TUR/18 ‒ G/SG/N/11/TUR/25)  ................................ ................................ ...........  13 
3.19  Turkey – Toothbrushes (G/SG/N/10/TUR/16/Suppl.2 ‒ G/SG/N/11/TUR/22/Suppl.2 
and G/SG/N/10/TUR/16/Suppl.3 ‒ G/SG/N/11/TUR/22/Suppl.3)  ................................ .............  13 G/SG/M/58  
- 3 - 
  3.20  Turkey – Wallpaper and Similar Wall Coverings (G/SG/N/6/TUR/20/Suppl.2)  ...................  13 
3.21  Ukraine – Fresh Cut Roses (G/SG/N/8/UKR/10 ‒ G/SG/N/10/UKR/10 ‒ 
G/SG/N/11/UKR/8 and G/SG/N/8/UKR/10/Corr.1 ‒ G/SG/N/10/UKR/10/Corr.1 ‒
G/SG/N/11/UKR/8/Corr.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 14 
3.22  Ukraine – Polymeric Materials (G/SG/N/8/UKR/9 ‒ G/SG/N/10/UKR/9 ‒ 
G/SG/N/11/UKR/7/Suppl.1 and G/SG/N/10/UKR/9/Suppl.1 ‒ G/SG/N/11/UKR/7/Suppl.2)  .........  15 
3.23  Ukraine – Wires (G/SG/N/8/UKR/11 – G/SG/N/10/UKR/11 – G/SG/N/11/UKR/9)  ..............  15 
3.24  United States – Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells (G/SG/N/10/USA/7/Suppl.12)  ..........  15 
3.25  United States – Large Residential Washers (G/SG/N/10/USA/8/Suppl.5, 
G/SG/N/10/USA/8/Suppl.6 and G/SG/N/10/USA/8/Suppl.7)  ................................ ...................  15 
3.26  United States – Fresh, Chilled, or Frozen Blueberries (G/SG/N/9/USA/5)  .........................  15 
4  POSSIBLE REVISION T O THE NOTIFICATION FORMAT  ................................ ...............  15 
5  UNITED KINGDOM – SAFEGUARD MEASURES ON CERTAIN STEEL PRODUCTS 
(ITEM REQUESTED BY BRAZIL AND SWITZERLA ND) ................................ ......................  17 
6  OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 18 
6.1  STATEMENT BY THE VICE CHAIR  ................................ ................................ ..................  18 
7  DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING  ................................ ................................ .............  19 
8  ELECTION OF OFFICERS  ................................ ................................ .............................  19 
 
 
1  NATIONAL LEGISLATION  
1.1  Review of Notifications of New or Amended Leg islation or Regulations Not Previously 
Reviewed by the Committee (Including Supplemental Notifications of Ex isting Prov isions 
Not Previously Reviewed)  
1.1.1   Brazil  – Review  of New Legislative  Notification  (G/ADP/N/1/B RA/3/Suppl.12 -  
G/SCM/N/1/B RA/2/Suppl.15 - G/SG/N/1/B RA/3/Suppl.6 and 
G/ADP/N/1/BRA /3/S uppl.13 – G/SCM/N/1/BRA/2/S uppl.16 -  
G/SG/N/1/BRA/3/S uppl.7) 
6.  No written questions regarding th is notification had been submitted . 
7.  Brazil took the floor to explain the n ew leg islation.  
8.  No delegation took the floor for additional comments.  
1.1.2   Saint Kitts and Nev is – Review of New Leg islative Notification  (G/SG/N/1/ KNA/1) 
9.  The Chair  explained that th is was a nil notification . 
10.  There were no comments or questions ra ised at the meeting.  
1.1.3   United States  – Review of New Leg islative Notification  (G/SG/N/1/ USA/1/Suppl.2) 
11.  No written  questions regarding th is notification had been submitted . 
12.  There were no comments or questions ra ised at the meeting.  G/SG/M/58  
- 4 - 
  1.2  Review of Notifications of New or Amended Leg islation or Regulations with 
Outstanding Written Questions  
1.2.1   Bolivia  – Review of New Leg islation Notification with Written Questions  
(G/ADP/N/1/BOL/3 – G/SCM/N/1/BOL/3 ‒ G/SG/N/1/ BOL/2 ) 
13.  Written questions were posed regarding this notification and can be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/BOL/4 ‒ G/SCM/Q1/BOL/4 ‒ G/SG/Q1/BOL/1 – Submitted by the United States  
14.  Written answers to the United States' written questions above were provided and can be found 
in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/BOL/5 – G/SCM/Q1/BOL/5 – G/SG/Q1/BOL/2 – Replies to the United States  
15.  A written follow -up question was posed regarding this notification and can be found in 
document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/BOL/6 – G/SCM/Q1/BOL/ 6 – G/SG/Q1/BOL/3  
16.  The Chair  explained that United States had suggested that the review of the question be 
conducted in the Anti -dumping Committee.  
17.  No delegation took the floor for additional comments.  
18.  Written answers to the United States' written questions were subsequently provided and can 
now be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/BOL/ 7 – G/SCM/Q1/BOL/ 7 – G/SG/Q1/BOL/ 4 
1.2.2   Cameroon  – Review of New Leg islation Notifications  with Written Questions  
(G/ADP/N/1/CMR/1/S uppl.1 – G/SCM/N/1/CMR/1/S uppl.1 –  
G/SG/N/1/ CMR/1/S uppl.1) 
19.  Written questions regarding th is notification had been submitted by the United States and can 
be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/CMR/3 - G/SCM/Q1/CMR/3 - G/SG/Q1/CMR/3  
20.  The Chair noted that these questions had been pending since the Committee meeting of 
October  2014. 
21.  Cameroon  thanked the United States for its interest in its notification  and stated that it was 
currently reviewing the questions . Capital and other relevant authorities were collecting the 
necessar y information to respond to the questions very soon.1 
22.  No written answers had been received to date.  
1.2.3   Liberia – Review of New or Amended Legislation Notifications  with Written 
Questions  (G/SG/N/1/LBR/1)  
23.  Written questions regarding th is notification had been  submitted by the United States and can 
be found in document:  
• G/SG/Q1/LBR/1  
 
1 This statement was communicated by e -mail since Cameroon had difficulty turning on the microphone.  G/SG/M/58  
- 5 - 
  24.  Liberia was not present at the time . Oral answers were not provided at the meeting, nor had 
written answers been received to date.  
1.2.4   United Kingdom – Review of New or Amended Leg islation Notifications with Written 
Questions ( G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1 – G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1 - G/SG/N/1/GBR/1 , 
G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.2, and G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.4 – 
G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.4 - G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.4 ) 
25.  Written questions regarding these three legislative not ifications were posed and can be found 
in documents:  
• G/ADP/Q1/GBR/1 ‒ G/SCM/Q1/GBR/1 – G/SG/Q1/GBR /1 - Submitted by the United States 
and were posed with respect to the notification contained in document 
G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1  ‒ G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1 – G/SG/N/1/GBR/1  
• G/SG/Q1/GBR/3 – Submitted by the United States and were posed with respect to the 
notification contained in document G/S G/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.2  
• G/ADP/Q1/GBR/3 - G/SCM/Q1/GBR/3 – G/SG/Q1/GBR/3 – Submitted by the United States 
and were posed with respect to the n otification contained in document 
G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.4 - G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.4 – G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/S uppl.4 
26.  The Chair  explained that the United States had requested that only the set of questions specific 
to safeguard s be discussed at the meeting.  
27.  The United Kingdom  stated that w ritten answers were submitted shortly before the meeting . 
28.  The United States  acknowledged that it had already received the written answers and stated 
that it would review them. 
29.  Written answers to the United States' written questions were subsequently provided and can 
now be found in documents:  
• G/ADP/Q1/GBR/4 - G/SCM/Q1/GBR/4 – G/SG/Q1/GBR/4  - Replies to  
G/ADP/Q1/GBR/1 - G/SCM/Q1/GBR/1 – G/SG/Q1/GBR/1  
• G/SG/Q1/GBR/5  - Replies to G/SG/Q1/GBR/3  
• G/ADP/Q1/GBR/6 - G/SCM/Q1/GBR/6 – G/SG/Q1/GBR/6  - Replies to 
G/ADP/Q1/GBR/ 3 - G/SCM/Q1/GBR/ 3 – G/SG/Q1/GBR/ 2 
1.2.5   Zimbabwe  – Review of New or Amended Leg islation Notifications with Written 
Questions (G/SG/N/1/ ZWE/3) 
30.  Written question s regarding th is notification had been submitted by t he United States  and can 
be found in document:  
• G/SG/Q1/ZWE/1  
31.  Zimbabwe  stated that it had provided the answers at its Trade Policy review meeting , and that 
the written version of the response s would be provide d to the Secretariat for circulation . Zimbabwe 
invited Members with further clarification on its leg islation to engage on a bilateral bas is. 
32.  The United States  stated that it was looking forward to the written responses and would submit 
follow -up question s should there be a need to  do so . 
33.  Written answers to the United States' written questions were subsequently provided and can 
now be found in document:  
• G/SG/Q1/ZWE/ 2 
34.  The United States subsequently submitted follow -up questions that can be found in document:  
• G/SG /Q1/ZWE/ 2 G/SG/M/58  
- 6 - 
   
2  CONTINUING REVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATIONS PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY 
THE COMMITTEE  
2.1  Costa Rica  – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications  
(G/ADP/N/1/ CRI/3/Suppl.1 ‒ G/SCM/N/1/ CRI/4/Suppl.1 ‒  
G/SG/N/1/ CRI/4/Suppl.1) 
35.  Follow -up questions regarding th is notification had been submitted by the United States and 
can be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/ CRI/17 - G/SCM/Q1/ CRI/17 - G/SG/Q1/ CRI/11 
36.  Costa Rica  provided answers to the United States ' follow -up questions and can be found in 
document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/CRI/18 – G/SCM/Q1/CRI/18 – G/SG/Q1/CRI/12  
37.  The Chair  explained that the United States indicated that the review and discussion for the 
follow -up question be conducted in the Anti -Dumping Committee . 
38.  No delegat ion took the floor for additional comments.  
2.2  Ghana  – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications  
(G/ADP/N/1/ GHA/2 ‒ G/SCM/N/1/ GHA/2 ‒ G/SG/N/1/ GHA/2) 
39.  Follow -up questions regarding th is notification had been submitted by the United States and 
can be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/ GHA/3 - G/SCM/Q1/ GHA/3 – G/SG/Q1/ GHA/3 
40.  The Chair explained that the United States had suggested that  the review of the follow -up 
questions be conducted in the Anti-Dumping Committee.  
41.  No delegation took the floor for additional comments.  
42.  No written answers have been received to date.  
2.3  Kenya – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications 
(G/ADP/N/1/KEN/3 - G/SCM/N/1/KEN/3 - G/SG/N/1/KEN/2)  
43.  Follow -up quest ions regarding th is notification had been submitted by the United States and 
can be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/ KEN/6 - G/SCM/Q1/ KEN/6 – G/SG/Q1/ KEN/5 and G/ADP/Q1/KEN/6/C orr.1 – 
G/SCM/Q1/KEN/6/C orr.1 – G/SG/Q1/KEN/5/C orr.1 
44.  The Chair explained that  the United States  had suggested that the review of the follow -up 
questions be conducted in the Anti -Dumping Committee.  
45.  No delegation took the floor for additional comments.  
46.  The Chair  noted that the new legislative notifications received and circulated by t he applicable 
deadlines2, would be on the agenda for review at the regular meeting of the Committee in 
October  2021. 
 
2 Relevant deadlines can be found in Section 2 of document G/ADP/W/507 - G/SCM/W/582 ‒ 
G/SG/W/252.  G/SG/M/58  
- 7 - 
  47.  The Chair informed the Committee that 18 Members had not yet made a leg islative notification .3 
This notification was one of the important obligations of the Agreement on Safeguards 
("Agreement "). Members that did not yet have any leg islation need only submit a simple "nil" 
notification . In this regard, t he Chair noted that Saint Kitts and Nev is had submitted its nil notification  
and commended its efforts . 
48.  The United States  noted that while an increasing number  of Members had notified their 
legislation , there remained  many Members which ha d not yet done so , as indicated in footnote 2 of 
the minutes of the October  2020 meeting . For nearly all of those who had not made a notification, 
their Trade Policy Review reports indicated whether they did or did not have any SG  legislation . The 
notification was simple if there was no leg islation , and the United States encouraged Members who 
had not yet made their leg islative notifications to review their situations and to make the applicable 
notification . Timely and proper subm ission of notifications would impact the efficient functioning of 
the Committee and the WTO more broadly . At the most recent Council on Trade in Goods ("CTG") 
meeting, the co -sponsors of JOB/CTG/14/REV.4, Procedures to Enhance Transparency and 
Strengthen Notification Requirements Under WTO Agreements , expr essed their intent to relaunch 
outreach to Members in the coming weeks as they continued to refine the proposal and to address 
outstanding concerns . The United States was of the view that there may be procedural changes that 
could improve the operation and  effectiveness of notification requirements . It sought to reinforce 
the fundamental principle of transparency, which was critical to help restore the negotiating function 
of the WTO.  
49.  The Committee took note  of the notifications, statements, questions, and answers.  
3  NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RELATED TO SAFEGUARD MEASURES  
50.  Japan  expressed  its concern over the recent increase in trade restrictive measures  which was, 
apparently, partly due to the outbreak of the COVID -19 pandemic . The number of safeguard  
measures imposed in the year 2020 was at one of the highest levels ever. Japan urged Members not 
to impose safeguard  measures  that were incons istent with  WTO rules. Japan proposed that the 
Committee closely watch the process of safeguard investigations . In addition, Japan expressed 
concern over the use of the prov isions of Article 9 of the Agreement . This provision excluded 
developing country Member s from a measure if certain condition s were met . Japan understood that 
the interpretation and scope of the no tion "developing country" varied by imposing Member . As such, 
Japan urged imposing Members  not to include  countries with economic power or export 
competitiveness in to the scope of th at provision. 
51.  The Republic of Korea ("Korea" ) raised concern over the increase in the use of safeguard  
measures . Safeguard  measures were extraordinary remedies imposed in emergency situations . In 
Korea's view, many of the measures failed to meet the stringent procedural and substantive 
requirements set out in the Agreement . Korea urged Members to withdraw safeguard  measures that 
were incons istent with the WTO rules and to exerc ise restrain t in applying safeguard  measures.  
52.  China  expressed  deep concern regarding the frequent use of safeguard s. Safeguards  were 
emergency measure s subject  to strict conditions  provided under the Agreement, and such conditions 
must be strictly observed . However, improper use of this measure appear ed to be frequent . China 
urged all Members to avoid resorting to safegua rd measures unless the conditions were truly met . 
China was of the view that it was necessary to further clarify and improve the rules on safeguard s. 
To this end, China propose d that the Committee continue to enhance the monitoring functions , make 
necessary recommendations , and guide Members to achieve best practice . In order to promote 
global economic recovery, it  was important to preserve global trade and ensure stability of supply 
chain s. 
53.  Australia  expressed concern  regarding the increased recourse to safeguard  measures . 
Safeguard s were emergency actions subject to  strict conditions . These actions relate d to imports of 
fairly traded good s. Australia welcomed those Members that notified termination of measures . Such 
notifications were particularly helpful to keep Members appr ised of the current situation . On the  
issue raised by Japan regarding the scope and definition of developing countries , Australia noted 
 
3 These Members were: Antigua and Barbuda, Cabo Verde, Central African Republic, 
Democratic  Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Eswatini, Grenada, Guinea -Bissau, Mauritania, Mozambique, Niger, 
Rwanda, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tajikistan, Tanzania and Yemen.  G/SG/M/58  
- 8 - 
  that such definition could vary from Member to Member and considered Japan h ad raised an 
interesting  issue which could be further discussed at the autumn session . 
54.  Canada  noted that the safeguard  instrument was unique among trade remedies in the sense  
that they target fairly traded  imports . Canada urged Members to exerc ise diligence in the use  of 
safeguard measures.  
55.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
3.1  Costa  Rica – Refined  White  Sugar  (G/L/1364/S uppl.1 - G/SG/N/12/BRA/4/S uppl.1, 
G/L/1374 - G/SG/N/12/CAN/1 and G/L/1374/R ev.1 - G/SG/N/12/CAN/1/R ev.1) 
56.  Brazil  expressed  its concern regarding th is investigation . Brazil had engaged with Costa Rica 
with a view to obtain compensation as provided for in Article 8.1 of the  Agreement . However, since 
the two parties could not agree on compensation, Brazil  made a notific ation under Article 12.5 of 
the Agreement . Brazil noted that its suspension of concessions was less than  equivalent to the 
adverse effects of the safeguard  measure . This demonstrate d Brazil's willingness to reach a mutually 
satisfactory solution in terms o f compensation . Brazil expressed its expectation of a successful 
conclusion as soon as possible.  
57.  Costa Rica  took note of the notification made by Brazil to the CTG regarding the proposed 
suspension of concessions . In this regard, Costa Rica reminded Brazil  to take into consideration the 
fact that the measure was imposed as a result of an absolute increase of imports as well as the 
terms and conditions set forth in Article 8.3 of the Agreement . 
3.2  Egypt – Raw Aluminium  (Ingots, Billets and Wire Rod) (G/SG/N/ 8/EGY/1 0 – 
G/SG/N/10/EGY/10 – G/SG/N/11/EGY/12 ) 
58.  Egypt  took the floor to explain the notification . Egypt also informed Members of its willingness 
to engage in consultation s with interested Member s on the notification a nd added that it was already 
consulti ng with some GCC member countries.  
59.  No delegation took the floor for additional comments.  
3.3  European  Union  – Certain  Steel  Products  (G/SG/N/10/EU/1/S uppl.9 ‒ 
G/SG/N/11/EU/1/S uppl.6, G/SG/N/10/EU/1/S uppl.10 ‒ G/SG/N/11/EU/1 /Suppl.7, 
G/SG/N/6/EU/1/S uppl.2 and G/SG/252 ) 
60.  The E uropean Union took the floor to explain the notification . It stated that the Comm ission 
would  decide in line with the WTO requirements whether the measures need to be prolonged  or not . 
This process would  be concluded by 3 0 June 2021. 
61.  China  expressed continued concern over th is measure and asked  the E uropean Union to 
terminate this measure  on 30 June 2021 without seeking extension . The injury suffered by the steel 
industry was due to the COVID -19 pandemic and hence, the safeguard  measure  was not required . 
China pointed out in this regard the importan ce of international economic cooperation in order to 
support inclusive growth . Finally, China recapped Article 8 of the Agreement, which provide s that 
the Members concerned may agree on a compensation and that when such compensation was not 
provided, the affect ed exporting Member could suspend concessions under certain conditions.  
62.  Switzerland  stated that it continued to be negatively affected by  this measure  introduced in 
2018. Switzerland was particularly concerned with the initiation of an investigation regard ing the 
possible extension  of the measure . Only if a safeguard measure continues to be necessary to prevent 
or remedy serious injury and if the industry is adjusting can the importing country extend its 
duration.  Problems in the steel sector should be addr essed multilaterally, for example, at the Global 
Forum on Steel Excess Capacity . Switzerland hoped that the safeguard measure would not be 
extended  beyond 30 June 2021 . 
63.  India believed that there was no legal bas is to extend the measure . Some of the tariff rate 
quotas  ("TRQs") were unused, the injury was due to the COVID -19 pandemic and not due to imports, G/SG/M/58  
- 9 - 
  and the domestic industry was not adjusting . India asked the E uropean Union not to exten d the 
measure . 
64.  Japan  was concern ed about the initiation of the review investigation . Japan had submitted  an 
opinion letter to  the European Comm ission. Safeguard measures were supposed to be progressively 
liberalized, and a review must be done in order to , if appropriate, withdra w the measure  or increase 
the pace of liberalization . Adopting trade  restrictive measures in response to other trade restrictive 
measures would depress global trade and would harm both exporters and importers . Japan 
request ed the  European Union to terminate the measure as soon as practicable.  
65.  Brazil  express ed its concern over the fact that a review process was initiated . Brazil believed  
the initial measure  was already incons istent with the Agreement . Brazil d isagree d that global steel 
overcapacity could be considered as "unforeseen development s" and, observed that there was no 
surge in imports . Assertions that measures against d isruptive effects on trade were necessary in 
order to push forward with environmental -friendly technologies  was not a legitimate reason for the 
extension of a safeguard  measure . In Brazil 's view, trade protection ism should not be the answer 
for global overcapacity or environmental challenges . This measure should be terminated, and not 
extended . If the E uropean Union decides to extend it, Members adversely affected would be entitled 
to suspend conce ssions under Article 8 of the Agreement . Such situation could  generate a spiral of 
retaliatory measures that would only weaken the rules-based system.  
66.  Korea  expressed its concern over the initiat ion of a  review . Safeguard  measures may only be 
extended if t he authority found , among other things,  that the measure  continue d to be necessary to 
prevent or remedy serious injury . Korea considered that there was no such evidence . Korea asked  
the European Union to refrain from extending the safeguard measure.  
67.  The Russian Federation ("Russia" ) reiterated its concern over the European Union's  safeguard  
measure  and expressed its d isappointment over the initiation of a review for possible extension . 
Russia believe d that the E uropean Union had no grounds to extend the measure . The overcapacity 
problem was getting better and  the US section 232 measure could not be a reason for the measure . 
Neither the effect of the COVID -19 pandemic nor the preparing for the carbon -neural technology 
could be the reason for th e imposition of the measure . Russia was of the view that the existing 
measure should be terminated . Since the measure ha d already been imposed for nearly three years, 
Russia would proceed to a suspension of concessions if the European Union extended the me asure.  
68.  Turkey  stated that the European Union's existing safeguard  measure was not in compliance with 
the relevant Agreement s. Therefore, Turkey had initiated d ispute settlement proceedings . In 
addition, a s it notified in July 2020, Turkey intend ed to suspend concessions or other obligations 
under G ATT 1994 in line with Article 8 of the Agreement , and reserved all rights in this regard.  
69.  The European Union , in response, stated that th is Committee was not the right venue to d iscuss 
substantive issues in an ongoing investigation . It stated that Members were welcome to participate 
in the investigation and submit comments.  
3.4  Member Countries of the GCC4 – Certain Steel Products ( G/SG/N/6/ARE/3/S uppl.1 ‒ 
G/SG/N/6/BHR/4/S uppl.1 ‒ G/SG/N/6/KWT/4/S uppl.1 ‒ G/SG/N/6/OMN/3/S uppl.1 ‒ 
G/SG/N/6/QAT/3/S uppl.1 ‒ G/SG/N/6/SAU/3/S uppl.1) 
70.   The Chair  noted that the United States had submitted written questions relating to this agenda 
item. T hose questions were contained in document 
G/SG/Q2/ARE/ 5 - G/SG/Q2/BHR/4 - G/SG/Q2/KWT/4 - G/SG/Q2/OMN/4 - G/SG/Q2/QAT/4 -  
G/SG/Q2/SAU/4.  
71.  Japan  stated that it was aware that the ongoing investigation would be completed this month 
and requested the GCC Member States to conduct the investigation in a WTO -consis tent manner.  
72.  The United States  reminded the members of the GCC that it had submitted questions on 
February  2021 regarding this investigation . Its questions related specifically to the amendment of 
the scope of the investigation, particularly given the 15 -month gap in time from initiation to the 
 
4 Cooperation Council for the A rab States of the Gulf.  G/SG/M/58  
- 10 - 
  amendment in scope, and how the remaining investigation would proceed as a result . The United 
States looked forward to receiving responses to its questions.  
73.  Korea  requested the GCC member states to terminate this inv estigation without imposing any 
affirmative measure . It stated that the preliminary finding of the GCC's investigating authority had 
several problems . First, increase in global production of steel as well as protectionist trade restrictive 
measures did not  constitute unforeseen developments . Second, the investigating authority had not 
fully established a genuine and substantial causal link between increased imports and injury . Korea 
did not find anything that justified the continuation of the investigation.  
74.  Ukraine  raised concern about this investigation . The preliminary determination lacked 
objectivity as well as sufficient evidence . In particular, the investigating authority did not present 
sufficient information pertaining to each product under investigation . Injury and causal link should 
be analysed separately for each of the products concerned . Ukraine sought clarification as to whether 
sufficient analysis was conducted regarding each of the products and asked the GCC member states 
to provide s uch information to the interested partie s. 
75.  India stated that the GCC amended the scope of the product to include new products . Imposition 
of a safeguard measure against such new products , added and bundled at the far end of the 
investigation,  was inconsistent with Article 2.1 and  Article 3 of the Agreement . India believed that 
imports had not increased, and no injury was suffered . India therefore requested that the 
investigation be terminat ed. 
76.  Switzerland  shared the concern expressed by other Members . Switzerland asked about  the 
current status of the investigation and  the impact of the changes of the scope on the injury 
determination and threat thereof . Switzerland recalled that at the Committee meeting of 
November  2019, it raised questions reg arding this investigation . Switzerland was still waiting for 
answers to its questions which were sent bilaterally last December to the GCC . Switzerland would 
follow closely the developments in this matter and expected that all decisions taken by the GCC 
would be consistent with the relevant disciplines.  
77.  The Kingdom of Bahrain  thanked Members for the comments  and questions , and assured 
Members that their concern s were being considered at the GCC level and would be addressed 
accordingly.  
3.5  India – Single Mode O ptical Fibre (G/SG/N/8/IND/32/S uppl.2 – 
G/SG/N/10/IND/23/S uppl.2 – G/SG/N/11/IND/18/S uppl.2) 
78.  India explained that this investigation was initiated in September  2019. The investigating 
authority proposed the imposition of a provisional measure, but it was not imposed . The investigating 
authority then issued its final findings on 21  August  2020 and proposed the imposition of a safeguard 
duty. On 18 November  2020, the government issued a notice on its decision not to impose any 
measure.  
79.  Japan  welcomed Ind ia's decision to terminate the investigation with no final measure imposed . 
On the other hand, Japan noted that India's notification of its decision was not made to the 
Committee "immediately ", since India 's notification was made 4 months after the domesti c 
announcement by the government.  
3.6  Indonesia – Carpets and Other Textile Floor Coverings 
(G/SG/N/8/IDN/27/S uppl.1 - G/SG/N/10/ID N/27/S uppl.1 - G/SG/N/11/IDN/24)  
80.  Japan  regretted the imposition of this measure . The measure impose d extremely high safeguard 
duty rates at approximately 150 % to 200 % ad valorem  without taking into account the fact that, 
due to the import registration requirement published in October  2019, the amount of imports of 
products  classified under HS chapter 57  significantly decreased in 2 019 to about one -tenth o f the 
imports in 2018 . This measure did not meet the requirements under Article XIX 1(a) of the 
GATT 1994, such as "to the extent … as may be necessary to prevent or remedy … injury ". Japan 
requested Indonesia to terminate the measure immediately, or to exclude imported products which 
did not compete with Indonesia's domestic products because of their different characteristics in 
terms of their price and usage.  G/SG/M/58  
- 11 - 
  81.  Indonesia  responded that the application of the safeguard measure wa s in line with the 
provisions of the Agreement . Indonesia also believed that carpets and other textile floor coverings 
produced by the applicants were like products or directly competitive products with the imported 
products.  
3.7  Indonesia – I and H Sections o f Other Alloy Steel (G/SG/N/6/IDN/25/S uppl.4 and 
G/SG/N/6/IDN/25/S uppl.5) 
82.  There were no questions or comments raised at this meeting.  
3.8  Indonesia – Articles of Apparel and Clothing Accessories 
(G/SG/N/6/IDN/36/ Suppl.1 and G/SG/N/8/IDN/28 ‒ G/SG/N/10/IDN/28)  
83.  Japan  regretted this finding of serious injury by Indonesia . Japan requested Indonesia not to 
impose the proposed measure, or to exclude imported products which d id not compete with 
Indonesia's domestic products because of their different characteristics i n terms of price and usage.  
84.  The European Union  expressed its concern over Indonesia's continuous use of safeguard 
instrument in an improper manner . Safeguard measures were the most restrictive of the trade 
remedies, and thus should be used only in exceptio nal circumstances . In the present case, Indonesia 
was using safeguards to address a situation stemming from imports originating from one or two 
countries . Other instruments would had been more appropriate . The European Union had asked for 
consultations and  the process was still ongoing . The European Union asked the Indonesian 
authorities to take the European Union's comments into account.  
85.  Indonesia  took note of the concern s of Japan and the European Union.  
3.9  Indonesia – Expansible Polystyrene (EPS) (G/SG/N/6/ IDN/38 , 
G/SG/N/6/IDN/38/ suppl .1 and G/SG/N/8/IDN/30 – G/SG/N/10/IDN/30)  
86.  Indonesia  took the floor to explain the notification.  
87.  No delegation took the floor for additional comments.  
3.10  Indonesia – Cigarette Paper (G/SG/N/6/IDN/37 , G/SG/N/8/IDN/29 – 
G/SG/N/10/IDN/29  and G/SG/254 ) 
88.  Indonesia  took the floor to explain the notification.  
89.  The European Union  recalled that according to Article 5.1 of the Agreement, a measure shall be 
applied only to the extent necessary to remedy serious injury and facilitate  adjustment . However, 
in the present case, the scope and the level of the proposed measure clearly exceed what was 
necessary . The European Union had asked for consultations and the process was still ongoing . The 
European Union asked the Indonesian authorit ies to take the European Union's comments into 
account.  
3.11  Madagascar  – Pasta  (2) (G/SG/N/8/MDG/4/S uppl.1 ‒ G/SG/N/10/MDG/4/S uppl.1 ‒ 
G/SG/N/11/MDG/4/S uppl.2, G/SG/N/8/MDG/4/S uppl.2 ‒ 
G/SG/N/10/MDG/4/S uppl.2 ‒ G/SG/N/11/MDG/4/S uppl.3 and G/SG/Q2/MDG/5 ) 
90.  The Chair noted that Madagascar had submitted written replies to Mauritius . Those answers 
were contained in document G/SG/Q2/MDG/5.  
91.  Madagascar  took the floor to explain the notification . Madagascar had been consulting with 
Mauritius bilaterally, and hoped that a ll of Mauritius' concerns were now taken care of.  
92.  Mauritius  acknowledged that it had received responses to the questions and stated that the 
responses were currently being considered . There was an ongoing bilateral discussion on the 
implementation of this measure . Mauritius thanked Madagascar for the update and expressed its 
hope that a solution would be found as soon as possible.  G/SG/M/58  
- 12 - 
  3.12  Malaysia – Ceramic Floor and Wall Tiles (G/SG/N/9/MYS/3)  
93.  Malaysia  took the floor to explain the notification.  
94.  Japan  welcomed Malaysia 's decision to terminate the safeguard investigation with no 
safeguard  measure imposed.  
3.13  Morocco – Hot Rolled Sheets (G/SG/N/8/MAR/7/S uppl.1 ‒ 
G/SG/N/10/MAR/7/S uppl.1 ‒ G/SG/N/11/MAR/7/S uppl.2 and 
G/SG/N/11/MAR/7/S uppl.3) 
95.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
3.14  Peru – Clothing ( G/SG/N/6/PER/3)  
96.  Peru took the floor to explain the notification.  
97.  Brazil  expressed its concern with this investigation, particu larly with respect to the specification 
of the product subject to the investigation, which was too broad and seemed to be inconsistent with 
Article 2.1 of the Agreement . Brazil would continue to closely monitor the investigation . Brazil was 
confident that the Peruvian authority would observe the high level of technical rigor that must be 
applied in safeguard investigations.  
3.15  Philippines – Cement (G/SG/N/8/PHL/11/S uppl.2 ‒ G/SG/N/10/PHL/9/S uppl.1 ‒ 
G/SG/N/11/PHL/11/S uppl.2, G/SG/N/8/PHL/11/S uppl.3 – 
G/SG/N/10 /PHL/9/S uppl.2 – G/SG/N/11/PHL/11/S uppl.3 and 
G/SG/N/8/PHL/11/S uppl.3/Corr.1 – G/SG/N/10/PHL/9/S uppl.2/Corr.1 – 
G/SG/N/11/PHL/11/S uppl.3/Corr.1) 
98.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
3.16  Philippines – Motor Vehicles (G/SG/N/7/PHL/12 ‒ G/SG/N/8/PHL/13 ‒ 
G/SG/N/11/PHL/14 , G/SG/N/7/PHL/12/R ev.1 ‒ G/SG/N/8/PHL/13/R ev.1 ‒ 
G/SG/N/11/PHL/14/R ev.1, G/SG/N/7/PHL/12/R ev.1/Corr.1 ‒ 
G/SG/N/8/PHL/13/R ev.1/Corr.1 ‒ G/SG/N/11/PHL/14/R ev.1/Corr.1 and G/SG /253 ) 
99.  Japan  regretted the imposition of the provisional safeguard measure . The products involved 
were not subject to the Philippines ' concession under the G ATT 1994. T he provisional safeguard 
measure was thus inconsistent with Article XIX :1(a) of the G ATT 1994. I n addition, most of the 
increased imports seem ed to have originated from Thailand, Indonesia, and Japan, which were 
covered by the preferential tariff treatments under the Economic Partnership Agreements, but the 
Philippines did not exclude imports from these countries when they demonstrated the causal link 
between increased imports and serious injury . Therefore, the provisional SG measure was not 
consistent with Article XIX :1(a) of the G ATT 1994. J apan requested the Philippines to cautiously 
examine  the consistency with the relevant WTO Agreements in making its determination.  
100.  Thailand  expressed its deep concern on the Philippines ' application of the provisional measure . 
There were several inconsistencies with the WTO Agreements . First, the measure lacked the 
fundamental character as set out in Article XIX of the G ATT 1994, which only allows a safeguard 
measure to be imposed as "a result of the effect of the obligations incurred under this Agreement ". 
Given that the Philippines had no tariff obligation with respect to the products subject to the 
investigation, no provisional safeguard measure could be imposed . In the unlikely event that this 
measure was somehow considered as a safeguard measure, Thailand found flaws in the Philippines ' 
investi gation, notably with respect to determinations on domestic industry, serious injury and 
causation . For the foregoing reasons, Thailand believed that the imposition of this measure was 
inappropriate and asked the Philippines to withdraw the provisional safe guard measure and 
terminate the investigation.  
101.  Korea  requested the Philippines to terminate this investigation . Korea stated that the 
imposition of the measure was inconsistent with the requirements stipulated in the Agreement ; more 
specifically, with rega rd to unforeseen developments, surge of imports, serious injury, and causation.  G/SG/M/58  
- 13 - 
  102.  The European Union  expressed its concern over the proliferation of safeguard investigations, 
which often did not fully comply with WTO criteria . The European Union observed tha t the safeguard 
instrument was often used by the Philippines to address increase of imports from a very limited 
number of countries . In such situations, a more targeted instrument such as anti -dumping would be 
more appropriate as it addressed only imports that were causing injury . Unwarranted trade defence 
measures should be avoided.  
103.  Indonesia  raised concern over th is investigation . It stated that the investigation was based on 
the petition of the workers ' union and not by the affected domestic industry . This was not in 
conformity with the Agreement . Articles 4.1(a) and  4.1(c) concern injury to the domestic industry , 
and not to the workers ' union . In addition, Indonesia noted that Article 6 of the Agreement requires 
that critical circumstances exist in order  to impose a provisional measure . This investigation ha d 
lasted for over a year and the imposition of provisional measure took effect after almost one year of 
initiation . Under this situation, critical circumstances could not be found . Moreover, the re was no 
increase in import s that could be considered recent, sudden, surge and significant enough . Indonesia 
also pointed out that car sales ha d significantly increased.  
104.  The Philippines  promised to convey the co mments  to its capital . It offered its view that 
safeguards were a useful instrument even for products that were not subject to bound tariff s. 
Safeguards measures entailed full investigations and their duration was time-bound . As such, these 
measures were preferred over changing tariffs by legislation , since once that happen ed, it would be 
difficult to bring do wn that new tariff.  
3.17  South Africa – U, I, H, L and  T Sections of Iron or Non -Alloy Steel (G/SG/N/ 8/ZAF/8 
and G/SG/N/8/ZAF/8/R ev.1) 
105.  Japan  asked South Africa to terminate the safeguard investigation with no safeguard measure 
imposed, as recommended by the International Trade Administration . Japan took this opportunity 
to report on South Africa's extension of a safeguard measure on flat -rolled products of iron, non -alloy 
steel or other alloy steel , although it was not listed on the agenda of this meeting because no 
notifications had been made . Japan stated that the extension of the measure in question was 
inconsistent with Articles 7.2, 12.1, 12.2, and 12.3 of the Agreement . Japan requested that 
South  Africa cautiously examine the consistency with the WTO Agreements and make its 
determination carefully.  
106.  Korea  requested South Africa to terminate the investigation since the requirements in the 
Agreement were not met . Korea urged South Africa to fully abide by the Agreement.  
107.  The delegation of South Africa did not take the floor.  
3.18  Turkey ‒ Polyethylene Terephthalate Chips (G/SG/N/8/TUR/18 ‒ 
G/SG/N/10/TUR/18 ‒ G/SG/N/11/TUR/25)  
108.  Turkey  took the floor t o explain the notification.  
109.  No delegation took the floor for additional comments.  
3.19  Turkey – Toothbrushes (G/SG/N/10/TUR/16/S uppl.2 ‒ 
G/SG/N/11/TUR/22/S uppl.2 and G/SG/N/10/TUR/16/S uppl.3 ‒ 
G/SG/N/11/TUR/22/S uppl.3) 
110.  Turkey  took the floor to explain the notif ication.  
111.  No delegation took the floor for additional comments.  
3.20  Turkey – Wallpaper and Similar Wall Coverings (G/SG/N/6/TUR/20/S uppl.2) 
112.  Ukraine  expressed its concern over the possible extension of this safeguard measure . The 
measure had been in place for si x years . Ukraine emphasised that a safeguard measure was an 
emergency measure, and that the six -year period was sufficient for domestic industry to adjust . G/SG/M/58  
- 14 - 
  Ukraine urged Turkey to carefully consider whether there was a need for the further application of 
the measure within the meaning of Article 7 of the Agreement.  
113.  The European Union  expressed its concern over the significant shortcomings of this expiry 
review . It stated that non -confidential summaries were missing, especially for all supporting 
evidence re garding injury or threat thereof to the domestic industry . Based on the information 
available, measures were effective, imports had decreased significantly, and the situation of the 
domestic industry had improved significantly . This included the entry of n ew domestic producers 
into the market and the use of new and innovative technology . Thus, the extension of safeguard 
measure was not warranted . The European Union asked Turkey to terminate this investigation.  
114.  Turkey  responded that the views and opinions of Members and relevant parties shall be taken 
into consideration during the investigation.  
3.21  Ukraine – Fresh Cut Roses (G/SG/N/8/UKR/10 ‒ G/SG/N/10/UKR/10 ‒ 
G/SG/N/11/UKR/8 and G/SG/N/8/UKR/10/C orr.1 ‒ G/SG/N/10/UKR/10/C orr.1 ‒
G/SG/N/11/UKR/8/C orr.1) 
115.  The European Union  expressed deep concern over the extensive use of the safeguard 
instrument by Ukraine and the lack of compliance with WTO requirements . It urged Ukraine to avoid 
initiation of unwarranted safeguard investigations as this could considerably disturb the market . It 
welcomed the decision by Ukraine to prolong the investigation and reconsider the duty level . 
However, the current proposed level was still very high and would significantly restrict  access to 
Ukraine's market.  
116.  Ecuador  stated that Ukraine had not yet provided responses to Ecuador's questions posed at 
the October  2020 Committee meeting . Ecuador further expressed its surprise at the announcement 
of the imposition of the safeguard measur e. This decision had not been notified to the WTO so far . 
In addition to the questions asked in October  2020, Ecuador posed four more questions to Ukraine .5 
Ecuador found numerous errors of form and substance in Ukraine's decision to impose a measure . 
The procedural problems entailed transparency in deadlines and lack of non -confidential summar ies. 
The substantive problems were as follows : First, Ukraine gave little regard to the actual data and 
did not consider the defense arguments made by Ecuador and th e other interested parties . Second, 
deadlines and steps were not accurately communicated . Third, the investigating authority initiated 
an investigation for the period 2016 -2019 although it had information about of the domestic industry 
only until 2018 . In addition, the investigating authority changed the investigation period -- that is, 
from 2016 -2020 to 2017 -2020 – without informing the interested parties in a timely manner . Fourth, 
the investigating authority did not adjust the baseline information submitted by the domestic 
industry until 2018 and had not allowed interested parties to access this information . In addition, 
the obligation to progressively liberalize was not met . Furthermore, the duty rate exceeded the 
extent necessary, no u nforeseen developments were identified, and the causal link analysis was not 
sufficient . Ecuador awaited Ukraine's responses . Finally, Ecuador requested that the Committee 
verify whether the procedural requirements had been met in relation to the safeguard  measure 
adopted by Ukraine, and that such findings be communicated to the Council for Trade in Goods.6 
117.  Colombia  stated that although it had requested additional information regarding this 
information, Ukraine publish ed a notice of its decision to impose the measure without referring to 
the concern s raised by interested parties . Colombia expressed its deep concern about the various 
problems in the investigation.  
118.  Ukraine  stated that responses would be provided after consultation with its capital . As regards  
the European Union's comments, they were taken into consideration . As regards Ecuador's 
comments, Ukraine clarified that notification of the imposition was recently submitted to the 
Secretariat . Written answers to Ecuador would be sent and circulated soon . Ukraine requested that 
all questions and comments be submitted in writing.  
 
5 The questions were subsequently circulated in document G/SG/Q2/UKR/7.  
6 Ecuador asked that the full text of its statements be circulated. It can be found in G/SG/W/253.  G/SG/M/58  
- 15 - 
  3.22  Ukraine – Polymeric Materials (G/SG/N/8/UKR/9 ‒ G/SG/N/10/UKR/9 ‒ 
G/SG/N/11/UKR/7/S uppl.1 and G/SG/N/10/UKR/9/S uppl.1 ‒ 
G/SG/N/11/UKR/7/S uppl.2) 
119.  There were no comments or question s raised at the meeting.  
3.23  Ukraine – Wires (G/SG/N/8/UKR/11 – G/SG/N/10/UKR/11 – G/SG/N/11/UKR/9)  
120.  The European Union  regretted the fact that Ukraine had initiated this investigation . The 
European Union  requested that it be terminated immediately . The petitio n did not seem to 
demonstrate surge in imports . Moreover, the petitioners did not seem to have suffered serious 
injury . Any difficulties experienced by the domestic industry were most likely caused by other factors 
and thus the causation criterion was not fulfilled . The European Union hoped that no unwarranted 
safeguard measure would be imposed.  
3.24  United States – Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells ( G/SG/N/10/USA/7/S uppl.12) 
121.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
3.25  United  States – Large Residential Washers (G/SG/N/10/USA/8/S uppl.5, 
G/SG/N/10/USA/8/S uppl.6 and G /SG/N/10/USA/8/S uppl.7) 
122.  Korea  believed that this safeguards measure was no longer necessary because the 
United  States' domestic industry had successfully restructured and gro wn larger and stronger . The 
extension of measure was inconsistent with the overall improved performance of the domestic 
industry . Korea asked the United States to terminate the measure.  
123.  The United States  pointed out that this issue was currently under a di spute, and so the United 
States was not able to offer comments here . 
3.26  United States – Fresh, Chilled, or Frozen Blueberries (G/SG/N/9/USA/5)  
124.  Chile stated that it was pleased with the fact that this investigation was terminated without a 
measure.  
125.  The United States  thanked Chile for the comment.  
126.  The Committee took note  of the notifications, statements, questions, and answers.  
4  POSSIBLE REVISION TO THE NOTIFICATION FO RMAT7 
127.  The Chair recalled that the Committee held an informal meeting on 2 March  2021 on th is issue. 
The purpose of that informal meeting was to discuss the proposal submitted by Brazil regarding 
notification formats and the proposal by the Chair to merge two separate documents that both 
contained formats.  
128.  The Chair suggested that the Committee first take up his proposal to merge formats . He 
explained that combining the formats currently contained in document G/SG/2 and the formats 
contained in document G/SG/1/Rev.2 - G/SG/N/6/Rev.2 - G/SG/89/Rev.1 would assist Membe rs in 
identifying the formats of all the action -related notifications easily . A draft was sent on 20 April 2021 
and could be found in RD/SG/52 . The Chair further clarified that he was not inviting a discussion to 
change the text or nature of the two sets o f formats . The only purpose was to increase the 
convenience of the WTO Members by compiling all the formats relating to safeguard actions in one 
place. To recall, all the formats contained therein, including the one originally contained in G/SG/2, 
were wit hout prejudice to the interpretation of the provisions of the Agreement.  
 
7 Indonesia informed the Secretariat that due to technical difficulties during the Committee meeting, its 
statement could not be provided. Indonesia asked that its statement be circulated to the Members. The 
statement is found in G/SG/W/251.  G/SG/M/58  
- 16 - 
  129.  The United Kingdom, Brazil, Canada, Russia, Australia, and the United States  took the floor to 
express their support for the draft document circulated . Brazil added that it had remind ed Members 
in past meetings of the importance of notification even in instances where investigations were 
terminated . Russia emphasised its understanding that the only purpose of this merger was to 
increase the convenience of the WTO Members by compiling a ll the formats relating to safeguard 
actions in one place and that it would not create any obligation, no r impose any additional burden 
on the WTO Members.  
130.  The Chair  stated that in the absence of any objection, he suggested that the Committee agree 
to merg e the two documents . The Committee so agreed .8 
131.  The Chair proceeded to ask Brazil to explain its proposal.  
132.  Brazil  explained that its revised proposal was made available in document RD/SG/48/Rev .1. It 
took into account the comments received from Members at the informal meeting . Brazil believed 
that the proposal would contribute to strengthen the monitoring and transpa rency function of the 
WTO.  
133.  The United Kingdom  stated that it could not support Brazil's proposal . Regarding proposal on 
format A - that is, notification under Article 12.1(a) - the United Kingdom clarified that it would not 
be able to provide such informat ion. Regarding proposal on format B - that is, notification under 
footnote 2 of Article 9 - the United Kingdom welcomed this proposed amendment and would be 
willing to provide this information in the interest of transparency.  
134.  India stated that including the proposed information in notification s of initiation would increase 
the burden . In addition, some products did not have a dedicated HS code , and inputs from the  
interested parties  were needed . Therefore , providing the list of deve loping countries based on import 
volume at the time of initiation may not be accurate in certain cases . Moreover, there may also be 
the issue of transhipment which would be analysed in the course  of investigation.  
135.  Russia  expressed its opposition to the pro posal to add paragraph 6 (i.e. volume of imports 
disaggregated by country of export) in format A . At the initiation stage, an investigating authority 
would simply have no information on the volume of imports disaggregated by country of export . 
After all, t he Agreement provides that safeguard measures shall apply to products being imported 
irrespective of source . Thus, there was no need to have disaggregated data in order to initiate an 
investigation . Detailed and full statistics on imports would be collecte d subsequently during  the 
investigation.  
136.  Chinese Taipei  found the suggested modifications useful and relevant, including adding 
information on the import volumes disaggregated by country of export, specifying the Member that 
would be excluded from the meas ure. It would help exporting members to verify the trade data with 
their own statistics, thus assisting developing countries whose exports were de minimis  to fully 
exercise their right.  
137.  The United States  opposed Brazil 's proposal . Regarding the proposed ed its to format A, the 
United States explained that the scope of safeguard proceedings rarely matched up perfectly with 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule . In such cases, data had to be developed in the course of the 
investigation . Therefore, it would be extreme ly difficult , if not impossible , for a Member to provide 
this information shortly after initiation of the investigation . As for the proposed edits to format B, 
the United States noted that for many competent authorities, this information may be confidentia l. 
Therefore, Members would likely not be able to disclose such information in a public notification . In 
addition, the edits proposed by Brazil went beyond what was required under Article 9.1 . Finally, if a 
Member wished to discuss the Article 9.1 issue wi th a Member imposing a measure, the Agreement 
already provided for an opportunity to do so . That is, Article 12.3 requires a Member proposing to 
take a safeguard measure to consult with Members having a substantial export interest in the 
product subject to the measure . Consultations under Article 12.3 are different than those under the 
dispute context . The United States strongly encouraged Brazil to consider utilizing the existing 
 
8 The merged document was subsequently circulated as G/SG/1/Rev .3 - G/SG/N/6/Rev.3  ‒ 
G/SG/89/Rev.2 . G/SG/M/58  
- 17 - 
  consultation mechanisms under the Agreement rather than trying to a lter the notifications process 
through this exercise.  
138.  China raised some questions regarding Brazil's proposal on format A . In accordance with 
Article  2.2 of the Agreement, it is the total surge of imports that should be considered when imposing 
safeguards measures as well as when initiating investigations , and the origin of the imports should 
not be distinguished . Notification of individual import volume and of excluded Members at the stage 
of initiation was not feasible.  
139.  Canada  opposed Brazil's proposed am endment of format A . Regarding the proposed 
amendment of format B, Canada echoed the concern raised by the United States . Like the United 
States, Canada understood that most of the information would be provided to the investigating 
authority during the inv estigation through answers to questionnaires, which was often confidential.  
140.  Australia  thanked Brazil for clarifying the text to address some of the issues previously flagged 
by Australia.  Australia continued to support improving the clarity around safegua rd notifications.  
However, it  shared the concern of other Members regarding  confidentiality and regarding  the 
difficultly of providing the suggested data at the initiation stage.  
141.  Brazil  responded that the proposed amendments did not create new obligations . They only 
ensured compliance with existing obligations under Article 9.1 of the Agreement . Brazil 
acknowledged that Article 12.3 provides for consultation procedures for Members with substantial 
interest as exporters of the product concerned . Brazil reca lled that while the consultations provided 
for in Article 12.3 take place prior to the application of the measure, what Brazil was seeking here 
was information to be provided at the initiation stage . Brazil added that exporters which could 
potentially be e xempted by virtue of Article 9.1 may not be considered  as having substantial interest 
as exporters . Regarding the issue of confidentiality, Brazil recalled that Article 12.11 of the 
Agreement was already explicitly acknowledged in the existing format A . Regarding China's 
comments, Brazil believed that the investigating authority already had access to such data . Brazil 
stressed that participating in a safeguard investigation was a burden for developing countries, and 
so it wished to lighten that burden.  
142.  The Chair stated that it was his sense that Members needed more time to think about this 
proposal and so he would ask the incoming Chair to follow -up this issue.  
143.  The Committee took note  of statements made.  
5  UNITED KINGDOM – SAFEGUARD MEASURES ON CERTAIN STEEL PRODUCTS (ITEM 
REQUESTED BY BRAZIL AND SWITZERLAND)  
144.  Switzerland  explained that it had requested this item to be placed on the agenda of this 
meeting because of the important systemic and economic implications of this measure . The situation 
of a count ry leaving a customs union was certainly unique, and its impact raised specific issues and 
challenges . Switzerland understood that the "transitioning" of the European Union's safeguard 
measure by the United Kingdom as of 1 January  2021 was subject to the m aterial and procedural 
requirements that were applicable to new safeguard measures pursuant to the Agreement . 
Switzerland recalled that the Agreement requires the completion of an investigation before applying 
a safeguard measure, while granting interested  parties the right to be heard . Switzerland noted that 
the United Kingdom had not yet notified the application of the measures to this Committee . 
Switzerland expected the United Kingdom to provide all pertinent information as required by the 
Agreement . Also, the United Kingdom had notified on 8 October  2020 the initiation of a review of a 
safeguard measure applied by the European Union . Switzerland enquired as to when the results for 
the review would be available . Switzerland considered it in the shared int erest of the United Kingdom 
and all WTO Members that the United Kingdom's safeguard measure were not extended beyond 
30 June 2021. 
145.  Brazil  expressed its concern regarding the transition review of the European Union's safeguard 
measure , initiated by the Unit ed Kingdom . Brazil considered that since the measure under review 
by the United Kingdom was the measure originally adopted by the European Union,  the measure of 
the United Kingdom had exactly the same inconsistencies with WTO rules  as the measure of the 
European Union . Brazil requested that the measure be immediately terminated, and, in no case, be G/SG/M/58  
- 18 - 
  extended beyond its original 3 -year validity period . It stated that such an extension could trigger 
suspension of concessions under Article 8 of the Agreement . Finally, Brazil stressed that while the 
measure remain ed in force, it was important that the same criteria applicable to the original 
European Union's measure for excluding certain developing country Members under Article 9.1 of 
the Agreement continue to be  applied by the United Kingdom.  
146.  Korea  pointed out that the decision of the United Kingdom to maintain the European Union's 
safeguard measure without conducting its own investigation violate d the provisions of the Agreement 
and Article XIX of the G ATT 1994.  Korea requested the United Kingdom to withdraw the measure.  
147.  China was concerned over the continued use of the European Union's safeguard measure on 
steel products by the United Kingdom . China believed that such a way to proceed was against the 
provisions of the Agreement . The European Union's safeguard measure was based on the 
European  Union's data . Therefore, the United Kingdom needed to conduct its own investigation . 
China urged the United Kingdom to abide by the WTO rules.  
148.  Turkey  believed that the conti nuation of the measure after Brexit was not compatible with the 
provisions of G ATT 1994, the Agreement, and the relevant past rulings of the Appellate Body and 
panels . Turkey considered that the measure should have been terminated on 3 1 December  2020. 
Turkey reserved all its rights stemming from Article 8 of the Agreement and other relevant 
WTO Agreements.  
149.  Japan  echoed the concern of others and requested the United Kingdom to terminate the 
measure as soon as practicable.  
150.  Russia  recalled  that it had raised concern on this issue at the previous Committee meetings . 
In relation to Article 8.1 of the Agreement, Russia asked whether the United Kingdom had made any 
effort to maintain substantially equivalent level of concessions between itself and the affected 
Members . It also asked the United Kingdom to indicate more precisely when the final determination 
ensuing from the transition review could be expected . Transitional reviews could not be equal to a 
plain review of a measure . Russia hoped th at the United Kingdom would carry out an objective 
analysis and see for itself that there were no reasonable grounds for continued application of the 
measure . Russia urged the United Kingdom to terminate its measure promptly.  
151.  In response, the United Kingdo m stated that its government h ad committed to ensuring 
continuity in the circumstances of its withdrawal from the European Union . These measures were 
originally established based on an investigation covering the whole territory of the European Union, 
including the United Kingdom . Therefore, the measures were continued in respect of the 
United  Kingdom's territory after its departure from the European Union . The United Kingdom had 
retained the safeguard measure on product categories where there was sufficient  domestic 
production . In particular, it retained the measure with respect to 19 of the original 26 product 
categories, whilst the measure on the remaining seven product categories ceased to apply when the 
United Kingdom departed from the European Union . The United Kingdom adjusted the TRQs for the 
retained measure in each product category . These were calculated using the methodology that was 
used in the initial calculation of the safeguard measure and were based on historic trade flow data 
specific to the U nited Kingdom from the original period of investigation . The TRQs came into effect 
on 1 January  2021 and were now being reviewed whether they should be extended based on the 
assessment specific to the market . The transition investigation was initiated on 1 October  2020 and 
would conclude by the end of June 2021. The United Kingdom encouraged interested parties to 
engage in the review process . The United Kingdom was committed to complying with the procedural 
obligations set out in the WTO Agreements.  
152.  The Com mittee took note  of the statements made.  
6  OTHER BUSINESS  
6.1   STATEMENT BY THE VICE CHAIR  
153.  The Vice Chair  stated that she would provide an explanation, for purposes of transparency, on 
the status of the request from the European Union made under Article 13.1(e) . She recalled that the 
European Union submitted this request on 2 3 June 2020. At the last regular meeting held in G/SG/M/58  
- 19 - 
  October  2020, the Chair had stated that he would recuse himself from presiding over the 
Committee's work on this matter and would ask the incoming Vice Chair to handle this matter . She 
further recalled that after the last regular meeting, she held an informal meeting of the Committee 
on 1 4 December  2020 as the newly selected Vice Chair . After that informal meeting, the 
European  Union and Tur key had informed her that they still need more time before a further revised 
draft could be presented to the Committee . She was informed that the European Union and Turkey 
had found agreement on the substance of the report, but diverge d on the question of whose report 
it should be . That was the reason why this item had not featured in the agenda of this meeting . She 
assured Members that they would be informed when the time was ripe for further discussion on this 
issue.  
154.  The Committee took note  of the stateme nt. 
7  DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING  
155.  The Chair suggested that the Committee meet in the week of 2 5 October  2021. The exact date 
would be confirmed later.  
156.  The Committee so decided . 
8  ELECTION OF OFFICERS  
157.  The Chair  recalled Rule 12 of the Committee's Rules of Procedure which provides that the 
election of the new Chair shall take place at the first regular meeting of the year and that the election 
shall take effect at the end of that meeting.  
158.  The Chair stated that co nsultation at the CTG level regarding the selection of the new chair of 
this Committee as well as of other Committees under the CTG is still under way, therefore a new 
Chair cannot be elected at this meeting . In these circumstances, the Chair suggested tha t the 
Secretariat send a communication once the CTG had completed its work, indicating the Chair 
identified by the CTG . The new Chair would be deemed to be elected by the Committee absent any 
objection . This approach, which had been taken in previous years , would obviate the need for an 
additional meeting of the Committee . 
159.  On the Vice -Chair, the Chair proposed to postpone the election of the new Vice -Chair until the 
new Chair is appointed, until he or she holds the usual consultations and sends the usual 
communication nominating a new Vice -Chair who, absent any objection, would be deemed to be 
elected by the Committee.  
160.  The Committee so decided . 
__________