RESTRICTED  
  
G/SG/M/57  
23 February 2021 
(21-1504) Page: 1/28 
Committee on Safeguards   
 
  
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING  
HELD ON 26 OCTOBER 2020  
INTERIM CHAIR: MR  MUSTAFA TUZCU (TURKEY)  
1.  The Committee on Safeguards (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 26 October  2020. 
2.  At the outset of the meeting, Mr Tuzcu explained that both Ms Dellar, the Chair, and Mr Sarsenov, 
the Vice-Chair, left Geneva, and that the Members had agreed to have him preside over this meeting  
as interim Chair.1 
3.  The Chair recalled that some participants were joining the meeting in person and others online 
via Interprefy . The Chair recalled the technical arrangements that therefore applied to the meeting, 
which were  also described in the "Organizational and Technical Arrangements Note" sent to Members 
on 20 October  2020. 
4.  The Chair drew to the attention of the Members that the draft agenda was contained in document 
WTO/AIR/SG/11 . No request was made for item s to be taken up under "Other business", and so the 
Committee adopted the agenda as follows:  
1  NATIONAL LEGISLATION  
1.1  Review of notifications of new or amended legislation or regulations not previously 
reviewed by the Committee (including supplemental notifications of existing provisions 
not previously reviewed)  
1.1.1   BOLIVIA (G/ADP/N/1/BOL/3 - G/SCM/N/1/BOL/3 - G/SG/N/1/BOL/2)  
1.1.2   Costa Rica (G/ADP/N/1/CRI/3/Suppl.1 – G/SCM/N/1/CRI/4/Suppl.1 – 
G/SG/N/1/CRI/4/Suppl.1)  
1.1.3   Ghana (G/ADP/N/1/GHA/2 – G/SCM/N/1/GHA/2 – G/SG/N/1/GHA/2)  
1.1.4   India (G/SG/N/1/IND/2/Suppl.2 and G/SG/N/1/IND/2/Suppl.3 ) 
1.1.5   Lao (G/SG/N/1/LAO/2)  
1.1.6   Tonga (G/SG/N/1/TON/1) (Nil Notification)  
1.1.7   United Kingdom (G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1 – G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1 – G/SG/N/1/GBR/1; 
G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.1 – G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.1 – 
G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.1;  G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.2; 
G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.3  – G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.3  – 
G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.3;  G/ADP/N/1/G BR/1/Suppl.4  –
G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.4  – G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.4; 
G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.5  – G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.5  – 
G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.5;  G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.6  –
G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.6  – G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.6; 
 
1 See communications from Ms  Dellar in RD/SG/45  and RD/SG/46 . G/SG/M/57  
- 2 - 
  G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.7;  G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/S uppl.9  – 
G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.9  – G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.8; 
G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.10  - G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.10  - 
G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.9;  G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.11  -G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.11 - 
G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.10)  
1.1.8   Viet Nam (G/ADP/N/1/VNM/3 - G/SCM/N/1/VNM/2 - G/SG/N/1/VNM/3)  
1.1.9   Zimbabwe (G/SG/N/1/ZWE/3)  
1.2  Review of notifications of new or amended legislation or regulations with outstanding 
written questions  
1.2.1   Afghanistan (G/SG/N/1/AFG/1)  
1.2.2   Cameroon  (G/ADP/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1 – G/SCM/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1 – 
G/SG/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1)  
1.2.3   Liberia (G/SG/N/1/LBR/1)  
2  CONTINUING REVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATIONS PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY 
THE COMMITTEE  
2.1  Kenya (G/ADP/N/1/KEN/3 - G/SCM/N/1/KEN/3 - G/SG/N/1/KEN/2)  
2.2  United Ara b Emirates (G/ADP/N/1/ARE/2/Suppl.1 - G/SCM/N/1/ARE/2/Suppl.1 - 
G/SG/N/1/ARE/2/Suppl.1)  
3  NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RELATED TO SAFEGUARD MEASURES  
3.1  Colombia - Sheets of paperboard and polyethylene  (G/SG/N/9/COL/6 ) 
3.2  Costa Rica - Refined white sugar  
G/SG/N/8/CRI/2 /Rev.1  – G/SG/N/10/CRI/2/Rev.1  – G/SG/N/11/CRI/2/Rev.1  
G/SG/N/8/CRI/2 - G/SG/N/10/CRI/2 - G/SG/N/11/CRI/2  
G/L/1364 – G/SG/N/12/BRA/4 (Proposed suspension of concessions)  
3.3  Costa Rica - Bars and Rods of Steel for Concrete Reinforcement  (G/SG/N/9/CRI/2 ) 
3.4  Ecuador - Smooth ceramics  
G/SG/N/6/ECU/10  
G/SG/N/9/ECU/3  
3.5  Egypt - Raw Aluminium  (G/SG/N/6/EGY/15 ) 
3.6  Egypt - semi -finished products of iron or non -alloy steel and steel rebar  
G/L/1353 – G/SG/N/12/UKR/1 (Follow -up questions from the United States)  
G/L/1350 – G/SG/N/12/TUR/7 (Follow -up questions from the United States)  
G/L/1352 – G/SG/230 (Results of the consultations)  
G/L/1349 – G/SG/228 (Results of the consultations)  
3.7  Member states of the Eurasian Economic Union - Welded tubes of stainless s teel 
G/SG/N/9/ARM/2  
G/SG/N/9/KGZ/2  
G/SG/N/9/KAZ/2  
G/SG/N/9/RUS/2  G/SG/M/57  
- 3 - 
  3.8  European Union - Certain steel products  
G/SG/N/10/EU/1/Suppl.8/Rev.1  - G/SG/N/11/EU/1/Suppl.5/Rev.1  
G/SG/N/10/EU/1/Suppl.8 - G/SG/N/11/EU/1/Suppl.5  
G/SG/N/10/EU/1/Suppl.7  
G/SG/N/10/EU/1/Suppl.6  
G/SG/N/10/EU/1/Suppl.5  
G/L/1360  - G/SG/246 (Proposed suspension of concessions)  
G/L/1359  - G/SG/N/12/TUR/9 (Proposed suspension of concessions)  
G/L/1359/Rev.1 - G/SG/N/12/TUR/9/Rev.1  
G/SG/245 (Request for consu ltations)  
G/SG/244 (Request for consultations)  
G/SG/243 (Request for consultations)  
G/SG/242 (Request for consultations)  
3.9  Member countries of the GCC - Certain steel products  
G/SG/N/8/ARE/3 – G/SG/N/8/BHR/3 – G/SG/N/8/KWT/3 – G/SG/N/8/OMN/3 – 
G/SG/N/8/QAT/3 – G/SG/N/8/SAU/3  
3.10  Guatemala - Flat-rolled products of other alloy steel  (G/SG/N/9/GTM/1 ) 
3.11  India - Solar Cells  
G/SG/N/8/IND/31/Suppl.4  - G/SG/N/10/IND/22/Suppl.3  - G/SG/N/11/IND/17/Suppl.4  
G/SG/N/8/IND/31/Suppl.3  - G/SG/N/10/IND/22/Suppl.2  - G/SG/N/11/IND/17/Suppl.3  
3.12  India – Phenol  (G/SG/N/9/IND/17 ) 
3.13  India - Single mode optical fibre  
G/SG/N/8/IND/32 – G/SG/N/10/IND/23 – G/SG/N/11/IND/18  
G/SG/N/8/IND/32/Suppl.1  - G/SG/N/10/IND/23/Suppl.1  - G/SG/N/11/IND/18/Suppl.1  
3.14  India - Isopropyl Alcohol  (G/SG/N/6/IND/47 ) 
3.15  Indonesia - Ceramic flags and paving, hearth or wall tiles  (G/SG/N/11/IDN/17/Suppl.1 ) 
3.16  Indonesia - Fabrics  
G/SG/N/8/IDN/23 – G/SG/N/10/IDN/23  
G/SG/N/7/IDN/2/Corr.1 – G/SG/N/11/IDN/18/Corr.1  
G/SG/N/7/IDN/2/Suppl.1 – G/SG/N/11/IDN/18/Suppl.1  
G/SG/N/7/IDN/2 – G/SG/N/11/IDN/18  
G/SG/N/10/IDN/23/SUPPL.1 - G/SG/N/11/IDN/18/SUPPL.2  
G/L/1358  - G/SG/236  (Results of consultations)  
G/SG/232  (Request for consultations)  
3.17  Indonesia - Curtains  
G/SG/N/10/IDN/24/Suppl.1 - G/SG/N/11/IDN/20/Suppl.2  
G/SG/N/8/IDN/24 – G/SG/N/10/IDN/24  
G/SG/N/7/IDN/4/Suppl.1 – G/SG/N/11/IDN/20/Suppl.1  
G/SG/N/7/IDN/4 – G/SG/N/11/IDN/20  G/SG/M/57  
- 4 - 
  3.18  Indonesia - Yarn  
G/SG/N/10/IDN/25/Suppl.1 - G/SG/N/11/IDN/19/Supp.2  
G/SG/N/8/IDN/25 – G/SG/N/10/IDN/25  
G/SG/N/7/IDN/3/Suppl.1 – G/SG/N/11/IDN/19/Suppl.1  
G/SG/N/7/IDN/3 – G/SG/N/11/IDN/19  
3.19  Indonesia - Carpets and other textile floor coverings  
G/SG/N/6/IDN/35  
G/SG/N/8/IDN/27 - G/SG/N/10/IDN/27  
G/SG/N/8/IDN/27/Corr.1 – G/SG/N/10/IDN/27/Corr.1  
G/SG/250 (Request for consultations)  
3.20  Indonesia – Evaporators  (G/SG/N/10/IDN/22/Suppl.1 – G/SG/N/11/IDN/22 ) 
3.21  Indonesia - Fructose syrop  
G/SG/N/8/IDN/26 - G/SG/N/10/IDN/26  
G/SG/N/6/IDN/34  
G/SG/N/8/IDN/26/Suppl.1  -G/SG/N/10/IDN/26/Suppl.1  - G/SG/N/11/IDN/23  
3.22  Indonesia - Articles of Apparel and Clothing Accessories  (G/SG/N/6/IDN/36 ) 
3.23  Jordan - Potato Chip s (G/SG/N/9/JOR/10 ) 
3.24  Madagascar – Lubricating oils  
G/SG/N/8/MDG/7  
G/SG/N/10/MDG/6 - G/SG/N/11/MDG/6/Suppl.2  
G/SG/249 (Request for consultations)  
3.25  Madagascar – Soap  
G/SG/N/8/MDG/6  
G/SG/N/10/MDG/7 - G/SG/N/11/MDG/5/Suppl.2  
3.26  Madagascar – Edible vegetable oils and margarines  
G/SG/N/8/MDG/5  
G/SG/N/10/MDG/5 - G/SG/N/11/MDG/7/Suppl.2  
G/SG/248 (Request for consultations)  
3.27  Madagascar - Pasta (2)  
G/SG/N/8/MDG/4  – G/SG/N/10/MDG/4 – G/SG/N/11/MDG/4/Suppl.1  
G/SG/Q2/MDG/3 (Questions from Mauritius)  
G/SG/233 (Request for consultations)  
G/L/1362  - G/SG/247 (Request for consultations)  
G/SG/Q2/MDG/4 (Questions from Mauritius)  
3.28  Malaysia - Ceramic Floor and Wall Tiles  (G/SG/N/6/MYS/6 ) 
3.29  Morocco - Welded tubes and pipes of iron or steel  
G/SG/N/8/MAR/8 - G/SG/N/10/MAR/8 - G/SG/N/11/MAR/8/Suppl.1  
G/SG/N/8/MAR/8/Corr.1  - G/SG/N/10/MAR/8/Corr.1 - G/SG/N/11/MAR/8/Suppl.1/ Corr.1 G/SG/M/57  
- 5 - 
  3.30  Morocco - Hot-rolled sheets  
G/SG/N/8/MAR/7 - G/SG/N /10/MAR/7 - G/SG/N/11/MAR/7/Suppl.1  
G/SG/237 (Request for consultations)  
3.31  Morocco - Wire rods and reinforcing bars  
G/SG/Q2/MAR/3 (Questions from Ukraine)  
3.32  Morocco - Cold-rolled sheets in coils or cut, and plated or coated sheets  
G/SG/N/11/MAR/4/Suppl.4  
G/SG/Q2/MAR/3 (Questions from Ukraine)  
3.33  Panama - Meat of Swine  (G/SG/N/9/PAN/1 ) 
3.34  Philippines - Float Glass  (G/SG/N/7/PHL/11/Suppl.1  – G/SG/N/8/PHL/12/Suppl.1  – 
G/SG/N/11/PHL/13/Suppl.1 ) 
3.35  Philippines - Galvanized Iron Sheets, Coils and Strips  (G/SG/N/6/PHL/18 ) 
3.36  Philippines - Prepainted Galvanized Iron and Prepainted Aluminum Zinc  
(G/SG/N/6/PHL/17 ) 
3.37  Philippines - Aluminum Zinc (GL) Sheets, Coils and Strip  (G/SG/N/6/PHL/16 ) 
3.38  Philippines – Cement  (G/L/1347  – G/SG/227 ) (Results of the consultations)  
3.39  Philippines - Ceramic floor and wall tiles  (G/SG/N/9/PHL/4 ) 
3.40  Philippines - Motor vehicles  (G/SG/N/6/PHL/15 ) 
3.41  Philippines - High -Density Polyethylene and Linear Low -Density Polyethylene pellets 
and granules  (G/SG/N/6/PHL/19 ) 
3.42  South Africa - Certain flat -rolled products of iron, non -alloy steel or other alloy steel 
(G/SG/N/6/ZAF/4/Suppl.1 ) 
3.43  South Africa - U, I, H, L and T sections of iron or non -alloy steel  (G/SG/N/6/ZAF/9 ) 
3.44  South Africa - Bolts with hexagon heads  of iron or steel  
G/SG/N/6/ZAF/8  
G/SG/N/7/ZAF/5 - G/SG/N/11/ZAF/7  
G/SG/N/7/ZAF/5/Corr.1 - G/SG/N/11/ZAF/7/Corr.1  
3.45  South  Africa - Threaded fasteners of iron or steel  
G/SG/N/8/ZAF/6/Suppl.1  - G/SG/N/10/ZAF/5/Suppl.1  -G/SG/N/11/ZAF/5/Suppl.2  
G/SG/N/8/ZAF/6 - G/SG/N/10/ZAF/5 - G/SG/N/11/ZAF/5/Suppl.1  
3.46  Thailand - Aluminium Foil  (G/SG/N/6/THA/6 ) 
3.47  Thailand - Non alloy hot rolled steel flat products in coils and not in coils 
G/SG/N/6/THA/4/Suppl.4 - G/SG/N/14/THA/3/Suppl.3  
G/SG/N/6/THA/4/Suppl.3 - G/SG/N/14/THA/3/Suppl.2  
G/SG/N/6/THA/4/Suppl.2 – G/SG/N/14/THA/3/Suppl.1  G/SG/M/57  
- 6 - 
  3.48  Turkey - Polyethylene terephthalate chips  (G/SG/N/6/TUR/27 ) 
3.49  Turkey – Toothbrushes  (G/SG/N/6/TUR/23/Suppl.1 - G/SG/N/14/TUR/11 ) 
3.50  Turkey - Staple fibres of polyesters, not carded, combed or otherwise processed  
(G/SG/N/6/TUR/26 ) 
3.51  Turkey - Yarn of nylon or other polyamides  (G/L/1351  – G/SG/229 ) (Request for 
consultations)  
3.52  Ukraine - Certain nit rogen fertilizers  
G/SG/N/8/UKR/8/Suppl.1  - G/SG/N/10/UKR/8/Suppl.1  - G/SG/N/11/UKR/6/Suppl.1  
G/SG/N/8/UKR/8 - G/SG/N/10/UKR/8 - G/SG/N/11/UKR/6  
G/SG/241 (Request for consultations)  
G/SG/239 (Request for consultations)  
3.53  Ukraine - Complex fertilizers  
G/SG/N/8/UKR/7/Suppl.1  - G/SG/N/10/UKR/7/Suppl.1  - G/SG/N/11/UKR/5/Suppl.1  
G/SG/N/8/UKR/7 - G/SG/N/10/UKR/7 - G/SG/N/11/UKR/5  
G/SG/240 (Request for consultations)  
G/SG/238 (Request for consultations)  
3.54  Ukraine - Fresh cut roses  
G/SG/N/6/UKR/18  
• G/SG/Q2/UKR/6 (Questions from Ecuador)  
• G/SG/Q2/UKR/6/Corr.1 (Questions from Ecuador - Corrigendum)  
3.55  Ukraine - Polymeric materials  
G/SG/N/7/UKR/2 - G/SG/N/11/UKR/7  
G/SG/N/6/UKR/17  
3.56  Ukraine - Caustic soda  
G/SG/N/6/UKR/16  
G/SG/N/9/UKR/8  
3.57  Ukraine - Syringes  
G/SG/N/6/UKR/15  
G/SG/N/9/UKR/7  
3.58  Ukraine - Sulfuric acid and Oleum  (G/SG/N/8/UKR/6/Suppl.1  - 
G/SG/N/10/UKR/6/Suppl.1  - G/SG/N/11/UKR/4/Suppl.1 ) 
3.59  Ukraine - Wires  
G/SG/N/6/UKR/19  
G/SG/N/6/UKR/19/Corr.1  
3.60  United Kingdom – certain steel products  (G/SG/N/6/GBR/1 ) 
3.61  United States - Crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells  
G/SG/N/10/USA/7/Suppl.11  
G/SG/N/10/USA/7/Suppl.10  
G/SG/N/10/USA/7/Suppl.9  G/SG/M/57  
- 7 - 
  G/SG/N/10/USA/7/Suppl.8  
G/SG/N/10/USA/7/Suppl.7  
3.62  UNITED STATES – Fresh, chilled, or frozen blueberries  
G/SG/N/6/USA/13  
G/SG/N/6/USA/13/Suppl.1  
3.63  Viet Nam - Certain semi -finished and finished products of alloy and non -alloy steel  
G/SG/N/8/VNM/3/Suppl.3  - G/SG/N/10/VNM/2/Suppl.2  - G/SG/N/11/VNM/4/Suppl.3   
G/SG/N/8/VNM/3/Suppl.3/Corr.1  – G/SG/N/10/VNM/2/Suppl.2/Corr.1  –
G/SG/N/11/VNM/4/Suppl.3/Corr.1  
G/SG/N/8/VNM/3/Suppl.2  
G/SG/N/11/VNM/8  
G/SG/N/6/VNM/5/Suppl.1  
3.64  Viet Nam - Certain fertilizers of Diammonium Phosphate and Monoammonium 
Phosphate (Mineral or chemi cal fertilizers)  
G/SG/N/8/VNM/6/Suppl.2  - G/SG/N/10/VNM/5/Suppl.1  - G/SG/N/11/VNM/7/Suppl.2 and 
G/SG/n/8/VNM/6/Suppl.2/Corr.1  – G/SG/N/10/VNM/5/Suppl.1/Corr.1  –
G/SG/N/11/VNM/7/Suppl.2/Corr.1  
G/SG/N/8/VNM/6/Suppl.1  
G/SG/N/6/VNM/6/Suppl.1  
4  US MEASURES ON STEE L AND ALUMINUM (ITEM REQUESTED BY INDIA, JAPAN, 
THE EUROPEAN UNION AND TURKEY)  
G/L/1240/Suppl.2  - G/SG/N/12/JPN/4/Suppl.2 (Proposed suspension of concessions from 
Japan)  
G/L/1356  - G/SG/N/12/EU/2 (Proposed suspension of concessions from the European Union)  
G/L/1357  - G/SG/N/12/TUR/8 ((Proposed suspension of concessions from Turkey ) 
G/SG/235 (Request for consul tations from India)  
G/SG/234 (Request for consultations from Turkey)  
G/SG/231 (Request f or consultations from the European Union)  
5  UNITED KINGDOM – SAFEGUARD MEASURES ON CERTAIN STEEL PRODUCTS (ITEM 
REQUESTED BY SWITZERLAND)  
6  MEMBERS' PROCEDURES DURING COVID -19 (ITEM REQUESTED BY AUSTRALIA AND THE 
UNITED STATES)  
7  NON-IMPOSITION OF A SAFEGUARD MEASURE: IMPORTANCE OF NOTIFYING IT TO THE 
COMMITTEE (DOCUMENT G /SG/2) (ITEM REQUESTED BY BRAZIL)  
8  REQUEST UNDER ARTICLE 13.1 (E) OF THE AGREEMENT  
G/L/1360 - G/SG/246 (Request from the European Union)  
G/SG/W/248 (Statement of the European Union made at the informal meeting of 27  July 2020)  
9  NOTIFICATIONS OF RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPOSE A MEASURE (RD/SG/39)  
10  OTHER BUSINESS  
11  DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING  
12  ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS  
13  ELECTION OF OFFICERS  G/SG/M/57  
- 8 - 
  * * * *
1  NATIONAL LEGISLATION  
1.1  Review of Notifications of New or Amended Legislation or Regulations Not Previously 
Reviewed by the Committee (Including Supplemental Notifications of Existing Provisions 
Not Previously Reviewed)  
1.1.1   Bolivia  – Review of New Legislative No tification  
(G/ADP/N/1/BOL/ 3 - G/SCM/N/1/BOL/3  - G/SG/N/1/BOL/2 ) 
5.  Written questions regarding this notification had been submitted by the United States and can 
be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/BOL/4  - G/SCM/Q1/BOL/4  - G/SG/Q1/BOL/1  
6.  Bolivia  took the floor to explain the notification, and stated that it was analysing  the US questions 
and that the answers would  be notified as soon as possible . 
7.  The United States  stated that it was looking forward to receiving the responses.  
8.  No written answers had been received to date.  
1.1.2   Costa Rica  – Review of New Legislative Notification  (G/ADP/N/1/CRI/3/SUPPL.1  – 
G/SCM/N/1/CRI/4/SUPPL.1  – G/SG/N/1/CRI/4/SUPPL.1 ) 
9.  Written questions regarding this notification had been submitted by the United States and ca n 
be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/CRI/15  - G/SCM/Q1/CRI/15  - G/SG/Q1/CRI/9  
10.  Costa Rica  stated that it was working on the question s and would provide the  responses  as soon 
as possible.  (The responses were subsequently submitted in document 
G/ADP/Q1/CRI/15  - G/SCM/Q1/CRI/15  - G/SG/Q1/CRI/9 .) 
1.1.3   Ghana – Review of New Legislative Notification  (G/ADP/N/1/GHA/2  – 
G/SCM/N/1/GHA/2  – G/SG/N/1/GHA/2  
11.  Written questions regarding this notification had  been submitted by the United States and can 
be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/GHA/1  – G/SCM/Q1/GHA/1  – G/SG/Q1/GHA/1  
12.  Responses were subsequently submitted in document G/ADP/Q1/GHA/2  – G/SCM/Q1/GHA/2  – 
G/SG/Q1/GHA/2 . 
1.1.4   India – Review of New Legislative Notification  (G/SG/N/1/IND/2/Suppl.3 ) 
13.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
1.1.5   Lao – Review of New Legislative Notification  (G/SG/N/1/LAO/2 ) 
14.  Written questions regarding this notification had been submitted by the United States  and can 
be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/LAO/1  - G/SCM/Q1/LAO/1  - G/SG/Q1/LAO/1  
15.  Lao stated that its capital was considering the US questions. (The responses were subsequently 
submitted in document G/ADP/Q1/LAO/2  - G/SCM/Q1/LAO/2  - G/SG/Q1/LAO/2 .) G/SG/M/57  
- 9 - 
  1.1.6   Tonga – Review of New Legislative Notification  (G/SG/N/1/TON/1 ) 
16.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
1.1.7   United Kingdom – Review of New Legislative Notification  (G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1  – 
G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1  – G/SG/N/1/GBR/1 , G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.1  – 
G/SCM/ N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.1  – G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.1 , G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.2 , 
G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.3  – G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.3  – 
G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.3 , G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.4  –
G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.4  – G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.4 , 
G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.5  – G/SCM/N/1/G BR/1/Suppl.5  – 
G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.5 , G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.6  –
G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.6  – G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.6 , 
G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.7 , G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.9  – 
G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.9  – G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.8 , 
G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.10  - G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1 /Suppl.10  - 
G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.9 , G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.11  -
G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.11 - G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.10 ) 
17.  Written questions regarding these notifications had been submitted by the United States and 
can be found in documents:  
• G/ADP/Q1/GBR/1  - G/SCM/Q1/GBR/1  - G/SG/Q1/GBR/1  
• G/ADP/Q1/GBR/3  - G/SCM/Q1/GBR/3  - G/SG/Q1/GBR/2  
• G/SG/Q1/GBR/3  
18.  The United Kingdom  explained that f ollowing its withdrawal from the European Union, it put in 
place a domestic trade remedies system that would  provide the UK industry  with the ability to 
compete on a level playing field.  During the "UK-EU transition period ", which would end on 
31 December  2020, EU law, with a few limited exceptions, continue d to be applicable to and in the 
United Kingdom . In preparation for the United Kingdom  leaving the European Union , the 
United  Kingdom  commenced in March  2019 elements of the legislation putting in place its trade 
remedies system, including safeguards legisl ation. The notifications listed on the agenda concern ed 
the primary and secondary legislation passed by the UK Parliament to date . The trade remedies 
system was built on 4 principles : impartiality, proportionality, efficiency and transparency . While the 
UK Government was clear that the system would  be delivered by an independent body – the Trade 
Remedies Authority – the legal creation of this body require d primary legislation to be passed by the 
UK Parliament . This legislation was currently undergoing its f inal stages of parliamentary scrutiny.  
Until the legislation passes, the Government temporarily set up the Trade Remedies Investigations 
Directorate within the Department for International Trade, which would  carry out investigations . 
Once the Trade Remedie s Authority is established as an independent body, the United Kingdom  
would  notify Members.  In order to provide continuity to industry following its departure from the 
European Union , the UK Government ha d committed to maintain those definitive trade remed y 
measures applied before the end of the UK -EU transition period, where there was UK producer 
interest . These measures were established on the basis of investigations covering the whole territory 
of the European Union , including the United Kingdom . That was why those measures w ould be 
continued in respect of the territory of the United Kingdom  from the end of  the transition period . 
The measures would  each undergo a transition review to ensure they continue to reflect the 
circumstances of the market  of the United Kingdom . This could lead to a measure being amended 
or terminated . Exporters and foreign government s would  be able to engage in the review process, 
for example by making submissions and requesting hearings . The investigating body would  send 
questionnaires to foreign exporters in the early stage of a review period to gather data and evidence . 
Finally, th e United Kingdom  reminded Members that it has organ ized an information session that 
afternoon.  
19.  The United States  stated that it looked forward to seeing the responses to its questions in 
writing.  
20.  No written answers had been received to date.  G/SG/M/57  
- 10 - 
  1.1.8   Viet Nam – Review of New Legislative Notification  
(G/ADP/N/1/VNM/3  - G/SCM/N/1/VNM/2  - G/SG/N/1/VNM/3 ) 
21.  Written questions regarding this notification had been submitted by the United States and can 
be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/VNM/9  - G/SCM/Q1/VNM/9  - G/SG/Q1/VNM/9  
22.  The chair stated that w ritten answers to the United States' questions were provided  recently . 
The document  was subsequently circulated in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/VNM/10  - G/SCM/Q1/VNM/10  - G/SG/Q1/VNM/10  
23.  No delegation took the floor for additional  comments.  
1.1.9   Zimbabwe – Review of New Legislative Notification  (G/SG/N/1/ZWE/3 ) 
24.  The Chair stated  that written questions had been received from the United States in document 
G/SG/Q1/ZWE/1 . 
25.  The delegation of Zimbabwe was not present at the time.  
26.  No written answers had been received to date.  
1.2  Review of Notifications of New or Amended Legislation or Regulations with 
Outstanding Written Questions  
1.2.1   Afghanistan – Review of New Legislation Notification with Written Questions  
(G/SG/N/1/AFG/1 ) 
27.  Written question s regarding this notification had been submitted by the United States and can 
be found in document:  
• G/SG/Q1/AFG/1  
28.  Written answers to the United States' questions were provided in document:  
• G/SG/Q1/AFG/2  
29.  The United States  stated that it had no follow -up questions . 
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 ) 
30.  Written questions regarding this 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  
31.  The Chair noted that these questions have been pending since the Committee meeting of 
October  2014. 
32.  The delegation of Cameroon was not present at the time.  
33.  No written answers had been re ceived to date.  G/SG/M/57  
- 11 - 
  1.2.3   Liberia – Review of New or Amended Legislation Notifications  with Written 
Questions  (G/SG/N/1/LBR/1 ) 
34.  Written questions regarding this notification had been submitted by the United States and can 
be found in document:  
• G/SG/Q1/LBR/1  
35.  The delegation of Liberia was not present at the time . 
36.  No written answers had been received to date.  
37.  The Committee took note of the notifications, statements, questions and answers.  
2  CONTINUING REVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATIONS PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY 
THE COMMITTEE  
2.1  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 ) 
38.  Written questions regarding this 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  
39.  The delegation of Kenya was not present at the time.  
40.  No written answers had been received to date.  
2.2  United Arab Emirates  – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications  
(G/ADP/N/1/ARE/2/S UPPL.1  - G/SCM/N/1/ARE/2/SUPPL.1  - G/SG/N/1/ARE/2/SUPPL.1 ) 
41.  Written questions regarding this notification had been submitted by the United States and can 
be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/ARE/5  - G/SCM/Q1/ARE/5  – G/SG/Q1/ARE/5  
42.  Written answers to the United States' questions were provided and can be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/ARE/6  - G/SCM/Q1/ARE/6  - G/SG/Q1/ARE/6  
43.  No delegation took the floor for additional comments.  
44.  The Chair recalled that the deadline for written questions concerning any new legisla tion 
reviewed at this meeting was 1 6 November  2020. The deadline for written answers to all written 
questions, including questions submitted in writing prior to this meeting, was 7 December  2020. 
45.  The Chair  informed the Committee that 19 Members had not yet  made a legislative notification .2 
This notification was one of the important obligations of the Agreement on Safeguards 
("Agreement "). Members that did not yet have any legislation need only submit a simple "nil" 
notification . The Chair noted that Tonga  had submitted its nil notification  and commended its efforts . 
46.  The United States  noted that while an increasing number  of Members had notified their 
legislation , there still remain ed many Members which ha d not yet done so , as indic ated in footnote 
1 of the minutes of the November  2019 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 
 
2 These Members wer e: Antigua and Barbuda, Cabo Verde, Central African Republic, 
Democratic  Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Eswatini, Grenada, Guinea -Bissau, Mauritania, Mozambique, Niger, 
Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Solomon Islan ds, Tajikistan, 
Tanzania and Yemen.  G/SG/M/57  
- 12 - 
  SG legislation . The United States reiterated that the notification was simple if there was no legislation 
and encouraged Members who had not yet made their legislative notifications to review their 
situations and to make the applicable notification . The United States encouraged Members to think 
creatively how  to improve compliance with notification requirements . It noted that the Council for 
Trade in Goods ("CTG") continued to consider a proposal regarding enhancing transparency and 
strengthening notification requirements .3 A revised version of the proposal w as introduced at the 
June CTG meeting which now exempts least developed countrie s from administrative measures, 
provided they request technical assistance to meet their notification obligations.  What was revised 
included clarifications on how charges for late notifications would be calculated , and elimination o f 
special treatment for the notification referred to as "DS:1" in the Committee on Agriculture's 
Notification Requirements and Formats . The co -sponsors cont inued outreach efforts, and the 
United  States was willing to discuss this proposal bilaterally.  
47.  The Committee took note of the notifications, statements, questions and answers.  
3  NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RELATED TO SAFEGUARD MEASURES  
48.  China  expressed deep con cerns regarding the frequent use of safeguards  as a protectionist tool . 
Safeguards  were emergency measure s subject  to strict conditions  under the Agreement, and such 
conditions must be strictly abided . However, improper use of measures appear ed frequently . China 
urged all Members to avoid resorting to safeguard  measures unless the conditions under the WTO 
agreement were truly met . It was necessary to further clarify and improve the relevant rules on 
safeguard s. To this end, China propose d that t he Committee continue to enhance the monitoring 
functions , make necessary recommendations , and guide Members to achieve best practice.  
49.  Japan  noted that trade restrictive measures such as safeguards have recently been increasing . 
Due partly to the outbreak of the COVID -19 pandemic , Member s have been applying such measures . 
However, trade restrictive measures inconsistent with the WTO Agreements would only invoke 
retaliatory trade restrictive measures by other Members , and then would depress world trade . Such 
development s would harm both exporters and importers . Member s should avoid resorting to 
safeguard measure s unless the relevant prerequisites under the WTO Agreements  were met . The 
Committee needed to closely monitor the general implementation of this A greement . In particular, 
Japan was concerned about some countries ' recent failure to notify their measures or decisions to 
the WTO, which must be done "immediately ". 
50.  The Republic of Korea  ("Korea")  indicated concern s about the sharp increase in safeguard  
measures particularly in the steel sector . Korea noted that Members were reacting to safeguard  
measures taken by other countries, and as a result the number of countries taking such measures 
had grown rapidly . Many of the measures failed to meet the stringe nt procedural and substantive 
requirements set out in the Agreement . Given that steel was a vital input in the supply chain of 
various industries, such measures in the steel industry would significantly impact downstream 
producers . Korea requested Members to withdraw improper safeguard  measures and to exercise 
restraint in applying safeguard measures.  
51.  Australia  expressed concern s regarding the increased recourse to safeguard  measures by 
Members . Safeguard s were emergency actions subject to  strict conditions . These actions relate d to 
imports of fairly traded good s, and so disrupt ed trade and decreased market access . It welcomed 
those Members who notified termination of measures . Such notifications were particularly helpful 
and a transparent way to k eep Members apprised of the current situation of safeguard  measure s 
previously applied.  
52.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
3.1  Colombia – Sheets of Paperboard and Polyethylene  (G/SG/N/9/COL/6 ) 
53.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
 
3 JOB/CTG/14/Rev3 . G/SG/M/57  
- 13 - 
  3.2  Costa Rica – Refined White Sugar  
(G/SG/N/8/CRI/2/Rev.1  - G/SG/N/10/CR I/2/Rev.1  – G/SG/N/11/CRI/2/Rev.1 ) 
54.  Brazil  raised concern s regarding this investigation . In Brazil's understanding t here was no 
evidence of unforeseen developments . Besides, the s urge in imports did not seem to be significant 
enough . In addition, the investigating authority  itself concluded that there was no serious injury . 
The decision -making  authority,  however, chose to impose a measure on the basis of an alleged 
threat of serious injury , though such threat was not demonstrate d. Protectionist interests seemed 
to have prevailed over technical and objective assessments . Brazil held consultation s with Cost a Rica 
for the purpose of negotiating compensation pursuant to Article 8 of the Agreement . But such 
negotiation did not achieve a satisfactory outcome . Brazil therefore made a notification under 
Article  12.5 of the Agreement to reserve  its right to suspend  substantially equivalent concessions to 
the trade of Costa Rica . Brazil remained open to seeking a negotiat ed solution on this case.  
55.  Costa Rica  took note of the notification made by Brazil to the CTG regarding the suspension of 
concessions proposed under Article 8.2 of the Agreement. In this regard, and taking into 
consideration that the safeguard measure was imposed as a result of an absolute increase of imports, 
Costa Rica reminded Brazil to take this aspect into consideration and exercise its right to s uspend 
concessions in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in Article 8.3 of the Agreement . 
3.3  Costa Rica – Bars and Rods of Steel for Concrete Reinforcement  (G/SG/N/9/CR I/2) 
56.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
3.4  Ecuador – Smooth Ceramics  (G/SG/N/ 6/ECU/ 10 and G/SG/N/9/ECU/3 ) 
57.  Ecuador  explained that it decided not to apply  a safeguard measure . During the last few months, 
trade regarding smooth ceramics changed  significantly  due to the COVID -19 pandemic . There were 
significant reductions in the volume of imports . Had Ecuador  imposed the measure , it would have 
been counterproductive particularly for the construction  sector which was already suffering.  
3.5  Egypt – Raw Aluminium  (G/SG/N/6/EGY/15 ) 
58.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting . 
3.6  Egypt – Semi -finished Products of Iron or Non-Alloy Steel and Steel Rebar 
(G/L/1353  - G/SG/N/12/UKR/1 ) 
59.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting . 
3.7  Member States of the Eurasian Economic Union – Welded Tubes of Stainless Steel  
(G/SG/N/9/ARM/2  – G/SG/N/9/KGZ/2  – G/SG/N/9/KAZ/2  – G/SG/N/9/RUS/2 ) 
60.  There were no questions or comments raised at the meeting.  
3.8  European Union – Certain Steel Products  (G/SG/N/10/EU/1/Suppl. 8/Rev.1  – 
G/SG/N/11/EU/1/Suppl.5/Rev.1 ) 
61.  Japan  recognized that the second review, which came into effect on 1 July 2020, did not result 
in the reduction of tariff -rate quotas  ("TRQs")  which was requested by the industry  of the European 
Union . Adopting trade -restricti ve measures in response to other trade restrictive measures would 
depress global trade and harm both the exporters and importers . Japan requested that the European 
Union  terminate the safeguard  measure as soon as practicable.  
62.  Korea  expressed disappoint ment at the decision  of the European Union  to reduce the rate of 
liberalization from 5% to 3%. However, it welcomed the decision by the European Union  to maintain 
the current rate, rejecting demand s from the industry  for further reduction . Korea looked forward to 
the European Union  terminating this measure in June 2021 as scheduled . Korea also inquired about 
the effect of Brexit on the measure during the remainder of the period . Korea emphasised that the 
only possible modification of safeguard  measures was to reduce their restrictiveness . The 
European  Union  should not revise downwards the level of TRQs. If the European  Union  decide d to G/SG/M/57  
- 14 - 
  extend the scope of the steel safeguard  measure to impo rts from the United Kingdom , that decision 
should not  negatively impact third countries . Lastly, Korea appreciated the cooperation of the 
relevant  EU authorities regarding the issue of discrepancies between  the exporting country 's 
statistic s and the import statistics  of the European Union . 
63.  Switzerland  indicated continued concerns about the safeguard  measure  of the European Union . 
An escalation of safeguards  and other trade defence measures in the steel sector as well as other 
sectors should be avoided . Problems in the steel sector should be addressed multilaterally , for 
example, at the Global Forum on Steel Excess Capacity . Switzerland note d with satisfaction that the 
safeguard measure of the European Union  would  be terminated by the end of June 2021 and hoped 
it would not be extended.  
64.  China  reminded  that according to Article 8.1 of the Agreement, the European Union  needed to 
endeavour  to maintain a substantially equivalent level of concessions and other obligatio ns between 
it and the exporting Members , and that the Members concerned may agree on trade compensation . 
China asked the European Union  to terminate the steel safeguard measure on 30 June 2021, and 
not seek any extensions.  
65.  The Russian Federation  ("Russia")  expressed  its concerns regard ing the safeguard  measure  of 
the European Union . In November  2019 Russia  drew the attention of the Committee to the decreased 
liberalization rate following the first review and t he failure of the European Union  to effectively 
administer the measure, which exacerbated its restrictive effects . It was regret table that there was 
no subsequent effort from the European Union  to decrease the trade -restrictiveness of the measure . 
Despite numerous requests from Russian producers, the problems with administration of the 
measure were not eliminated . All quotas were administered on a quarterly basis, thus limiting the 
abilities of the exporters to timely satisfy the demand of their clients in the European Union . Access 
to residual quota volumes in the fourth quarter was limited, and even denied for some product 
categories . As it was clarified by  the panel in Argentina – Footwear , "the only modifications of 
safeguard measures that Article 7.4 contemplates are those that reduce its restrictiveness ." In 
Russia's  understanding, the modifications introduced by the European Union  do exactly the opposit e. 
Therefore, Russia called  on the European Union  to adhere to the WTO rules and to eliminate the 
elements of the measure that exacerbate d its trade -restrictiveness . Russia also  hoped that the 
European Union  would  not extend the application of the measure beyond 30 June 2021. 
66.  Regarding Brexit, the European Union  explained tha t it had  not yet taken any formal position 
on this matter . 
3.9  Member Countries of the GCC4 – Certain Steel Products  (G/SG/N/8/ARE/3  - 
G/SG/N/8/BHR/3  - G/SG/N/8/KWT/3  - G/SG/N/8/OMN/3  - G/SG/N/8/QAT/3  - 
G/SG/N/8/SAU/3 ) 
67.  Japan  stated that it was paying close attention to this investigation and  requested the GCC 
Member States to conduct the investigation in a WTO -consistent manner.  
68.  Switzerland  recalled that at the Committee meeting of November  2019, it raised questions 
regarding the initiation of 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 
development s in this matter and expected that all decision s taken by the GCC would be consistent 
with the disciplines.  
69.  Korea  requested the GCC Member States to terminate this investigation . 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 d id not constitute unforeseen development s. 
Second, the investigating authority had not fully established a genuine and substantial caus al link 
between increase in steel imports and injury.  
70.  Ukraine  raised concern s about this investigation . This 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 
 
4 Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf.  G/SG/M/57  
- 15 - 
  be analysed separately for each of the product s concerned . Ukraine sought clarification as to whether 
sufficient analys is was conducted regarding each of t he product s and asked the GCC members to 
provide such information to the interested parties . Ukraine also considered that  the conclusion s 
regarding recent, sudden , sharp  and significant increase  of imports were biased . In fact, there was 
a decrease in imports of the steel products . The preliminary determination was inconsistent with the 
Agreement . Ukraine urged the GCC member  states to terminate this investigation.  
3.10  Guatemala – Flat-Rolled Products of Other Alloy Steel  (G/SG/N/ 9/GTM/1 ) 
71.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
3.11  India – Solar Cells  (G/SG/N/ 8/IND/31/Suppl.4  – G/SG/N/ 10/IND/22/Suppl.3  – 
G/SG/N/11/IND/17/Suppl.4 ) 
72.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
3.12  India – Phenol  (G/SG/N/ 9/IND/ 17) 
73.  Japan  stated that i t welcomed India's decision to terminate the investigation without imposing  
any measure.  
3.13  India – Single Mode Optical Fibre  (G/SG/N/8/IND/32  – G/SG/N/10/IND/23  – 
G/SG/N/11/IND/18 ) 
74.  India explained that this investigat ion was initiated in September  2019. The investigating 
authority proposed the imposition of a provisional  measure, but it was not imposed . The investigating 
authority issued its final findings on 2 1 August  2020. The requirements for imposing a safeguard  
measure were met. First, the effects of unforeseen developments had been duly established . Second, 
the volume of imports of the product  under  consideration increased significantly during the period 
of investigation . Lastly, t he domestic industry market share had declined  whereas  the market share 
of imports had increased . India was of the view that there was a  significant price underselling and 
price suppression  due to imports of the product under consideration . Overall, the domestic industry 
had suffered serious injury during the  period under  investigation  due to increased imports . The 
measure would be come  applicable only after the issuance of the customs notification by the 
government of India.  
75.  Japan  regretted the finding of serious injury . Japan pointed out India 's belated notification after 
3 weeks from the final findings . India ha d not notified the decision, so Japan was unsure  when the 
measure would be imposed . Adopting import -restrictive measures in response to other trade 
restrictive measures would depress the g lobal trade and harm both exporters and importers . Japan 
request ed India to terminate the safeguard measure as soon as practicable.  
3.14  India – Isopropyl Alcohol  (G/SG/N/6/IND/47 ) 
76.  India stated that the investigation was still ongoing.  
3.15  Indonesia – Ceramic Flags  and Paving, Hearth or Wall Tiles  
(G/SG/N/11/ID N/17/Suppl.1 ) 
77.  There were no questions or comments raised at this meeting.  
3.16  Indonesia – Fabrics  (G/SG/N/8/IDN/23  – G/SG/N/ 10/IDN/ 23) 
78.  There were no questions or comments raised at this meeting.  
3.17  Indonesia – Curtains  (G/SG/N/10/IDN/24/Suppl.1  – 
G/SG/N/11/IDN/20/Suppl.2 ) 
79.  There were no comments or questions raised at this meeting . G/SG/M/57  
- 16 - 
  3.18  Indonesia – Yarn  (G/SG/N/ 10/IDN/ 25/Suppl.1  – G/SG/N/11/IDN/19/Suppl.2 ) 
80.  There were no questions or comments raised at this meeting.  
3.19  Indonesia – Carpets and Other Textile Floor Coverings  
(G/SG/N/8/IDN/27 - G/SG/N/10/27, G/SG/N/8/IDN/27/Corr.1 – 
G/SG/N/10/IDN/27/Corr.1 , G/SG/250 ) 
81.  Japan  regretted the finding of serious injury and the proposed safeguard  measure . According to  
the most recent notification, the additional safeguard  duty would amount to more tha n 150% 
ad valorem , per unit price ( Rp/m2). Japan requested consultations for compensation with Indonesia 
pursuant to Article 12.3 of the Agreement . Japan asked Indonesia to proceed cautiously observing 
the Agreement . 
82.  Indonesia  confirmed that it receive d the request for consultation s from Japan , but that request 
arrived past the deadline . Indonesia would take into account Japan concerns, nonetheless.  
83.  Japan  looked forward to  the response to its request . Japan pointed out that Indonesia submitted 
a second notification correct ing the safeguard  duty. In this context, Japan believe d that its  
notification was early enough.  
84.  Indonesia  took note of Japan's comments . 
3.20  Indonesia – Evaporators  (G/SG/N/10/IDN/22/Suppl.1  – G/SG/N/11/IDN/22 ) 
85.  There were no comments or questions raised in the meeting.  
3.21  Indonesia – Fructose Syrop  (G/SG/N/8/IDN/26  – G/SG/N/10/IDN/26  
86.  There were no comments or questions raised in the meeting  
3.22  Indonesia – Articles of Apparel and Clothing Accessories  (G/SG/N/ 6/IDN/36 ) 
87.  The European Union  recalled that a safeguard  measure is the most restrictive trade remed y, 
and thus should be used only in exceptional circumstances . In the p resent case, Indonesia was using 
safeguards to address a situation stemming from imports originating from one or two countries . 
Other instrument s would have been more appropriate.  
88.  Indonesia  took note of the  concerns  of the European Union . 
3.23  Jordan – Potato Chips  (G/SG/N/ 9/JOR/1 0) 
89.  There were no comments or questions raised in the meeting.  
3.24  Madagascar – Lubricating Oils  (G/SG/N/ 10/MDG/ 6 – G/SG/N/11/MDG/6/Suppl.2 , 
G/SG/249 ) 
90.  Responding to the request for consultation by Egypt, Madagascar  stated that the consultation 
would be he ld on 1 0 November  2020 via videoconference . Madagascar understood that that 
consultation would also cover soap.  
3.25  Madagascar – Soap  (G/SG/N/ 8/MDG/ 6) 
91.  There were no comments or questions raised in the meeting.  
3.26  Madagascar – Edible Vegetable Oils and Margarines  (G/SG/N/ 10/MDG/ 5 – 
G/SG/N/11/MDG/7/Suppl.2 , G/SG/248 ) 
92.  Respond ing to the request for consultation by Egypt , Madagascar  stated that the consultation 
would be held on 9 November  2020 via videoconference . Madagascar took this opportunity to explain G/SG/M/57  
- 17 - 
  that Indonesia had also requested consultation regarding certain investigations, and that 
Madagascar agreed to hold these consultations on 1 0 November  2020. 
3.27  Madagascar – Pasta (2)  (G/SG/N/8/MDG/4  ‒ G/SG/N/10/MDG/4  ‒ 
G/SG/N/11/MDG/4/Suppl.1 ) 
93.  The Chair noted that Mauritius had submitted written questions  relating to this agenda item . 
Those questions were contained in document G/SG/Q2/MDG/3  and G/SG/Q2/MDG/4 . 
94.  Mauritius  stated that on 2 3 October  2020 it received responses to the questions, and that it was 
reviewing the responses . Mauritius reiterate d some of its concerns raised during the Committee 
meetings held in April and October  2019. The first  related to the need for any safeguard  measure or 
action to be taken in strict compliance with established procedures and in accordance with WTO 
Agreements . The second  related to the crucial importance of transparency and timely notification . 
The rational e for imposing  the duty and the method used to calculate the q uota, as well as the 
determination of serious injury, causal link and unforeseen development remain ed unclear . While 
Mauritius understood that Madagascar's local industry may had been impacted, Mauritius ' local 
industry had also been disproportionately aff ected by the safeguard  measure . Mauritius was pleased 
to note that Madagascar ha d agreed to hold  a bilateral meeting on 6 November  2020. Mauritius 
hoped to reach a balance outcome for both countries during  the meeting . 
95.  Madagascar  explained it had recently submitted respon ses to the questions posed by Mauritius .5 
Madagascar believed that the responses were clear. The decision in question was taken after 
consultation s which took place in Madagascar in the presence of the Ambassador of Mauritius to 
Madagascar as well as other Ministers . Madagascar sufficiently discussed the matter . Further 
bilateral consultations with Mauritius would take place on 6 November  2020. Madagascar was willing 
to continue discussions to find a solution.  
3.28  Malaysia  – Ceramic Floor and Wall Tiles  (G/SG/N/ 6/MYS/6) 
96.  Japan  indicated that it was paying close attention to th is investigation , and that it submitted an 
opinion letter to the Malaysian Minister. Japan request ed Malaysia  to conduct the investigation 
carefully.  
97.  Malaysia  stated that the imports caused serious inju ry to the domestic industry . Malaysia was 
still considering the feedback from the interested parties . The deadline for submission of views by 
interested parties was 13 October  2020 but  due to COVID -19, it was  extended to 2 3 October  2020. 
Malaysia had also received several requests  from exporting countries invoking Article 9 of the 
Agreement . Malaysia intended t o make a preliminary determination by 1 1 January  2021 and then 
make a final determination by 30 July 2021. Malaysia a ssure d the investigation would  be conducted 
in accordance with the Agreement.  
3.29  Morocco – Welded Tubes and Pipes of Iron or Steel  
(G/SG/N/ 8/MAR/ 8 - G/SG/N/ 10/MAR/ 8 - G/SG/N/11/MAR/8/Suppl.1 ) 
98.  The European Union  regretted that Morocco chose to impose the measure . Increase of imports 
did not satisfy the conditions required by the Agreement,  domestic industry was not seriously injured 
by the imports, and there was no causal link . The measure  was not justified . Even if a measure was 
warranted, TRQs imposed on imports beyond traditional trade flow would have been more adequate.  
3.30  Morocco – Hot Rolled Sheets  (G/SG/N/8/MAR/ 7 – 
G/SG/N/10/MAR/ 7 - G/SG/N/11/MAR/7/Suppl.1 ) 
99.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
3.31  Morocco – Wire Rods and Reinforcing Bars  (G/SG/Q2/MAR/3 ) 
100.  The Chair  noted that Ukraine had submitted written questions relating to this investigation.  
 
5 Subsequently circulated as G/SG/Q2/MDG/5 . G/SG/M/57  
- 18 - 
  101.  Morocco did not take the floor . 
3.32  Morocco – Cold-Rolled Sheets in Coils or Cut, and Plated or Coated Sheets  
(G/SG/N/ 11/MAR/4/Suppl.4 , G/SG/Q2/MAR/3 ) 
102.  The Chair  noted that Ukra ine had submitted written questions relating to this investigation.  
103.  Morocco did not take the floor.  
3.33  Panama – Meat of Swine  (G/SG/N/ 9/PAN/ 1) 
104.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
3.34  Philippines – Float Glass  (G/SG/N/7/PHL/11/Suppl.1  - 
G/SG/N/8/PHL/12/Suppl.1  - G/SG/N/11/PHL/13/Suppl.1 ) 
105.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
3.35  Philippines – Galvanized Iron Sheets, Coils and Strips  (G/SG/N/6/PHL/18 ) 
106.  Japan  comment ed on the investigation s taken up i n this agenda item  and in item 3.37. Japan 
paid close attention to the se investigations, and it requested the Philippines to ensure that these 
investigations were conducted consisten tly with the Agreement.  
107.  The Philippines  took note of the comments.  
3.36  Philippines – Prepainted Galvanized Iron and Prepainted Aluminum Zinc  
(G/SG/N/6/PHL/17 ) 
108.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
3.37  Philippines – Aluminum Zinc  (GL) Sheets, Coils and Strip  (G/SG/N/6/PHL/16 ) 
109.  There were no comments or questions raised under this agenda item . 
3.38  Philippines – Cement  (G/L/1347  – G/SG/227 ) 
110.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
3.39  Philippines – Ceramic Floor and Wall Tiles  (G/SG/N/9/PHL/4 ) 
111.  There were no comments or questio ns raised at the meeting.  
3.40  Philippines – Motor Vehicles  (G/SG/N/6/PHL/ 15) 
112.  Japan  indicated that it was paying close attention to this investigation, and requested the 
Philippines to ensure that the investigation was conducted consisten tly with the Agreement.  
113.  The Philippines  stated that it would convey the message to its capital.  
3.41  Philippines – High -Density Polyeth ylene and Linear Low -Density Polyethylene 
Pellets and Granules  (G/SG/N/6/PHL/19 ) 
114.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
3.42  South Africa – Certain Flat -Rolled Products of Iron, Non -Alloy Steel or Other Alloy 
Steel  (G/SG/N/6/ZAF/4/Suppl.1 ) 
115.  Japan stated  that after the notification of extension investigation o n 31 July 2020, S outh Africa 
announced , only domestically , to extend the safeguard  measure  for one year until 1 0 August  2021, G/SG/M/57  
- 19 - 
  without any explanation . South Africa did not provide adequate opportunity for prior consultations 
with exporting Members and there was no notification of the decision to extend the measure until 
now. Japan understood that the investigati ng authority had not yet made its final determination . 
Japan requested  South Africa to explain how to justify the situation . There were no provisions 
regarding provisional extension of the measure in the Agreement . South Africa seemingly violat ed 
the Agreement . Japan also asked South Africa to exclude imported products which d o not compete 
with South African domestic products due to the differen ce in price and usage.  
116.  The European Union  noted that the domestic industry had asked for a further protection of 
6 years . If the authorities agreed, that would mean that this measure would be in place for the 
maximum period allowed for developing countries.  Extension of safeguard  measures should be 
assessed  carefully , making sure that the time period was not abused,  and that the liberalisation 
scheme was fully respected.  
117.  The delegation of South Africa did not take the floor.  
3.43  South Africa – U, I, H, L and T Sections of Iron or Non -Alloy Steel  (G/SG/N/6/ZAF/9 ) 
118.  Korea  requested South Africa to terminate the investigation since the requirements in the 
Agreement  were not  met. Korea requested South Africa to fully abide by the  Agreement.  
119.  The delegation of South Africa did not take the floor.  
3.44  South Africa – Bolts with Hexagon Heads of Iron or Steel  (G/SG/N/6/ZAF/8 , 
G/SG/N/7/ZAF/5  - G/SG/N/11/ZAF/7 , G/SG/N/7/ZAF/5/Corr.1  – 
G/SG/N/11/ZAF/7Corr.1 ) 
120.  Chinese Taipei  pointed out that South Africa initiated this investigation on 15 May 2020 and 
asked interested parties to submit comments . Chinese Taipei had expressed concerns . According to 
South Africa's  Safeguards  Regulation s, the International Trade Administration Commission ("ITAC") 
shall notify and provide non -confidential application documents to the representative offices of the 
affected exporting country within 7 days after the initiation of the investigation . Chinese Taipei's 
office in South Africa, however, did not receive the relevant information within 7 days . It was only 
after receiving the WTO notification on the 2 5 May 2020 - 10 days after the investigation had been 
initiated  - that Chinese Taipei became aware of the investigation case . As a consequence, 
Chinese  Taipei's rights and ability to prepare written opinions within the allotted timescale  were 
seriously affected . Chinese Taipei's office in South Africa proceeded to apply for an extension of the 
deadline for written submissions, which was rejected by the ITAC . Chinese Taipei did not understand 
how this notification procedure was consistent with Article 3.1 of the Agreement . Finally, 
Chinese  Taipei  noted that in document G/SG/N/6/ZAF/8 , the period of investigation for injury was 
indicated as  from 1 July 2016 to 3 0 June 2019. However, in the Department of Trade and Industry 's 
Notice , the investigation was from 1  July 2015 to 3 0 June 2019. Chinese Taipei  asked for 
clarification.  
121.  The delegation of South Africa did not take the floor.  
3.45  South Africa – Threaded Fasteners of Iron or Steel  
(G/SG/N/ 8/ZAF/ 6/Suppl.1  - G/SG/N/1 0/ZAF/5 /Suppl.1  – G/SG/N/11/ZAF /5/Suppl.2 , 
G/SG/N/8/ZAF/6  – G/SG/N/10/ZAF/5  – G/SG/N/11/ZAF/5/Suppl.1 ) 
122.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
3.46  Thailand – Aluminium Foil  (G/SG/N/6/THA/6 ) 
123.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  G/SG/M/57  
- 20 - 
  3.47  Thailand – Non-Alloy Hot Rolled Steel Flat Products in Coils and not in Coils  
(G/SG/N/6/THA/4/Suppl.4  – G/SG/N/14/THA/3/Suppl.3 , G/SG/N/6/THA/4/Suppl.3  – 
G/SG/N/14/THA/3/Suppl.2 , G/SG/N/6/THA/4/Suppl.2  – G/SG/N/14/THA/3/Suppl.1 ) 
124.  Japan  recalled that it had repeatedly raised concerns regarding the negative impact of the 
measure not only on exporters but also on Thailand 's domestic steel users . Japan welcome d 
Thailand's decision to terminate this measure with no extension.  
3.48  Turkey – Polyethylene Terephthalate Chips  (G/SG/N/6/TUR/27 ) 
125.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
3.49  Turkey – Toothbrushes  (G/SG/N/ 6/TUR/ 23/Suppl.1  - G/SG/N/14/TUR/11 ) 
126.  The European Union  stated that it had submitted comments  on this matter on several 
occasions . The Turkish domestic industry had clearly benefited from the imposition of the safeguard  
measure, as shown by the positive development of several economic indicators . The measure had 
been effective, and the domestic industry had recovered . There was no need to extend the measure . 
Toothbrushes were product s used in everyday use . If the measure were to be  extended, consumers 
would continue to pay higher prices . In particular, premium toothbrushes were not produced by the 
Turkish industry, and thus did not cause any injury . The European Union  was of the view that 
premium toothbrushes should be excluded from the product scope.  
127.  Turkey  explained that the review invest igation was still ongoing.  
3.50  Turkey – Staple Fibres of Polyesters, not Carded, Combed or otherwise Processed  
(G/SG/N/6/TUR/26 ) 
128.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
3.51  Turkey – Yarns of Nylon or other Polyamides  (G/L/1351  – G/SG/229 ) 
129.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
3.52  Ukraine – Certain Nitrogen Fertilizers  (G/SG/N/ 8/UKR/ 8/Suppl.1  – 
G/SG/N/10/UKR/8/Suppl.1  – G/SG/N/11/UKR/6/Suppl.1 ; G/SG/N/8/UKR/8  – 
G/SG/N/10/UKR/8  – G/SG/N/11/UKR/6 , G/SG/241 , G/SG/239 ) 
130.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
3.53  Ukraine – Complex Fertilizers  (G/SG/N/ 8/UKR/ 7/Suppl.1  – 
G/SG/N/10/UKR/7/Suppl.1  – G/SG/N/11/UKR/ 5/Suppl.1 , G/SG/N/8/UKR/7  - 
G/SG/N/10/UKR/7  – G/SG/N/11/UKR/5 , G/SG/240 , G/SG/238 ) 
131.  There were no comm ents or questions raised at the meeting.  
3.54  Ukraine – Fresh Cut Roses  (G/SG/N/6/UKR/18 , G/SG/Q2/UKR/6 , 
G/SG/Q2/UKR/6/Corr.1 ) 
132.  The Chair  noted that Ecuador had submitted written questions relating to this investigation . 
The questions were contained in document G/SG/Q2/UKR/6  and its corrigendum.  
133.  Ecuador  stated that fresh cut roses were very important export products for Ecuador , and so 
it hoped to receive the replies to its  questions , contained in document G/Q2/UKR/6 , as soon as 
possible.  
134.  Ukraine  explained that t he investigation was initiated pursuant to the petition of the domestic 
industry , and t he petition contained all necessary elements to initiate the investigation . Ukraine 
already provided an opportunity for exporter s, importers and foreign governments to register as  
interested part ies. All interested parties had access to the non -confidential petition of the domestic G/SG/M/57  
- 21 - 
  industry . Furthermore, Ukraine was planning to hold a public hearing . Unfortunately, due to the 
restrictions related  to the pandemic, this hearing could take place only in written form . Ukraine 
stated that it remained  unbiased and objective  during the examination o f all relevant factors , and 
that the investigation was being conducted in full compliance with the Agreement . Ukraine would  
provid e written  answers to Ecuador in due course.  
135.  Ecuador  asked when the public hearing would take place.  
136.  Ukraine  stated that it would inform all interested parties of the date of the public hearing.  
3.55  Ukraine – Polymeric Materials  (G/SG/N/ 7/UKR/ 2 – G/SG/N/11/UKR/7 , 
G/SG/N/6/UKR/17 ) 
137.  The European Union  welcomed the fact that several safeguards  investigations initiated by  
Ukraine had been terminated without imposition of measures . Regarding this investigation, the 
European Union  regretted that Ukraine did not take into account the arguments presented and 
decided to impose an unwarranted measure . The European Union  was of t he view that there was no 
sharp or significant increase of imports . Moreover, the domestic industry was not facing a threat of 
serious injury or suffering serious injury . If there was any injury it was due to other factors such as 
overinvestment and increased costs related to wages and employment . Additionally, the re was no 
causal link . The European Union  noted that Ukrainian authorities had narrowed the product scope of 
the investigation . However, the European Union  remained concer ned about the measure.  
138.  Ukraine  explained that it imposed the provisional safeguard  measure  due to the critical 
circumstances where delay would cause damage which would be difficult to repair , as defined by the 
Agreement . The Ukrainian authority determined that the imports caused serious injury to the 
domestic industry . Ukraine would take a final decision in full compliance with WTO rules.  
139.  The European Union  stated that it was difficult to hear the statement made by Ukraine through 
Interprefy.  
3.56  Ukraine – Caus tic Soda  (G/SG/N/6/UKR/16 , G/SG/9/UKR/8 ) 
140.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
3.57  Ukraine – Syringes  (G/SG/N/6/UKR/15 , G/SG/N/9/UKR/7 ) 
141.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
3.58  Ukraine – Sulfuric Acid and Oleum  (G/SG/N/8/UKR/6/Suppl.1  – 
G/SG/N/10/UKR/6/Suppl.1  – G/SG/N/11/UKR/4/Suppl.1 ) 
142.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
3.59  Ukraine – Wires  (G/SG/N/6/UKR/19 , G/SG/N/6/UKR/19/Corr.1 ) 
143.  The European Union  regretted the fact that Ukraine initiate d this investigation . The petition 
did not seem to demonstrate surge in imports . Moreover, the p etitioner did not seem to have 
suffered serious injury  cause d by the surge in imports . Any difficulties experienced by the domestic 
industry  were m ost likely caused by other factors and thus the causation criterion was not fulfilled . 
The European Union  trusted that no unwarranted safeguard  measure would  be imposed.  
144.  Ukraine  stated that all interested parties had an opportunity to present relevant evidence, to 
participate in a public hearing , to submit comments  and to respond to the presentation of other 
parties . The petition of interested parties would  be taken into account  in making a f inal decision . 
Ukraine  believed that it was acting in full compliance with WTO rules.  
145.  Switzerland  stated that it had difficulty hearing Ukraine's statement, which may be due to 
internet connection problems . Switzerland asked Ukraine to provide its statemen t in writing.  G/SG/M/57  
- 22 - 
  3.60  United Kingdom – Certain Steel Products  (G/SG/N/6/GBR/1 ) 
146.  Japan  pointed out that WTO agreements did not have rules on how to treat trade remedy 
measures of a Member leaving a customs union.  Japan regretted the initiation of the review without 
close examination o f serious injury to the UK domestic industry . Japan requested the United Kingdom  
to terminate the measure as soon as practicable.  
147.  Russia  expressed its concerns regarding the decision of the United Kingdom  to initiate the 
transiti on review . The procedure of this review raise d a number of questions, and  the possible 
application of the  measure in the United Kingdom  raised serious doubts regarding its 
WTO-consistency . First, Russia  failed to see where  the UK authorities  found  evidence of increased 
imports of the subject product to the United Kingdom . Russia did  not find any separate analysis of 
imports into the United Kingdom  in the relevant regulations of the European Union . Neither did 
Russia  find such analysis regarding serious injury to the industry  of the United Kingdom . Besides, 
Russia  did not understand how the United Kingdom  calculated the quarterly volume of TRQs. Second, 
the notification stated that the transition review  was initiated on 1 October  2020 and would  be 
completed by 3 0 June 2021. The la tter date was the date when the safeguard  measure of the 
European Union  on steel products was expected to expire . Russia was  unaware of any plans of the 
European Union  to extend it. It should also be noted that there were no consultations with the United 
Kingdom  under Article 12.3 of the Agreement, and the ways to achieve the objective set out in 
Article 8.1 of the Agreement  had not been discussed . Russia asked whether the United  Kingd om 
intend ed to hold such consultations . Furthermore, in case the measure is applied in the United 
Kingdom  after 3 0 June 2021, Members would not be bound by the requirement of Article  8.3 of the 
Agreement on Safeguards to abstain from suspension of concessi ons or other obligations, since by 
that time three years of application of the measure in the United Kingdom  would have passed . Russia 
asked the United Kingdom  to abstain from applying the measure . 
148.  Turkey  recalled that the United Kingdom  was imposing a safeguard  measure since 2019  as a 
Member of the European Union . Turkey understood that t he United Kingdom  would now continu e to 
apply the measure even after 31 December  2020. However, the United Kingdom  did not individually 
examine the relevant criteria pertinent to the United Kingdom . Continuation of the measure after 
Brexit would not be compatible with WTO obligations . Turkey stated that this measure should be 
terminated after  31 December  2020. 
149.  Switzerland  took note of the initiation of the transition rev iew. The United Kingdom  made this 
notification on 8 October  2020. Separately, the United Kingdom  published on 3 0 September  2020 a 
notice of determination indicating that it would  continue to apply or "transition " the measure from 
1 January  2021. Switzerland understood that t he United Kingdom  had not yet notified the application 
of that measure . That was the reason why Switzerland  requested  item 5 , to be discussed later . In 
Switzerland 's view, such "transitioning " - that is , the application of the safeguard  measure by the 
United Kingdom  from 1 January  2021 - was subject to the substantive and procedural requirements 
that were applicable to new safeguard  measures pursuant to the Agreement . Regarding the initiation 
of a "transition review process ", Switzerland note d that the notification clarified that the investigation 
period would  be the same as the period considered by the European Union , and that the investigating 
authority would  investigate whether imports in increased quantities, and serious injur y, would recur 
if the safeguard  measure  was removed . Thus, Switzerland's  understanding was that the transition 
review would  focus on the impact of a removal of the safeguard  measure rather than on the material 
requirements for the imposition of a safeguard  measure . Switzerland  request ed the United Kingdom  
to provide certain clarifications : (1) In the notification , the United Kingdom  stated that the 
investigating authority was expected to conclude the review  by 30 June 2021. How was this timeline 
linked to the fact that the end of the safeguard  measure of the European Union  was end of 
June 2021? (2) What was the relation  between the period of investigation (2013 – 2017) and the 
most recent period (2018 to June 2020)? How can data concerning the most recent period inform 
the safeguard  measure already imposed based on the imports of 2015 – 2017? (3) When did the 
United  Kingdom  plan to inform the interested parties about the conclusions of the review , and w hen 
would the United Kingdom  notify its decision to the WTO ? and (4) How can the application of a 
safeguarding amount instead of a TRQ be understood ? Switzerland would  continue to m onitor th is 
measure closely and looked forward to the  United Kingdom  providing the requested information.  
150.  Korea  asked the United Kingdom  to clarify the legal basis in the WTO Agreement s on which 
the United Kingdom  relied to maintain  the steel safeguard  measure  of the European Union  after 
1 January  2021, especially in the absence of any investigation regarding imports into the G/SG/M/57  
- 23 - 
  United  Kingdom  and the situation of the industry  of the United Kingdom . The United Kingdom  could 
not maintain the steel safeguard  measure  of the European Union  without first conducting an 
investigation  to determine that the criteria to impose  a safeguard  measure were met  for the 
United  Kingdom . Decision by the United Kingdom  to maintain the steel safeguard  measure without 
conducting its own investigation  would violate the Agreement and the GATT  1994. Korea also asked 
the United Kingdom  to clarify the legal basis of the notified review . The review constitute d an initial 
safeguards  investigation  for the Unite d Kingdom , and thus the relevant criteria must be determined 
in this review . Additionally, if the United Kingdom  wished  to maintain the measure , it was necessary 
to conclude the transition review before the end of 2020. If the position of the United Kingdo m was 
that its measure was a continuation of the measure  of the European Union , Korea considered  that 
the suspension of substantially equivalent concession  to the trade of the European Union  which 
Korea notified  in document G/L/1306  – G/SG/N/12/KOR/4  should also be applied to the 
United  Kingdom . The United Kingdom  was not justified to maintain the steel safeguard  measure 
after the end of the transition period without first conducting its own safeguard  investigation . 
151.  China  stated that in accordance with the Agreement, the investigating authority should carry 
out the investigation to determine whether the increased quantities of the import s had caused or 
threaten ed to cause serious injury to its domestic industries . Safeguard measures can only be 
implemented when the investigation has made positive findings . And in such case, the safeguard 
measures still shall not exceed the extent necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury and to 
facilitate adjustment . However, up to this point, the United Kingdom  had not initiated nor completed 
any investigation to determine whether the increased imports ha d caused or threaten ed to cause 
serious injury to its domestic steel industry . Nor did it evaluate whether applying the existing 
safeguard  measure  of the European Union  in the United Kingdom  would meet other requirement s. 
It seem ed unlikely that such investigation required by the Agreement could  be completed before the 
transition period . Therefore, the continued application of  the safeguard measure of the 
European  Union  after the transition period would be inconsistent with  the Agreement . When the 
transition period ends, the United Kingdom  should immediately stop applying the steel safeguard  
measure  of the European Union  in the market  of the United Kingdom . 
152.  The United Kingdom  explained that it was committed to ensuring continuity before and after 
its withdrawal  from the European Union . That was why the United Kingdom  would  transition the 
relevant trade remedy measures , including this safeguard  measure . Specifically, the safeguard  
measure  on 19 of the  26 product categor ies would be transitioned . In order to ensure that the 
transition ed safeguard  measure was specific for the market  of the United Kingdom , the Department 
for International Trade calculated the UK -specific  TRQs. These were calculated using the same 
methodology that was used in the initial calculation of the measure  of the European Union , based 
on historic trade flow data specific to the UK market  of the United Kingdom . The UK -specific TRQs 
would  come into effect on 31 December  2020. On 1 October  2020, t he United Kingdom  initiated a 
transition review to  ensure that the TRQs fully reflect ed the market situation  of the United  Kingdom . 
The United  Kingdom  would  examine whether the TRQs should be varied, extended or revoked . 
Exporters and foreign governments would  be provided an opportunity to engage in the review 
process . Regarding  Russia 's question  about consultations , if the transition review determine d that 
the measure should be extended, then  Article 12.3 negotiations would  be required . Regarding 
Switzerland's point about the notice of the continuation or extension of the measure,  the 
Trade Remedies Investigation s Directorate  intend ed to publish its final determination in May 2021 
to allow Ministers  enough time to make  a final decision . The United Kingdom  noted that there was 
a separate agenda  item on this issue.  
3.61  United States – Crystallin e Silicon Photovoltaic Cells  (G/SG/N/10/USA/7/Suppl.11 , 
G/SG/N/10/USA/7/Suppl.10 , G/SG/N/10/USA/7/Suppl.9 , 
G/SG/N/10/USA/7/Suppl.8 , G/SG/N/10/USA/7/Suppl.7 ) 
153.  China  recalled that it had repeatedly stated that the US measure  was inconsistent with the 
relevant provisions of the Agreement and the GATT 1994 . China still maintain ed the right to suspend 
substantially equivalent concessions or other obligations pursuant to relevant provisions of the 
WTO Agreements . China noted that the Presidential P roclamation dated 1 0 October  2020 indicated 
that the United States  would adjust the duty rate of the safeguard  tariff for the fourth year to 18 %, 
while in the original determination the rate was to be lowered to 15 %. The Proclamation also referred  
to the terminating  of exclusion of bifacial panels from the measure . China wished to make two points : 
(1) Since June 2019, the United States  reversed six times its determination regarding the exclusion 
of bifacial panels . Such development never happened in the history of safeguard measures imposed G/SG/M/57  
- 24 - 
  by WTO Members . Such frequent reversal would impair international trade order and reasonable 
expectation . (2) Can the US clarify w hether it was necessary to raise the overall duty rate  of the 
safeguard measure  when only the imports of bifacial panels  increased ? 
154.  The United States  stated that the  matter of exclusion of bifacial solar panels was currently 
subject to domestic litigation , and therefore any other comment on this issue would be inappropriate.  
3.62  United States – Fresh, Chilled, or Frozen Blueberries  (G/SG/N/6/USA/13 ) 
155.  Chile expressed concerns regarding the initiation of this investigation . This investigation 
affected 1,400 Chilean  blueberry  growers . Chile also n oted that the investigation was self -initiated 
by USTR , and not by the US industry . Chile's harvest seasons were exactly the opposite to those in 
the United States . Chile's blueberries help ed assure a year-round  supply to the US consumers . In 
Chile's view, the notification lacked information to justify an initiation of the investigation . There was 
no indica tion of unforeseen developments . Moreover, there was no evidence of serious injury . The 
initiation was not based on critical circumstances . Unlike antidumping or countervailing  duty 
investigations, safeguard was an instrument to be used only in emergency situations . Chile asked 
the United States to proceed with special care and to abide strictly by WTO rules.  
156.  After emphasis ing the importance of strategic partner ship with the United States , Peru stated 
that it was concerned about this investigation . Blueberries were one of the main export products  of 
Peru, which generate d substantive amount of employment in Peru particularly for wome n, and also 
contributed to improving the standards of living of the disadvantage d rural population . Peru trusted 
that the investigation would  be carried out in strict compliance with the multilateral framework . 
157.  The United States  explained that the investigation had just begun, and encouraged  Members 
to submit their questions and comments  to the U.S. International Trade Commission . 
3.63  Viet Nam – Certain Semi -Finished and Finished Products of Alloy and Non -Alloy Steel  
(G/SG/N/8/VNM/3/Suppl. 3 - G/SG/N/10/VNM/2/Suppl. 2 - G/SG/N/11/VNM/4/Suppl.3 ) 
158.  Japan  stated that this was an anti-circumvention measure . It was unclear on what ground s the 
measure had been applied . Although there was no direct textual basis in the WTO Agreement for 
anti-circumvention, it had been discussed in the field of antidumping . Circumvention was generally 
considered to be a business behavior to escape from the antidumping  duties . Accordingly, a new 
safeguard  investigation or review of the product scope of the origi nal safeguard  investigation should 
be conducted, to cover the products out of the scope of the original safeguard  measure.  
159.  Viet Nam  believed  that the measure was consistent with WTO rules . However, Viet Nam took 
note of the statement made by Japan and stated that it would convey the message to the capital for 
further consideration . 
3.64  Viet Nam – Certain Fertilizers or Diammonium Phosphate and Monoammonium 
Phosphate (Mineral or Chemical Fertilizers)  (G/SG/N/8/VNM/6/Suppl.2  – 
G/SG/N/10/VNM/5/Suppl.1  – G/SG/N/11/ VNM/7/Suppl.2 ) 
160.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
161.  The Chair reminded delegations that any questions concerning the notifications of actions 
taken, for which written responses were requested, should be submitted to the Member concerned 
and to the Secretariat no later than 1 6 November  2020. Written answers must be submitted to the 
Secretariat no later than 7 December  2020. The latter includes Members, if any, who have not yet 
submitt ed written responses to the questions submitted in writing prior to this meeting . As with the 
legislative notifications, the Chair  asked the Committee Secretary to indicate in the draft annotated 
agenda of the subsequent Committee meeting if there were any  questions left unanswered.  
162.  The Committee took note of the notifications, statements, questions and answers.  G/SG/M/57  
- 25 - 
  4  US MEASURES ON STEEL AND ALUMINUM (ITEM REQUESTED BY INDIA, JAPAN, THE 
EUROPEAN UNION AND TURKEY)  
163.  India referred to the US Presidential Proclamatio n of 24 January  2020 stating that steel and 
aluminum derivative s would be subject to tariff increase . India considered that such tariff increase 
was an extension of the earlier safeguard measure imposed by the United States in 2018 . Therefore, 
on 3 April 2020, India sought to exercise its rights to consult with the United States in accordance 
with Article 12.3 and Article 8.1 of the Agreement . However, India did not receive any reply from 
the United States . India was of the view that these were safeguard me asures . Accordingly, by not 
holding consultations, the United States was violating the Agreement.  
164.  China  echoed the concerns expressed by India and agreed that the US measures were 
safeguard measures . These measures had to be consistent with the Agreement . China urged the 
United States to terminate the measures as soon as possible . Furthermore, China took this 
opportunity to express concern about the fact that the United States increasingly adopted various 
kinds of unilateral trade restricting measures, whic h were not consistent with the WTO rules, as 
leverages for its negotiations with other countries . China encouraged the United States to respect 
the multilateral trading rules, as it often required other Members to do.  
165.  Russia  stated that it was also concerned about the US measures . The additional duties were 
in essence safeguard measures, and they violated certain provisions of the Agreement and Article 
XIX of the GATT . The expansion of the scope of the measures to certain derivatives of steel and 
aluminium products exacerbated the WTO -inconsistency of the measures . No investigation was 
conducted, and there was no determination of increased imports, serious injury or causal link . Russia 
saw no grounds in the Agreement and Article XIX of the GATT for ap plying the measures . Russia 
called on the United States to withdraw the measures.  
166.  The United States  did not agree with the characterization of the actions taken . The President 
issued the Proclamation  pursuant to Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 19 62 after 
determining that the measure was necessary to remove the threatened impairment of the national 
security . The United States did not impose a safeguard measure, and there was no basis for another 
WTO Member to justify its retaliation under the Agree ment. As evidenced by its notifications with 
respect to solar products and large residential washers, the United States was aware of what 
constituted a safeguard and what its notification obligations were under the Agreement.  
167.  The Committee took note  of the  statements made.  
5  UNITED KINGDOM – SAFEGUARD MEASURES ON CERTAIN STEEL PRODUCTS (ITEM 
REQUESTED BY SWITZERLAND)  
168.  Switzerland  stated that it had requested this item because of the important systemic and 
economic implications of the measures  of the United Kin gdom . The situation where a country leaves 
a customs union was unique, and its impact on existing safeguard measures raised challenges . As 
discussed under item 3.60, the United Kingdom  notified in October  2020 the initiation of a review 
process of a safegu ard measure on certain steel products applied by the European Union . At the 
same time, it published on 3 0 September  2020 a notice of determination indicating that it would 
"transition " the safeguard measure as of 1 January  2021. The United Kingdom  had not yet notified 
the application of that measure to this Committee . In Switzerland 's view, such "transitioning ", that 
is, the application of the safeguard measures  of the European Union  by the United Kingdom  as of 
1 January  2021, was subject to the ma terial and procedural requirements that are applicable to new 
safeguard measures pursuant to the Agreement . Switzerland failed to see how a measure based on 
similar  data and similar  methodologies as that applied by the European Union  could be considered 
as a same  measure , and not amount to a new measure . Switzerland expected the United Kingdom  
to notify the application of the measure prior to its actual application . Switzerland also expected the 
United Kingdom  to provide all pertinent information as require d by the Agreement . In particular, 
Switzerland wished  to understand on which basis the United Kingdom  had calculated and designed 
the TRQs in Annex 2 of the Notice of Determination.  
169.  In response to Switzerland, the United Kingdom  made reference to its earli er statement . The 
steel safeguard of the European Union  was established on the basis of an investigation covering the 
whole territory of the European Union , including the United Kingdom . That was why the measure G/SG/M/57  
- 26 - 
  was continued in respect to the territory of the United Kingdom  from the end of the transition period . 
The United Kingdom  had not notified it as a new measure because it was a continuation of an existing 
measure which the United Kingdom  already applied at its borders . However, in order to make sure 
that the transitioned measure was specific to the United Kingdom , the United Kingdom  would review 
the measure . The United Kingdom  explained that the review could result in the measure being 
terminated or extended . 
170.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
6  MEMBERS' PROCEDURES DURING COVID -19 (ITEM REQUESTED BY AUSTRALIA AND THE 
UNITED STATES)  
171.  Australia  explained that it requested this item to allow Members to share their responses to 
the COVID -19 pandemic . What triggered this request was the fact that there were some cases where 
changes in procedure, including temporary suspension of international onsite verification in 
antidumping and countervailing duties investigations, were announced . Australia had no safe guard 
investigations or measures in place, but this issue was relevant to Australia.  
172.  The United States asked for this item to get a sense from Members as to whether competent 
authorities had made any adjustments to their laws, practices or procedures as Me mbers continued 
to operate under the current environment . For example, some Members had suspended in -person 
filings and in -person hearings . But others simply changed the practice as part of their day -to-day 
operations . This agenda item was not meant to cal l anyone out on anything they had or had not 
done, but simply to have a discussion of what Members were going through . If nothing had changed, 
Members could explain what they had considered doing, but because of the specific conditions 
decided not to proce ed. The United States believed this was a good opportunity for Members to 
share their experiences and help others who were still considering what to do.  
173.  Members exchanged views in informal mode.  
174.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
7  NON-IMPOSITION OF A SAFEGUARD MEASURE: IMPORTANCE OF NOTIFYING IT TO THE 
COMMITTEE - ITEM REQUESTED BY BRAZIL  (G/SG/2 ) 
175.  Brazil  explained that it requested this item to remind Members of the importance of submitting 
notifications when safeguard investigations were terminated without the imposition of a safeguard 
measure . If notifications of decisions not to impose a safeguard meas ure were not made, it was 
difficult for Members to monitor third party's investigation . Brazil invited all Members to observe the 
Committee's decision of 1995, and called the attention of Members to the format contained in 
document G/SG/2  entitled "Informa tion to be Notified to the Committee Where a Safeguard 
Investigation is Terminated With No Safeguard Measure Imposed ". 
176.  Australia  recalled that the 1995 decision of this Committee , which was about  notification of 
the non -imposition of a safeguard measure , was intended to include different scenarios such as 
where the petition was withdrawn or there was a negative determination of serious injury or causal 
link. Australia clarified that this was distinct from the notification under Section G of the current 
notification formats, contained in document G/SG/1/Rev.1 , relating to the cessation of a safeguard 
measure . Australia welcomed further discussions . It was of the view that in order to improve the 
overall transparency of notifications, the obligations should ex tend to a situation when investigations 
were terminated without imposition of any measure , when measures have expired within the 
timeframe advised at the time of the imposition of the measure , and when provisional measures 
have ceased and no definitive mea sures have been imposed . 
177.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
8  REQUEST UNDER ARTICLE 13.1 (E) OF THE AGREEMENT  (G/L/1360  – G/SG/246 ) 
178.  The Chair  recalled that the European Union  made a request pursuant to Article 13.1 (e) of the 
Agreement, circulated in document G/L/1360 -G/SG/246 , dated 2 3 June 2020. With the former Chair 
Ms Dellar presiding, the Committee met twice in informal mode to discuss this issue . Those informal G/SG/M/57  
- 27 - 
  meetings took place on 2 7 July 2020 and 2 9 September  2020. Ms Dellar tabled a draft partial 
report6, which the Committee discussed at its informal meeting of 2 9 September. T he Chair was of 
the view that the Committee probably needed to meet several more times to f inalize this draft . The 
Chair recalled that he came from the delegation of Turkey and that the subject of the request  of the 
European Union  was certain actions by Turkey . Thus, he would limit his intervention under this 
agenda item to the brief factual rec ap that he had just made . He informed Members that he would 
recuse himself from presiding over the Committee 's work on this matter . He would ask the incoming 
Vice-Chair to handle this matter in his stead.  
179.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
9  NOTIFICATIONS OF RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPOSE A MEASURE ( RD/SG/39 ) 
180.  The Chair  recalled that the discussion on this issue was initiated in 2018, and that most recently 
the former Chair, Ms Dellar, presented her latest draft of the revised format7 at an informa l meeting 
held on 2 9 September  2020. There was no objection raised on the draft at that informal meeting, 
and Ms Dellar announced then that at the regular meeting of 2 6 October , which is this meeting, the 
Committee would officially agree to the draft.  
181.  The United Kingdom  stressed the importance of transparency . It welcomed the amendments 
and supported the proposed text.  
182.  Brazil  supported the changes made . Taking this opportunity, Brazil stated that it would ask the 
Secretariat to circulate the proposals that Brazil had foreshadowed at the last informal meeting .8 
Brazil clarified that its proposals aimed to ensure greater transparency and predictability in the 
application of Article 9.1 of the Agreement and to assist developing countries to fully exercise thei r 
rights.  
183.  Singapore  supported the proposed text.  
184.  India asked Members to carefully consider what India stated at the informal meeting of 
29 September  2020. 
185.  Referring to Brazil 's statement, the Chair  suggested that the Committee first adopt the latest 
draft,  and then proceed to consider Brazil 's proposal . Hearing no objection, the Committee  took note 
of the statements and approved  the revised format .9 
10  OTHER BUSINESS  
186.  There were no issues raised under this agenda item.  
11  DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING  
187.  The Chair  suggested that the Committee meet in the week of 26  April 2021. The exact date 
would be confirmed later.  
188.  The Committee so decided . 
12  ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS  
189.  The Committee adopted  its annual report (see document G/L/1367  - G/SG/2 51). 
13  ELECTION OF OFFICERS  
190.  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 
 
6 See RD/SG/38 . 
7 See RD/SG/39 . 
8 Subsequently issued in document RD/SG/48 . 
9 Subsequently circulated in doc ument G/SG/1/Rev.2  - G/SG/N/6/Re v.2 - G/SG/89/Rev.1 . G/SG/M/57  
- 28 - 
  shall take effect at the end of tha t meeting . The first regular meeting of the year was supposed to 
be held in April 2020, but due to the COVID -19 pandemic, it never took place such that the meeting 
in October  2020 became the first regular meeting of 2020 . Accordingly, the election of the n ew 
Chair, and subsequently the new Vice -Chair took place under this agenda item.  
191.  The Committee elected Mr Mustafa Tuzcu (Turkey) as Chair and Ms Noriko Teranishi (Japan) 
as Vice -Chair to hold office until the end of the Committee's first regular meeting of 2021.  
 
__________