G/SG/Q2/MDG/3  
 
13 November 2019 
(19-7745) Page: 1/2 
Committee on Safeguards  Original: English  
 
NOTIFICATION S UNDER ARTICLE 12  OF THE AGREEMENT ON  
SAFEGUARDS  
QUESTIONS POSED BY MAURITIUS REGARDING  
THE NOTIFICATION S OF MADAGASCAR1 
(Pasta)  
The following communication, dated 12 November 2019, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegation of Mauritius . 
 
_______________  
 
Question 1  
On 12 July 2019, Madagascar notified the WTO that it was closing the initial investigation 
concerning the provisional safeguard on pasta and noodle classified under tariff codes 1902 1990 
and 1902 3090 (G/SG/N/11/MDG/1/Suppl.3). Then less than two weeks after this notification, on 
22 July 2019, Madagascar submitted another notification (G/SG/N/6/MDG/4) informing WTO 
Members of its decision to re -launc h the investigation on products covering tariff lines 1902 1990, 
1902 3090, 1902 1190 and 1902 2090.  
In this context, could Madagascar please clarify whether, and if so, how it considers the 
investigation it refers to in WTO notification of 22 July 2019 to  be different to the one referred to 
in its notification of 8 October 2018 (G/SG/N/6/MDG/1) and the subsequent notification of 
20 February (G/SG/6/MDG/1/ Suppl .1)? 
Question 2  
In its notification of 12 July 2019, Madagascar explained it terminated its invest igation on 1902 
1990 and 1902 3090 products. Nonetheless, on 18 July 2019, Madagascar decided to re -launch 
the investigation on the same products and to impose the provisional safeguard measure in the 
form of an additional duty to the ad valorem customs du ty, charged at a rate of 30% 
(thirty  percent) of c.i.f. value. This suggests that:  
a. the investigating authorities did not find sufficient grounds to impose a safeguard based on 
the investigation carried out on noodle and pasta products between 20  September 2018 
and 10 July 2019;  
b. but by 18 July 2019 it considered there was sufficient reasons to warrant the imposition of 
a preliminary safeguard on the same products.  
Could Madagascar please clarify/point to any events that happened in the 10 days between the 
notification of the termination of the provisional safeguards on pasta and noodle products on 
12 July, and the notification of the initiation of provisional safeguards on pasta and noodle 
products on 22 July 2019 that explains this peculiar seq uence of event?  
 
1 G/SG/N/8/MDG/1/Suppl.1 - G/SG/N/10/MDG/1/Suppl.1 - G/SG/N/11/MDG/1/Suppl.3 and 
G/SG/N/ 6/MDG/4 – G/SG/N/7/MDG/4 – G/SG/N/11/MDG/4 . G/SG/Q2/MDG/3  
 
- 2 - 
 
  Question 3 
In the termination of the provisional safeguard, Madagascar explained the provisional safeguard 
procedure had been closed because the local industry had withdrawn its complaint against the 
alleged surge in imports of the targeted products into Madagascar.  
In light of the fact that the local industry withdrew its complaint, could Madagascar clarify the 
reason why it re -launched its investigation?  
Question 4  
Based on a comparison of the notifications of Madagascar of 8 October 2018 and the subsequent 
notific ation of 20 February  2019 to the notification of 22 July 2019, it appears that Madagascar 
continues to exclude Habibo  Mills from the figures being assessed. However, Article 4 of the 
Agreement on Safeguards notes that “… a domestic industry shall be understood to mean the 
producers as a whole of the like or directly competitive products …”. 
In light of this, could Madagasc ar please explain the basis on which it considers that the safeguard 
investigation should exclude figures for Habibo Mills?  
Question 5  
Madagascar’s second provisional safeguard was adopted within less than two weeks of notifying 
the termination of the firs t provisional safeguard on pasta and noodle products. Article 7.6 of the 
Agreement on Safeguards requires an interval of at least one year to re -apply a safeguard 
measure to the same product.  
Could Madagascar please explain why it did not allow for the required one -year interval to lapse 
before re -instating the provisional safeguard on noodles and pasta products?  
Question 6  
Article 6 of the Agreement on Safeguards establishes a 200 -day time li mit for the imposition of a 
provisional measure. Madagascar has imposed a provisional safeguard on pasta and noodle 
products for a duration that exceeds the 200 -day time limit.  
Could Madagascar please explain the legal basis for exceeding the 200 -day time  limit on 
provisional safeguards?  
Question 7  
According to the data Madagascar provided in its 7 January 2019 notification (G/SG/N/7/MDG/1), 
there was an upward trend in the market share taken by the domestic industry in 2017 and for the 
first 6 months of 2 018, and a downward trend in market share taken by imports. Yet, in the data 
provided in its 22 July 2019 notification (G/SG/N/6/MDG/4), the data of tables 5.1(III. iii. and vi.) 
is showing, for the exact same period, the exact same quantity of imports (in  tonnes), but 
demonstrate a consistently downward trend in market share between 2015 and 2018.  
Could Madagascar please explain the reason for these different findings?  
 
__________