RESTRICTED  
  
G/SG/M/54  
 
29 March 2019  
(19-1985) Page: 1/16 
Committee on Safeguards   
 
MINUTES OF THE REGUL AR MEETING  
HELD ON 22 OCTOBER  2018  
CHAIRPERSON: MR HYOUK WOO KWON  (REPUBLIC OF KOREA ) 
1.  The Committee on Safeguards (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 22 October  2018.  
2.  The Committee adopted the following agenda:  
1   NATIONAL LEGISLA TION ................................ ................................ ..............................  3 
1.1   Review of Notifications of New or Amended Legislation or Regulations Not Previously 
Reviewed by the Committee (Including Supplemental Notifications of Existing Provisions Not 
Previously Reviewed) ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  3 
1.1.1    Cambodia – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/SG/N/1/KHM/2)  ............................  3 
1.1.2    Canada – Review of New Legisla tive Notification (G/SG/N/1/CAN/3/Suppl.1)  ....................  3 
1.1.3    China – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/SG/N/1/CHN/2/Suppl.5)  .......................  3 
1.2   Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications  ................................ .....................  3 
1.2.1    Afghanistan – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications (G/SG/N/1/AFG/1)  .. 3 
1.2.2    Cameroon – Continuing review of previously reviewed notifications 
(G/SG/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1) ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 3 
1.2.3    El Salvador – Continuing review of previously reviewed notifications 
(G/SG/N/1/SLV/3/Suppl.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 4 
1.2.4    Liberia – Continuing review of previously reviewed notifications (G/SG/N/1/LBR/1)  ............  4 
2   NOTIFICATIONS OF ACT IONS RELATED TO SAFE GUARD MEASURES  ............................  4 
2.1   China – Sugar (G/SG/N/8/CHN/2/Suppl.2 -G/SG/N/10/CHN/2/Suppl.1 –
G/SG/N/11/ CHN/2/Suppl.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 5 
2.2   GCC Member States – Chemical Plasticizers (G/SG/N/8/ARE/2 -G/SG/N/8/BHR/2 -
G/SG/N/8/KWT/2 -G/SG/N/8/OMN/2 -G/SG/N/8/ QAT/2 -G/SG/N/8/SAU/2 and 
G/SG/N/6/KWT/3/Corr.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 5 
2.3   GCC Member States – Flat-Rolled Products of Iron or Non -Alloy Steel 
(G/SG/N/10/S AU/1/Suppl.2 -G/SG/N/11/SAU/2/Suppl.2)  ................................ ..........................  5 
2.4   The Eurasian Economic Union – Certain Flat -Rolled Steel Products (G/SG/N/6/ARM/3 and 
G/SG/N/6/KAZ/1 and G/SG/N/6/KGZ/7 and G/SG/N/6/RUS/5)  ................................ ..................  5 
2.5   European Union – Certain Steel Products (G/SG/N/7/EU/1 -G/SG/N/11/EU/1 and 
G/SG/N/6/EU/1/Suppl.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 6 
2.6   India – Solar Cells (G/SG/N/8/IND/31/Suppl.2 -G/SG/N/10/IND/22/Suppl.1 -
G/SG/N/11/IND/17/Suppl.2 and G/SG/N/8/IND/31/Suppl.1 -G/SG/N/10/IND/22 -
G/SG/N/11/IND/17/Suppl.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 7 
2.7   Indonesia – Ceramic Flags and Paving, Hearth or Wall Tiles ( G/SG/N/8/IDN/20 -
G/SG/N/10/IDN/20 and G/SG/N/10/IDN/20/Suppl.1 -G/SG/N/11/IDN/17)  ................................ ... 7 
2.8   Madagascar  – Pasta (G/SG/N/6/MDG/1)  ................................ ................................ ..........  7 G/SG/M/54  
 
- 2 - 
 
  2.9   Madagascar – Blankets and Traveling Rugs (G/SG/N/6/MDG/2) ................................ ..........  8 
2.10   Morocco – Coated Wood Board (G/SG/N/6/MAR/10)  ................................ ........................  8 
2.11   Morocco – Cold-Rolled  Sheets and Plated or Coated Sheets (G/SG/N/6/MAR/8/Suppl.1 -
G/SG/N/14/MAR/2)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  8 
2.12   Morocco – Wire Rods and Reinforcing Bars (G/SG/N/ 6/MAR/7/Suppl.1 -
G/SG/N/14/MAR/1/Suppl.2)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 8 
2.13   Philippines – Cement (G/SG/N/6/PHL/11)  ................................ ................................ ...... 9 
2.14   South Africa – Other Screws Fully Threaded with Hexagon Heads Made of Steel 
(G/SG/N/7/ZAF/3/Suppl.1 -G/SG/N/11/ZAF/4/Suppl.1 and G/SG/N/7/ZAF/3 -G/SG/N/11/ZA F/4 and 
G/SG/N/6/ZAF/6) ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  9 
2.15   Thailand – Hot Rolled Steel Flat Products with Certain Amounts of Alloying Elements 
(G/SG/N/6/THA/2/Sup pl.2-G/SG/N/14/THA/2/Suppl.1 and G/SG/N/10/THA/2/Suppl.4/Corr.1 -
G/SG/N/11/THA/2/Suppl.6/Corr.1 and G/SG/N/10/THA/2/Suppl.4 -G/SG/N/11/THA/2/Suppl.6)  ..... 9 
2.16   Thailand – Non-Alloy Hot Rolled Steel Flat Products in Coils and Not in Coils 
(G/SG/N/8/THA/3/Suppl.3/Corr.1 -G/SG/N/10/THA/3/Suppl.3/Corr.1 -G/SG/N/11/THA/6/Corr.1 and 
G/SG/N/8/THA/3/Suppl.3 -G/SG/N/10/THA/3/Suppl.3 -G/SG/N/11/THA/6)  ................................ ... 9 
2.17   Tunisia – Ceramic Tiles (G/SG/N/9/TUN/3)  ................................ ................................ .... 9 
2.18   Tunisia – Glass Bottles (G/SG/N/9/TUN/1)  ................................ ................................ ..... 9 
2.19   Tunisia – Medium Density Fibre Board (G/SG/N/9/TUN/2)  ................................ ................  9 
2.20   Turkey – Iron and Steel Products (G/SG/N/6/TUR/24 and G/S G/N/7/TUR/13 -
G/SG/N/11/TUR/23)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  9 
2.21   Turkey – Wallpaper and Similar Wallcoverings (G/SG/N/10/TUR/15/Suppl.1/Corr.1 -
G/SG/N/11/TUR/20/ Suppl.1/Corr.1 and G/SG/N/10/TUR/15/Suppl.1 -G/SG/N/11/TUR/20/Suppl.1)
 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 10 
2.22   Ukraine – Sulfuric Acid and Oleum (G/SG/N/8/UKR/6 -G/SG/N/10/UKR/6 -G/SG/N/11/URK/4)
 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 11 
2.23   Ukraine – Flexible Porous Plates, Blocks and Sheets of Polyurethane Foams 
(G/SG/N/6/UKR/11 and G/SG/Q2/UKR/5 (Questions from the European Union))  ........................  11 
2.24   United States – Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells (G /L/1231 -G/SG/175 and G/SG/187)  11 
2.25   United States – Large Residential Washers (G/L/1230 -G/SG/174 and G/L/1228 -G/SG/171 
and G/SG/186 ) ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  11 
2.26   Zambia – Flat-Rolled Products of Iron, Non -Alloy Steel, Trailers and Semi -Trailers 
(G/SG/N/6/ZMB/1 -G/SG/N/7/ZMB/1 and G/SG/Q2/ZMB/3 (Follow -Up Questions from the United 
States))  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................  12 
3   US MEASURES ON S TEEL AND ALUMINIUM ( G/SG/173 AND G/L/123 7-
G/SG/N/12/ EU/1) (ITEM REQUESTE D BY THE EUROPEAN UN ION, JAPAN, TURKEY A ND 
RUSSIA)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........................  12 
4   OTHER DOCUMENTS TENTATIVELY INCLUDED  ON A TRIAL BASIS (G /SG/176)  .........  13 
5   REQUEST UNDER AR TICLE 13.1(E) OF THE  AGREEMENT ON SAFEGU ARDS 
(G/L/1213/REV.1 –G/SG /158/REV.1)  ................................ ................................ ............  14 
6   ADDITION OF CERT AIN INFORMATION INTO  THE ANNUAL REPORT ( RD/SG/14) (ITEM 
REQUESTED BY AUSTRAL IA) ................................ ................................ ...........................  14 
7   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 14 
7.1   Statement Regarding an Investigation by Chile – Item Requested by the United States  ....... 14 
7.2   Statement Regarding an Investigation by Canada – Item Requested by Mexico  ..................  15 
7.3   Holding an Informal Meeting – Statement by the Chair  ................................ ....................  16 
7.4   Dissemination of Documents  to Delegations – Statement by the Chair  ..............................  16 G/SG/M/54  
 
- 3 - 
 
  8   ANNUAL REPORT TO  THE COUNCIL FOR TRA DE IN GOODS  ................................ .........  16 
9   DATE OF NEXT REG ULAR MEETING  ................................ ................................ .............  16 
 
1  NATIONAL LEGISLATION  
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   Cambodia  – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/SG/N/1/ KHM/2) 
3.  The Chair stated that written questions had been received from the United States ("US") in 
document G/SG/Q1/ KHM/1. 
4.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting . 
1.1.2   Canada  – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/SG/N/1/ CAN/3/Suppl.1 ) 
5.   The Chair stated that written questions had been received from the US in document 
G/SG/Q1/ CAN/2.1  
6.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting . 
1.1.3   China – Review of New Legislative Notification  (G/SG/N/1/CHN/2/Suppl.5)  
7.  The Chair  stated that written questions had been received from the US in document 
G/SG/Q1/CHN/31 and from Canada in document G/SG/Q1/CHN/32.  
8.  China  stated that it was preparing written  answers which would be submitted soon.2 
Continuing Review  of Previously Reviewed Notifications  
1.2.1   Afghanistan  – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications 
(G/SG/N/1/AFG/1)  
9.  The Chair stated that written questions received from the US in document G/SG/Q1/AFG/1 were 
left unanswered.  
10.  Afghanistan  explained that i t adopted on 28 July 2016  the Law on Safeguard Measures for 
Domestic Industries , the text of which was available in Dari and in English , on the Ministry of Justice's 
website . According to this law, the General Directorate of International Trade in the Ministry of 
Commerce  and Industry was the competent authority vested  to initiate and conduct safeguard 
("SG") investigations. The Safeguard Board for Domestic Industries was also established to adopt 
provisional and definitive safeguard measures.    
1.2.2   Cameroon  – Continuing revi ew of previously reviewed notifications 
(G/SG/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1)  
11.  The Chair  stated that written questions received from the US in document G/SG/Q1/CMR/3 
were left unanswered.  
12.  Cameroon was not present at the meeting.  
                                                
1 Canada subsequently submitted the responses in document G/SG/ Q1/CAN/3  within the set deadline.  
2 China subsequently submitted the responses in document s G/SG/ Q1/CHN/33 and its corrigendum 
(responses to the US) and G/SG/ Q1/CHN/34  (responses to Canada), within the set deadline.  G/SG/M/54  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.2.3   El Salvador – Continuing review of previo usly reviewed notifications 
(G/SG/N/1/SLV/3/Suppl.1)  
13.  The Chair  stated that written questions received from the US in document G/SG/Q1/SLV/7 and 
from Mexico in document G/SG/Q1/SLV/8 were left unanswered.   
14.  El Salvador  stated that its capital was preparing the responses which would be provided in 
writing.   
1.2.4   Liberia – Continuing review of previously reviewed notifications 
(G/SG/N/1/LBR/1)   
15.  The Chair stated that written questions received from the US in document G/SG/Q1/LBR/1 were 
left unanswered.  
16.  There were no  comments or questions raised at the meeting . 
17.  The Chair recalled that the deadline for written questions concerning any legislation reviewed 
at this meeting was 12 November  2018. The deadline for written answers to all written questions, 
including question s submitted in writing prior to this meeting, was 3 December  2018.  
18.  The Chair informed the Committee that 20 Members had not yet made a legislative notification.3 
This notification was one of the important obligations of the Safeguards Agreement ("Agreement "). 
Members that did not yet have legislation need only submit a simple "nil" notification.  
19.  The US noted that many Members had not yet made a legislative notification. For nearly all of 
those who had not made the notification, their Trade Policy Review re ports indicated whether they 
did or did not have any SG legislation. The US 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 US encouraged Members to think 
creatively how to improve compliance with notification obligations. It had submitted a proposal to 
the Council for Trade in Goods ("CTG")4, which sought  to address the issue of missing  notifications 
across various Committees. The US continued to be interested in hearing Members' views on this 
proposal.  
20.  New Zealand  was supportive of the US proposal and urged Members to make their applicable 
notifications.  
21.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
NOTIFICATIONS  OF ACTIONS RELATED TO SAFEGUARD MEASURE S 
22.  Japan  remained concerned over the use of SG measures , especially over the rapidly increasing 
use of SG in the steel sector. Japan understood that production capacity in the ste el sector had 
recently been expanded, particularly  in developing countries , without regard to economic rationale, 
thereby leading to global excess capacity. Retaliat ory measures would depress world trade and  would 
jeopardize the benefits of both importers and exporters. Japan urged Members to avoid resorting 
to SG measures unless the condition s under the WTO Agreements were truly met. Japan requested 
the Committee to monitor the process of SG investigations  closely, and asked Members to  cautiously 
examine i f all condition s under the WTO Agreement were satisfied . 
23.  The Republic of Korea  ("Korea") expressed concern s regarding a sharp increase in SG measures, 
particularly in the steel sector. Unlike other trade remedy measures, SG measures targeted fair 
trade . Thus, Members should strictly adhere to the WTO rules and exercise extra caution when 
applying SG measures . Korea elaborated further on worrisome aspects of the current situation. First,  
                                                
3 These Members were: Antigua and Barbuda, Cabo Verde, Central African Republic, Democratic 
Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Eswatini, Grenada, Guinea -Bissau, Mauritania, Mozambique, Niger, Rwanda, 
Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincen t and the Grenadines, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Tonga 
and Yemen.   
4 Circulated as document JOB/CTG/10/Rev.1 . G/SG/M/54  
 
- 5 - 
 
  some SG measures did not seem to meet the stringent procedural and substantive requirements 
stipulated in the WTO rules. Second, the number of countries taking SG measures was increas ing 
rapidly. Th ese were mainly reactions to SG measures imposed by other countries.  Korea  called upon 
Memb ers to break this vicious c ycle by terminating SG measures taken and by exercising maximum 
restraint in applying SG measures.  
24.  Australia  echoed concerns raised by Japan and Korea regarding a frequen t recourse to 
SG measures. Initiations of SG investigations remained hig h. SG actions were em ergency actions 
subject to very strict conditions. The choice of SG as a trade remedy was not always appropriate in 
circumstances, for instance, where the surge in  imports came from a single source.  The mere 
initiation of an investigation could have signif icant trade chilling effect s and trade diversion impacts 
in other markets.  
25.  Chinese Taipei  also underlined its concerns over the increasing number of SG actions. 
SG measures  caused undesirable trade diversion. Given that SG measures affected fair trade, the 
requirements for such measures must be strictly abided by. Chinese Taipei urged Members to adhere 
to the relevant rules . 
China  – Sugar (G/SG/N/8/CHN/2/Suppl.2 -G/SG/N/ 10/CHN/2/Suppl.1 –
G/SG/N/11/ CHN/2/Suppl.1 ) 
26.  There were no comments or questions raised a t the meeting.  
GCC Member States – Chemical Plasticizers (G/SG/N/8/ARE/2 -G/SG/N/ 8/BHR/2 -
G/SG/N/8/KWT/2 -G/SG/N/8/OMN/2 -G/SG/N/8/QAT/2 -G/SG/N/8/SAU/2 and 
G/SG/N/6/KWT/3/Corr.1 ) 
27.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
GCC Member States – Flat-Rolled Products of Iron or Non -Alloy Steel 
(G/SG/N/10/SAU/1/Suppl.2 -G/SG/N/11/SAU/2/Suppl.2 )5 
28.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
The Eurasian Economic Union – Certain Flat -Rolled Steel Products ( G/SG/N/6/ARM/3 
and G/SG/N/6/KAZ/1 and G/SG/N/6/KGZ/7 and G/SG/N/6/RUS/5 ) 
29.  Ukraine  stated that the members of the Eurasian Economic Union ("EAEU") did not  comply with 
Article 12.1(a) of the Agreement which obliged Members to immediately notify the Committee upon 
initiating  an investigation . The time gap between the date of initiation of the investigation and the 
date of notification to the Committee was about one month. Thus, this notification could not be 
considered immediate under Article 12. 1(a) of the Agreement. Such a delay affected the 
fundamental principle of transparency and the right of the parties to fully participate in the 
procedures, since the deadline for the interested parties to declare their intention to participate  in 
the investigation  had already passed . Moreover,  this investigation was initiated without sufficient 
evidence of recent, sharp, or significant increase of imported steel products . 
30.  Korea  was of the view that necessary requirements to initiate a SG investigation as stipulated 
in Article 2.1 of th e Agreement and Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994  had not been met. Neither a  
sudden, sharp, and significant increase in imports nor serious injury existed. The production output 
of the EAEU members remained unaffected during the investigation period. Unwarranted 
SG measures would only serve to support the domestic steel industry at the expense of downstream 
industries. Korea requested the EAEU to terminate this investigation.  
31.  Japan  stated that the EAEU should demonstrate the causal link between increased i mports and 
serious injury , if any . The imported steel products were not directly competitive with  the domestic 
                                                
5 The full symbol of the document is: G/SG/N/10/ARE/1/Suppl.2 -G/SG/N/10/BHR/1/Suppl.2 -
G/SG/N/10/KWT/1/Suppl.2 -G/SG/N/10/OMN/1/S uppl.2 -G/SG/N/10/QAT/1/Suppl.2 -
G/SG/N/10/SAU/1/Suppl.2 -G/SG/N/11/ARE/2/Suppl.2 -G/SG/N/11/BHR/2/Suppl.2 -G/SG/N/11/KWT/2/Suppl.2 -
G/SG/N/11/OMN/2/Suppl.2 -G/SG/N/11/QAT/2/Suppl.2 -G/SG/N/11/SAU/2/Suppl.2.  G/SG/M/54  
 
- 6 - 
 
  products . With regard to unforeseen developments, the EAEU's notification only indicated 
overcapacity  in the steel sector  and third countries' tr ade restrictive measures. However, 
overcapacity was the result of  a long-term supply and demand conditions, and it of itself could not 
constitute unforeseen development s. Rather, the EAEU was required to demonstrate the logical 
connection between unforeseen developments and increase in imports. Japan reiterated that 
adopting such import restrictive measures would depress global trade and jeopardize the benefits of 
both importers and exporters of steel products.  
32.  The Russia n Federation  ("Russia") explained that this investigation was initiated on 
7 August  2018, and the E urasian Economic Commission  was now in the process of analysing 
information  and evidence  submitted  during the investigation.  
European Union – Certain  Steel Products (G/SG/N/7/EU/1 -G/SG/N/11/EU/1 and 
G/SG/N/6/EU/1/Suppl.1 ) 
33.  Brazil  regretted that the European Union (" EU") decided to initiate this investigation and to 
apply provisional SG measures. The overcapacity problem in the steel industry  would not be solve d 
by trade restrictive measure. In Brazil 's view, the application of preventive SG measures was 
inconsistent with the Agreement. Even though the EU contended that the US Section 232 measures 
triggered trade diversion , a SG measure could not be applied to prevent a possible surge in imports 
in the future. Data presented by the EU did not show an import surge during the most recent period.  
With respect to unforeseen developments, the steel overcapacity issue could not be co nsidered as 
unforeseen development s since overcapacity in the steel sector had been a recurrent global problem.  
Moreover, Brazil di d not find trade remedy measures adopted by third countries as being unforeseen 
developments. Application of trade remedy mea sures was certainly foreseeable. The EU had also 
failed to present an adequate explanation regarding the obligations under the GATT 1994 which 
affected the increase in imports of steel products, as the EU 's tariff for steel imports had been zero 
since 1988 . In addition, EU's increased imp orts of steel products were not recent,  sudden  or 
significant . The prices of some products had actually risen between 2016 and 2017.  EU's steel 
industry had already been protected by multiple trade remedies . As regards excl usion of developing 
country Members from the measure, Brazil requested that the EU promptly disclos e the 
disaggregated import data . Brazil was also concern ed with due process. It underwent a series of 
delay s in having access to the relevant files. Such delay impaired Brazil's rights. In addition, the 
EU did not present a complete set of data for import s or for injury. Brazil urged the EU to strictly 
abide by the Agreement.  
34.  Korea was of the view that the EU’s SG measure was not consistent with the WT O rules. There 
had been no significant increase of imports. Regarding unforeseen developments, Korea disagreed 
with the reasoning of the EU, namely that trade diversion as a result of the US Section 232 measure s 
constituted unforeseen developments . SG meas ures could be taken only as a result of an increase 
in imports, not in anticipation thereof. Moreover, a threat of serious injury to the EU domestic 
industry w as not warranted. The EU steel producers had maintained a high market share.  The causal 
link also did not exist. Korea requested that the EU withdraw the provisional SG measure . 
35.  Japan  regretted that the EU's provisional SG measures had  already  been implemented and 
requested the  EU to ensure that the final decision to impose a SG measure would be in accordance 
with the  Agreement. Specifically, the EU 's notification pointed to overcapacity and the increasing 
number of trade restrictive measures as unforeseen developments . However, the global overcapacity 
was a mere result of the long -term supply  and demand conditions  and could not be considered as 
unforeseen developments. The EU was required to demonstrate logical connection between 
unforeseen developments and increase in imports. SG measures would depress global trade and 
jeopardize the benefits of exporters and importers.  
36.  Switzerland  regretted that the EU adopted the provisional SG measure. An escalation of trade 
defence measures should be avoided . EU's provisional SG measure w as harming the Swiss exporters . 
Given that t he EU stated in its notificat ion that it was not possible at this stage to assess the full 
effects of the US Section 232 measures  in terms of trade diversion, Switzerland asked whether the 
EU had any data showing the impacts of such US measures on the EU market.  SG measures must 
meet all requirements stipulated in the WTO rules and must be introduced only to the extent 
necessary. Existing trade flows, which were not contributing to cause or threaten to cause serious 
injury to the domestic industry, should not be affected . G/SG/M/54  
 
- 7 - 
 
  37.  Turkey  explained that the EU's provisional SG measure  was not consistent with the Agreement. 
First, imports of most of the products had only negligibly increased or even decreased for the last 
three years . Second, the economic indicators clearly showed that a signif icant overall impairment of 
domestic industry  did not exist.  Furthermore, the EU determined threat of serious injury based on 
an anticipation of increase in imports which had not yet occurred. The findings of this investigation  
did not demonstrate unforese en developments . There was also no causal link. Thus, this 
investigation should be terminated. Turkey reserved its rights under the relevant WTO Agreements.  
38.  China  was concerned with the EU 's provisional SG measure. The EU’s protectionist move would 
harm the glob al steel industry . China urged the EU to terminate this investigation. China also 
expressed deep concern with an increasing use of SG measure s in response to protectionist 
measures. Since SG measures affected fair trade, the relevant requirements mus t be strictly abided 
by. China urged Members to avoid  resorting to  SG measures unless all conditions under the 
WTO rules were met.  
39.  Ukraine  echoed the concern s raised by other Members. SG measures w ere emergency measure s 
to be applied only in exceptional circumstances. Relevant conditions must be strictly met. This 
provisional measure  did not meet such condition s. Ukraine requested the EU to terminate this 
SG investigation.   
40.  The EU explained that  the investigation was still ongoing , that this w as not a retaliation, and 
that it was in compliance with the WTO rules. The provisional SG measur e was imposed in the form 
of a tariff  rate quota in order not to affect traditional trade flows. For the time being, none of the 
quotas had been reached. B esides, a detailed public interest test would be undertaken . Once the 
conclusion was reached, the EU would offer the opportunity  of bilateral consultations .  
India  – Solar Cells (G/SG/N/8/IND/ 31/Suppl.2 -G/SG/N/10/IND/22/Suppl.1 -
G/SG/N/11/IND/17/Suppl.2 and G/SG/N/8/IND/31/Suppl.1 -G/SG/N/10/IND/22 -
G/SG/N/11/IND/17/Suppl.1 )6 
41.  Japan  first asked India to confirm whether  the imposition of SG measures in this case had been 
suspe nded tentatively due to domestic litigation . In addition, Japan pointed out in relation to the 
causality link that imported products which were different from domestic products in terms of their 
price, usage, and composition should not be included in the investigation.  
42.  India informed that pursuant to Chinese Taipei 's request , consultations were held on 
28 September 2018. The outcome of the consultations would be notified to the WTO shortly.7 As for 
Malaysia' s request for consultations, India already communicated its willingness to have 
consultations with Malaysia. In respo nse to the issue raised by Japan,  India clarified that although 
the investigation was earlier suspended, it had restarted .  
Indonesia – Ceramic Flags and Paving, Heart h or Wall Tiles ( G/SG/N/8/IDN/20 -
G/SG/N/10/IDN/20 and G/SG/N/10/IDN/20/Suppl.1 -G/SG/N/11/IDN/17 ) 
43.  Japan  requested that Indonesia carefully examine the causa l link so as not to include imported 
products which were different from Indonesian domestic products in terms of their chemical 
composition, price, and usage.  
Madagascar  – Pasta (G/SG/N/6/MDG/1)  
44.  Mauritiu s expressed  its concern  with the product scope of this investigation . The petition 
originally submitted was mainly about spaghetti and macaroni. Mauritius did not export these 
products in a substantive volume to Madagascar. Mauritius ' main exports were pro ducts under  
HS code 19021910 , which were not spaghetti or macaroni . Given that Mauritius was included in the 
investigation process as a member of COMESA , which enabled Mauritius to benefit from duty -free 
market access, and given that its main export produc ts were different from macaroni and spaghetti, 
Mauritius requested that Madagascar verify whether this investigation had been supported by 
domestic producers of like or directly competitive products , whose collective output constituted a 
                                                
6 For the symbols of all the documents placed under thi s agenda item, see document WTO/AIR/SG/8.  
7 Subsequently circulated as G/L/1277 –G/SG/192.  G/SG/M/54  
 
- 8 - 
 
  major proportion o f the domestic production. Mauritius asked Madagascar's  investigating authority 
to exclud e other products , such as instant noodles , from the product scope  since they were different 
from the original product scope of spaghetti and macaroni.   
45.  The US raised a systemic concern applicable to this investigation  as well as the other 
investigation  by Madagascar taken up in the next agenda  item. Madagascar notified back in 
May 2001 that it did not have any legislation on SG measures. In th is vein, the US qu estioned under 
what authority Madagascar had conducted these investigations and when that leg islative notification 
would be submitted.  
46.  Madagascar  took note of comments provided by Mauritius and urged Mauritius to continue 
following the procedural steps in the investigation. Regard ing the systemic concern  raised by  the US, 
Madagascar confirmed that  it notified  last year  the authority responsible for investigations  of 
Madagascar: the national authority for trade corrective measures (ANMCC) , and that its  legislation 
notification was already submit ted8.   
Madagascar – Blankets and Traveling Rugs (G/SG/N/6/MDG/ 2) 
47.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
Morocco  – Coated Wood Board (G/SG/N/ 6/MAR/10 ) 
48.  The EU took the floor to comment on this investigation as well as the other two investigations 
covered in agenda items 2.11 and 2.12 . The EU first asked Morocco to strictly abide by the 
WTO rules, especially  in conducting  the injury analysis. As for investigations on cold -rolled sheets 
and plate d or coated sheets (item 2.11) and on wire rods and reinforcing bars (item 2.12),  the EU 
was of the view tha t since the domestic industry 's situation had improved  due to the existing 
measures , there was no need to extend  those measures .  
49.  Morocco  confirmed that it respect s the relevant WTO rul es in conducting the investigation s. As 
for investigations taken up in items 2.11 and 2.12, the investigating authority initiated a review 
following the domestic industry 's request indicating that the measures  were stil l necessary. The 
domestic industry continued to make adjustments to improve its  competitiveness. Article 7 of the 
Agreement clearly stipulated that a Member may maintain SG measures if  the necessary conditions 
were met.   
Morocco  – Cold-Rolled Sheets and P lated or Coated Sheets 
(G/SG/N/6/MAR/8/Suppl.1 -G/SG/N/14/MAR/2)  
50.  Turkey  was concerned with the initiation of the review. The requirements under Articles 7 
and 2.1 of the Agreement were not fulfilled given that imports of the subject merchandise slumped 
between 2014 and 2017. The targeted import level had been achieved by virtue of the SG measure. 
In addition, the positive trend in relevant economic indicators demonstrated that there was no injury. 
Turkey requested that Morocco terminate this proceeding. In c ase th e measures were to be 
extended, the investigating authority should revise the list of developing countries ex empted from 
the initial measure.  
51.  Morocco  clarified that the Ministry of Industry received an application for a review from the 
domestic industry. The list of products subject to the measure was limited , and the measure was 
still necessary. Adjustments had been made to enhance competitiveness , but serious injury 
persisted. T he SG measure  continued to be necessary.  
Morocco  – Wire Rods and Reinforcing Bars (G/SG/N/6/MAR/7/Suppl.1 -
G/SG/N/14/MAR/1/Suppl.2)  
52.  Turkey  was of the view that the SG measure should not be extended. Imports of wire rod and 
reinforcing bar had declined from 2013 to 2017. Economic factors showed positive trends, showing 
that injury  no longer existed . Furthermore, imports of wire rod had not reached the quota level 
                                                
8 Subsequently circulated as G/ADP/N/1/MDG/2 –G/SCM/N/1/MDG/1 –G/SG/N/1/MDG/2.  G/SG/M/54  
 
- 9 - 
 
  in 2017. Thus, the removal of the SG measure would not result in an  increase in imports. Turkey 
requested Morocco to terminate the investigation and not extend the SG measure.  
53.  Morocco  explained that  it was not asserting that there was a surge in imports, but that the 
measure continued to be necessary pursuant to Article 7  of the Agreement . During  the period of 
application of the SG measure, the import volume had continued to surpass the allotted quota. This 
prevented the domestic industry to achieve its capacity . Besides , the global overcapacity in steel 
industry p osed a threat .  
Philippines  – Cement (G/SG/N/6/PHL/11)  
54.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
South Africa  – Other Screws Fully Threaded with Hexagon Heads Made of Steel 
(G/SG/N/7/ZAF/3/Suppl.1 -G/SG/N/11/ZAF/4/Suppl.1 and G/SG/N/7/ZAF/3 -
G/SG/N/11/ZAF/4 and G/SG/N/6/ZAF/6 ) 
55.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.   
Thailand – Hot Rolled  Steel Flat Products with Certain Amounts of Alloying 
Elements (G/SG/N/6/THA/2/Suppl.2 -G/SG/N/14/THA/2/Suppl.1 and 
G/SG/N/10/THA/2/Suppl.4/Cor r.1-G/SG/N/11/THA/2/Suppl.6/Corr.1 and 
G/SG/N/10/THA/2/Suppl.4 -G/SG/N/11/THA/2/Suppl.6 ) 
56.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
Thailand  – Non-Alloy Hot Rolled Steel Flat Products in Coils and Not in Coils 
(G/SG/N/8/THA/3/Suppl.3/Corr.1 -G/SG/N/10/THA/3/Suppl.3/Corr.1 -
G/SG/N/11/THA/6/Corr.1 and G/SG/N/8/THA/3/Suppl.3 -
G/SG/N/10/THA/3/Suppl.3 -G/SG/N/11/THA/6)  
57.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
Tunisia  – Ceramic Tiles (G/SG/N/9/TUN/3)  
58.  There were no comments or question s raised at the meeting.  
Tunisia  – Glass Bottles (G/SG/N/9/TUN/1)  
59.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
Tunisia  – Medium Density Fibre Board (G/SG/N/9/TUN/2)  
60.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
Turkey – Iron and Steel Products (G/SG/N/6/TUR/24 and G/SG/N/7/TUR/13 -
G/SG/N/11/TUR/23)  
61.  The EU did not see any recent, sudden, sharp  or significant increase  in imports. The marginal 
increase during the last three year s could hardly be considered sharp or significant. There had been 
no increase  of imports i n absolute or relative terms. In any event, traditional trade flows should at 
the very least be main tained , since the issue at stake seemed to be a  risk of trade diver sion, 
i.e. imports above historical levels.  
62.  Korea  was not convinced that there was a recent, sudden, sharp, or significant increase in 
imports. Imports fluctuated between 2013 and 2017, including a significant decrease in 2014. 
Furthermore, there was no in jury. Imports had increased due mainly to a surge of demand. 
With respect to unforeseen developments, Korea did not agree with Turkey's view that the 
US Section 232 measures and other developing countries' measures were unforeseen developments . 
Trade diver sion had not yet materialized . Korea requested Turkey to terminate this investigation.  G/SG/M/54  
 
- 10 - 
 
  63.  Japan  noted that the provisional SG measure had been implemented and requested that Turkey 
ensure that the final determination would be consistent with the WTO Agreements. First, Japan saw 
no recent, sudden, sharp  or significant increase in imports . Second, only referring to global 
overcapacity and third countries' trade restrictive measures did not qualify as  unforeseen 
developments. Third, reciprocating third co untries' trade restrictive measures by adopting 
SG measures would depress the global trade and jeopardize the benefits of both exporters and 
importers.  
64.  Brazil  regretted that Turkey decided to ex officio  initiate this investigation . This approach did 
not co ntribute to the collective effort of addressing global overcapacity  as pursued in other fora. 
Instead , it would deepen uncertainty  and further disrupt the market. In addition, there was 
insufficient information. Such scarcity of information prevented inter ested parties from submitting 
their own views. Regarding the economic situation of the domestic industry, almost all  disclosed 
data demonstrated the improvement in domestic industry 's indicators . In addition, though this was 
not included in Turkey's notification to the  Committee , the Presidential Decree applying the  
provisional SG measure contained a specific quota for developing countries.  Brazil was unsure 
whether such treatment of developing countries  was consisten t with Article 9.1 of the Agreemen t. 
This Article did  not allow for partial exemptions  of developing countries. Brazil asked Turkey to 
clarify .  
65.  China  was concerned that this SG investigation did not meet the requirements under the 
WTO agreements. The statistics during the period of invest igation did not demonstrate a recent, 
sudden, sharp  or significant increase in imports . Moreover, t he domestic industry did not seem to 
be suffering serious injury. China requested Turkey to terminate this investigation .  
66.  Ukraine  was of the view that impos ition of a provisional SG measures was not warranted in this 
case. T here was no evidence that an increase  in imports caused or threatened to cause serious 
injury . Imports into the Turkish market did not show a recent, sudden, sharp, or significant increase, 
either in absolute or relative terms . Ukraine urged Turkey to abide by the WTO rules.  
67.  Turkey  explained that  this provisional SG measure was aimed at preventing de terioration of 
economic indicators of the domestic industry  stemming from the global excess steel supply. The 
proposed provisional SG measure was in the form of tariff -rate quotas, in excess of which an 
additional duty would be applied. Since this investig ation had not yet been finalized, the decision 
whether to apply a definitive measure would depend upon the development in the domestic and 
global markets.  
Turkey – Wallpaper and Similar Wallcoverings 
(G/SG/N/10/TUR/15/Suppl.1/Corr.1 -G/SG/N/11/TUR/20/Suppl .1/Corr.1 and 
G/SG/N/10/TUR/15/Suppl.1 -G/SG/N/11/TUR/20/Suppl.1)  
68.  Korea  was concerned with the extension of th is measure. It s concern had been raised through 
bilateral discussions and also in this Committee since 2015  when the measure was first introduced . 
Korea was disappointed that this measure would be extended for another three years until 2021. 
Korea was not convinced that a period of three years was insufficient for adjustment  given that 
imports had decreased,  and market share of imports had decreased to less than one third of 
the 2013 level. Moreover, relevant data indicated that the domestic industry was in a better 
situation. By contrast, there was no evidence that the domestic industry was adjusting . Korea was 
of the view that the extension of the SG measure was not warranted , and requested Turkey to 
terminate the measure.  
69.  The EU did not see the need to extend the SG measure. Since the SG measure had been 
imposed, imports had decreased dramatically by almost 80%. The domestic industry was in a very 
comfortable position, with almost all economic indicators considerably improved. This review 
investigation should not have been initiated and the SG measure should not have been adopted. T he 
EU requested Turkey to terminate this investigation.  
70.  Turkey  expla ined that since the investigating authority had observed recovery of  only certain  
economic indicators , Turkey decided to extend the measure for another three years with the 
liberalization set in accordance with the Agreement.  G/SG/M/54  
 
- 11 - 
 
  
Ukraine – Sulfuric Acid and O leum (G/SG/N/8/UKR/6 -G/SG/N/10/UKR/6 -
G/SG/N/11/URK/4)  
71.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
Ukraine – Flexible Porous Plates, Blocks and Sheets of Polyurethane Foams 
(G/SG/N/6/UKR/11 and G/SG/Q2/UKR/5 (Questions from the E uropean Union)) 
72.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
United  States – Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells  (G/L/1231 -G/SG/175 and 
G/SG/187 )9 
United  States – Large Residential Washers (G/L/1230 -G/SG/174 and G/L/1228 -
G/SG/171 and G/SG/186)  
73.  The US made one statement relating to the two agenda items of crystalline silicon photovoltaic 
cells and of large residential washers  (agenda items 2.24 and 2.25) . The US  conducted a n open and 
transparent investigation and it afforded interested parties multiple opportunities to defend their 
interests. Consultations with Members were held to exchange views on the relevant SG measures 
and to reach an understanding on ways to achieve the objective set out in Article 8.1 of the 
Agreement. After each consultation, in all but one instance, a joint notification of the results of the 
respective consultations was submitted. In most instances, the US and the Member involved agreed 
to continue to examine the impact of the SG measure, and agreed that the reciprocal rights and  
obligations of each Member under the Agreement and the GATT 1994 would be maintained. As for 
the 90 -day period set forth in Article 8.2 of the Agreement  and Article XIX:3(a) of the GATT 1994 , 
the Members, in most cases , agreed that such a period shall be considered to expire as between 
them by a specific date specified in the respective notification s. Regarding  the SG measure on solar 
products specifically,  the decision to exclude particular products from the SG measure had already 
been notified. As indica ted in the Federal Register notice, exclusion requests not addressed in that 
notice were still being evaluated, the determination of which would be made in due course.  
74.  Korea  also made one statement relating to the two agenda items of crystalline silicon 
photovoltaic cells and of large residential washers (agenda items 2.24 and 2.25).  Korea  had 
requested the establishment of a panel  for the two US SG measures . Both panels were established 
on 26 September 2018. Apart from legal proceedings , Korea hoped that the SG measures would be 
lifted for the benefit of the US  consumers and in consideration of the bilateral trade relation s. Given 
that the duration of the SG measures by the US exceeded three  years, Korea called upon the US to 
conduct a mid -term review in an impartial and objective manner and withdraw the measures soon .  
75.  China  expressed its deep concern with the  SG measure on photovoltaic cells . China did not wish 
to repeat its statements, and asked Members to refer to China's statement s made in previous 
Committee meetings . China already requested consultations under the DSU for th is SG measure. 
China also reserved its right to suspend concessions if the Dispute Settlement Body found that the 
measure did not comply with the Agreement.  
76.  Japan  wished to comment on the SG measure on photovoltaic cells. Japan understood that the 
product excl usion process was still ongoing . Japan requested that the process be concluded in a 
timely manner and that products would be appropriately excluded in the cour se of the process.  
77.  Norway  regretted that the US imposed the SG measure on photovoltaic cells. SG measures 
should be put in place only as emergency measure s for exceptional situations. Norway had a 
particular economic interest in this case and would continu e following th is case closely.  
78.  The US stated that it w ould conduct the mid-term review at the appropriate time.  
                                                
9 For the symbols of all the documents placed under this agenda item, see document WTO/AIR/SG/8. 
However, document G/SG/188 was wrongly included under this agenda item. This document belonged to 
agenda item 2.6 (India – Solar Cells).  G/SG/M/54  
 
- 12 - 
 
  
Zambia – Flat-Rolled Products  of Iron, Non -Alloy Steel, Trailers and Semi -Trailers 
(G/SG/N/6/ZMB/1 -G/SG/N/7/ZMB/1 and G/SG/Q2/ZMB/3 (Follow -Up Questions from 
the United States))  
79.  The Chair  stated that Zambia had submitted its responses to the questions from the US, and 
that the US had subsequently submitted follow -up questions. He also informed Members that the 
delegation of Zambia informed the Secretariat that this SG measure was no longer in place.  
80.  The US withdrew its follow -up questions and requested that this item not be included in  the 
agenda for the next meeting.  
81.  Zambia was not present at the meeting.  
82.  The Chair reminded delegations that any questions for which written responses were 
requested  should be submitted to the Member concerned and to the Secretariat no later than 
12 Novemb er 2018. Written responses to questions, including questions submitted in writing prior 
to this meeting, should be submitted to the Secretariat no later than 3 December 2018. As with 
legislative notifications, any unanswered questions would be indicated in  the draft annotated agenda 
of the next meeting.  
83.  The Chair took this opportunity to also remind Members that the format of notifications was 
contained in document G/SG/1/Rev.1. Another format about termination of investigation without 
measure was contained  in document G/SG/2.  
84.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
US MEASURES ON STEEL AND ALUMINI UM (G/SG/173 AND G/L/123 7-
G/SG/N/12/EU/1 )10 (ITEM REQUESTED BY THE EUROPEAN UNION, JAPAN, TURKEY AND 
RUSSIA ) 
85.  Turkey  was of the view that the import restrictions on steel and aluminium had been taken in 
order to protect the US domestic industry from economic effects stemming from competing imports. 
By their nature, purpose, and design, these measures were SG measures. The US did not respond 
to Turkey 's consultation request  under Article 12.3 of the Agreement . Equally important, the US 
made no attempt, when imposing SG measures on steel and aluminium, to maintain a substantially 
equivalent level of concessions and other WTO obligations as required by Art icle 8.1 of the 
Agreement. On the contrary, the US further escalated its unilateral and unjustified measures in 
August 2018 by doubling the duty on imports of steel products from Turkey  and threatening to do 
the same with respect to imports of aluminium. T urkey was thus entitled to withdraw equivalent 
concessions in accordance with Article 8 of the Agreement.  
86.  Japan  found the US Section 232 measures regrettable. These measures could disturb global 
steel and aluminium trade, and may have significant negative impacts on the multilateral trading 
system as a whole. The crux of the issue was to address global steel and aluminium overcapacity. 
Japan emphasized that retaliating with unilateral and WTO -inconsistent measures would not benefit 
any Member, and that it w as crucial to address this issue in a manner consistent with the 
WTO Agreements.  
87.  Russia  registered its concerns on the US measures and explained that it had requested 
consultations under the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of  
Disputes  ("DSU") on those measures . The US additional duties on steel and aluminium were in 
essence SG measures. Its request for consultations under the SG Agreement was not followed by 
any agreement on adequate means of trade compensation. The US was app arently not even ready 
to discuss the measures in question under the Agreement. Hence, Russia notified the CTG in May 
2018 of the proposed suspension of concessions and other obligations referred to in Article 8.2 of 
the Agreement. This suspension was not disapproved by the CTG and thus came into effect. Russia 
warned the US that the application of these measures had put the world trade under threat, as they 
                                                
10 For the symbols of al l the documents placed under this agenda item, see document WTO/AIR/SG/8. 
Note, however, that the supplement to document G/L/1240 –G/SG/N/12/JPN/4 (that is, G/L/1240/Suppl.1 –
G/SG/N/12/JPN/4/Suppl.1) was inadvertently not indicated therein.  G/SG/M/54  
 
- 13 - 
 
  limited competition, deprive d the consumers of sufficient supply and force d other Members to seek 
protection from diversion of trade flows. Trade defence instruments were designed only to eliminate 
injury caused by imports. Russia considered that the US  measures did not comply with the 
WTO Agreements . 
88.  The US did not agree that these were SG measures . The  US President issued the steel and 
aluminium proclamations on the grounds of national security. Given that these actions were not SG, 
there was no basis  to conduct consultations under the SG Agreement.  These actions were not taken 
pursuant to Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 , which was the law under which the US impose d 
SG measures. As evidenced in the recent notifications with respect to solar cells and large residential 
washers, the US was well aware of what constituted a SG measure as well as what i ts notification 
obligations were under the Agreement . Article 12.3 of the Agreement  was not applicable as the US 
was not proposing to apply or extend a SG measure with respect to steel and aluminium. As a result, 
Members ' requests for consultations pursuan t to Article 12.3 of the Agreement had no  basis. In 
addition, the US had taken note of Members ' notifications of their intent ions to suspend concessions 
and other obligations purportedly under Article 8.2 of the Agreement. Certain Members had already 
put these measures into effect.  In this vein, the US had commenced dispute settlement proceedings 
in response to these retaliatory measures that did not appear to have any legal basis under the 
WTO rules. As this issue was currently subject to the dispute settl ement process, it would be 
inappropriate to comment on its merits . The US would fully exercise its rights under the DSU to 
defend its interests.  
89.  China  expressed its view that the US Section 232 measures were essentially SG measures . The 
US report on the Section 232 investigation concluded that the imports of steel and aluminium had 
injured the domestic industry, and that the additional duties on such products were warranted. These 
conclusions  corresponded to the criteria for imposing SG measures. The US mea sures had damaged 
the stability of the  multilateral trading system  and had distorted the international trade supply chain. 
Certain Members had been forced to take some measures due to their concerns over trade distortive 
effects  caused by the US Section 23 2 measures.  China had already initiated a DSU process for these 
measures , and would continue working with Members to resolve this issue.  
90.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
OTHER DOCUMENTS TENT ATIVELY INCLUDED  ON A TRIAL BASIS  (G/SG/176 )11 
91.  The Chair  explained that  all these documents were related to India . 
92.  India first clarified  that it had no comments on having these documents on the agenda on a 
trial basis.12 These documents were submitted due to its concerns over the  additional tariffs on 
imports of steel and aluminium  products  imposed by the US . India notified the CTG that it intended 
to impose retaliatory duties of equivalent value on certain imports from the US . Subsequently, the 
customs notification was issued on 20 June 2018 for the imp osition of additional duties  on certain 
imports from the US  with effect from 4 August 2018. However, the implementation had been 
postponed . Thus, the retaliatory measures had not yet entered into force. India had engaged with 
the US in resolving this matte r bilaterally while assessing the impacts of such measures on India' s 
economy.  
93.  The US reiterated that it disagreed with the characterization and assessment of the tariffs as 
SG measures. There was no basis under the WTO rules for India to take actions cont emplated in 
these notifications.  
94.  Chile expressed its concerns with  India's suspension of concessions . Chile was worried that t his 
suspension would entail increases in tariffs on several products regardless of their origins.  
95.  India explained that the proposed suspension of concessions  would affect imports from the US 
only. India was willing to discuss bilaterally to ascertain Chile 's concerns.  
                                                
11 For the symbols  of all the documents placed under this agenda item, see document WTO/AIR/SG/8.  
12 See footnote 4 of the airgram (WTO/AIR/SG/8) for context.   G/SG/M/54  
 
- 14 - 
 
  96.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
REQUEST UNDER  ARTICLE 13.1(E) OF THE AGREEMENT ON SAF EGUARDS 
(G/L/1213/R EV.1–G/SG/158/R EV.1)  
97.  The Chair recalled that after the April 2018 regular meeting, the Committee h eld two informal 
meetings on this issue on 20 June 2018 and on 14 September 2018. The latest draft factual report 
was sent to Members on 16 Octobe r 2018. The Committee discuss ed this draft  factual report  in 
informal mode.  
98.  After the discussion in informal mode, t he Chair invited the Committee to agree ad referendum  
on the factual report to be submitted to the CTG on his own responsibility. In concrete, he invited 
the Committee to agree, ad referendum , to the draft sent on 16 October 2018 with the changes that 
were discussed in informal mode.  
99.  The Chair requested  any Member who could not join the consensus  after che cking with the 
capital to  let him and the Secretariat know by 5 pm on 29 October 2018.  
100.  The Committee so agreed .13  
ADDITION  OF CERTAIN INFORMAT ION INTO THE ANNU AL REPORT (RD/SG/14)  (ITEM 
REQUESTED BY AUSTRALIA ) 
101.  The Chair  explained that this item was requested by Australia. He recalled that this issue was 
first raised at the 2015 autumn Committee meeting.  
102.  Australia  stated that its proposal was very simple, the objective of which was to seek the 
addition of the date of noti fication of all SG major actions currently included in Annex 2 of the 
Committee 's annual report. T his proposal  was not  burdensome to Members , as it did not require 
Member s to provide any additional information . Rather, it required the Secretariat to add th e date 
of notification of SG actions currently included in Annex 2 of the Committee 's annual report. This 
would improve the usefulness of the Committee 's annual report, particularly in tracking and clarifying 
the stages of SG proceeding. SG proceeding s could follow a complex process, and there were 
different practices among Members . At the April 2018 Committee meeting, India indicated that it 
could agree to the proposal insofar as the date of submission of notifications  as well as the circulation 
date w ere indicated in the Annex. In Australia 's view, this would be a good way forward and would 
complete the comprehensiveness of the Committee 's annual report. Australia hoped that the 
Committee would be in a position to agree to the addition of these two dat es to the information 
contained in Annex 2.  
103.  India thanked Australia for the response which addressed its concerns. India had no further 
comment s. 
104.  Having hea rd no more comments, t he Chair asked the Secretariat to prepare the 2019 
Committee 's annual report i n a format proposed by Australia.  
105.  The Committee  so agreed .  
OTHER  BUSINESS  
Statement  Regarding an Investigation  by Chile  – Item Requested b y the United States  
106.  The US was concerned about Chile's  decision to initiate a SG investigation on imports of 
powdered milk and Gouda cheese , which was discussed at the spring 2018 meeting . The US had 
been a consistent and reliable supplier to Chile's dairy products and food processing industries. 
Based on cur rent conditions, measures limiting the supply of non -fat dry milk powder would only 
                                                
13 No Member reported back that it could not join the consensus, and so the document was 
subsequently circulated and sent to the CTG in document G/L/1276 –G/SG/191.  G/SG/M/54  
 
- 15 - 
 
  serve to injure Chilean entities that relied on these products. The US urged Chile to conduct this 
investigation in accordance with its WTO obligations and pursuant to Chil ean law.  
107.  New Zealand  shared the concerns raised by the US. Imports played an important role in 
supplying a  demand  that domestic producers alone could not supply. The increase in imports of dairy 
products into Chile in the recent years had been in response to demand from Chilean consumers 
that had consistently outpaced  the domestic milk production. New Zealand was not aware of 
evidence of a drop in prices of dairy products. Thus, the SG measure was not justified.   
108.  Chile explained that  the investigation  was ongoing . The p ublic hearing took place on 
16 October 2018, in which the US and New Zealand participated. The investigating authority was 
currently evaluating all pertinent information and it would make the final determination as soon as 
possible.  
Statement  Regarding an Investigation by Canada  – Item Requested by Mexico  
109.  Mexico  raised concerns regarding Canada's  SG investigation on imports of various steel 
products, particularly regarding products imported from Mexico. There was no public document that 
contai ned reasons and evidence leading to the imposition of the provisional SG measure. Mexico 
acknowledged that some information may be confidential , but that did not preclude the Canadian 
investigating authority from making a public summary thereof . Transparen cy was vital  to protect  
the parties' right to defend their interests.  In addition, the product scope  was unclear. T his 
investigation covered a large number of products. There was no identification of which products were 
imported from Mexico, and  no analysi s of likeness , and t here was no explanation as to what 
enterprises were included in the domestic industry . Moreover, it was unclear whether there were 
unforeseen developments . There was no explanation as to why the investigating authority  believed 
that there was a recent, sudden, sharp, and significant increase in imports . Injury analysis  was also 
insufficient. As for the non-attribution requirement, certain other known  factors  were not evaluated . 
For instance, imports from other Members, which represented a significant share of total imports of 
Canada, were excluded from this measure.  Mexico reiterated that it remained open to hearing 
comments from Canada and to discussing this matter bilaterally.  
110.  Turkey  requested that Canada carefully ana lyse whether there had been a surge in imports 
that caused or threatened to cause serious injury as a result of unforeseen developments.  
111.  Korea  was concerned that Canada's notification lacked evidence. As an exporting country, 
Korea would need more informa tion to review the proposed provisional measure . Korea looked 
forward to further discuss ion about this investigation . 
112.  Japan  requested Canada to ensure that the final decision of imposing a SG measure would be 
conducted in a manner consistent with the WTO a greements . Japan  noted that even though Canada 
expressed an intention to initiate this investigation a few months ago, its notification of initiation 
was not submitted until mid -October when it simultaneously announced the decision to impose a 
provisional  measure. As regards unforeseen developments, Canada's notification only indicated 
global steel overcapacity and other countries' trade restrictive measures as unforeseen 
developments. These factors did not amount to unforeseen developments.  Furthermore, responding 
to trade restrictive measures by adopting SG measures would depress global trade and make the 
situation worse.  
113.  Canada  explained that it was well aware that SG measures were unique among trade remedy 
measures, and that special consid eration must be given when deciding to apply a SG measure or 
initiat ing a SG investigation. Canada's provisional SG measure was taken with due consideration of 
its obligations under the Agreement. Canada  had been affected by overcapacity in steel productio n 
globally as well as certain unforeseen developments, including trade restrictive measures on steel 
products imposed by other countries. This , combined with the attractiveness of the Canadian market , 
had thus led to increased imports. As a result, the Can adian domestic industry was facing critical 
circumstances. A delay in imposing SG measures would cause damage which would be difficult to 
repair. On this basis, Canada imposed provisional SG measure. The Canadian International Trade 
Tribunal was tasked wit h reporting back within 175 days as to whether definitive SG measures would 
be warranted. Canada emphasized that the imposition of provisional SG measure was based on 
comprehensive analysis . A large proportion of information received was confidential  given  the limited G/SG/M/54  
 
- 16 - 
 
  size of the Canadian industry. As such , it was not possible to disclose figures without disclosing 
confidential information.  A non -confidential version of the evidence was  already  included in its 
notification . Canada remained open to having di alogue with Members concerned on this issue.  
Holding an Informal  Meeting – Statement  by the Chair  
114.  The Chair stated that he recently had the opportunit y to look closely into  how Members notified 
recommendations of an i mposition of a measure and how th ose Members subsequently notified the 
definitive imposition of the measure. More specifically, if a SG regime of a  Member was such that 
one governmental body was in charge of making recommendation to another governmental body 
regarding a possible imposition of a measure, that Member would normally notify such 
recommendations. The question was how such Member notified a ny subsequent follow -up. In this 
vein, he asked the Secretariat to compile some background information on how Members had made 
such notifications . He would call an informal meeting on this issue  sometime in late January or early 
February 2019.  With such di scussion, he wished to at least identify best practice . 
 
Dissemination  of Documents to Delegations – Statement by the Chair  
115.  The Chair reminded Members that for the purpose of the dissemination of documents to 
delegations, the fax system had been discontinu ed in the entire Secretariat. It was replaced by an 
e-mail system which sent documents to each Mission's main e -mail address only. The Secretariat 
would  no longer send communications/documents to each Mission's fax machine . In the context of 
this Committee , the Secretariat ha d been sending by e-mail a courtesy copy of documents to 
individual delegates' e-mail addresses. The Secretariat would continue this practice , but the official 
channel was the mission -specific e -mail. Delegates were asked to check their mission's main e -mail 
address from time to time. The Chair reminded Members that he could hold an informal meeting 
other than the schedul ed regular meetings. In addition, he asked delegates to keep the individual 
delegate's e-mail addresses up to date. Fo r example, if a delegate left his/her post and the address 
was not updated, the successor would not receive courtesy e -mails. If delegates were unsure which 
addresses were currently registered in the list, they were invited to look at the list saved in the  
"Document for Meetings" folder of this Meeting.  
116.  The Committee took note  of all the statements made  under Other Business . 
ANNUAL REPORT TO THE  COUNCIL FOR TRADE I N GOODS  
117.  The Committee adopted  its annual report (see document  G/L/1275 –G/SG/190 ).  
DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING  
118.  The Chair suggested that the Committee meet in the week of 29 April 2019. The exact date 
would be confirmed later.  
119.  The Committee so decided . 
__________