RESTRICTED  
  
G/SG/M/42  
 
8 March 2013  
(13-1292)  Page: 1/8  
Committee on Safeguards    
 
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING 
HELD ON 22 OCTOBER 2012 
CHAIRPERSON: MS LILLIAN BWALYA 
1. The Committee on Safeguards (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 22 October 2012. 
2. At the outset, the Chair stated that she intend ed to make a statement under Other Business. 
 
3. The Committee adopted the following agenda: 
A  NATIONAL LE GISLATION ............................................................................................. 2  
1. Ecuador – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/SG/N/1/ECU/6) ................................ 2  
2. Nepal – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/S G/N/1/NPL/1) ................................... 2  
3. Togo – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/SG/N/1/TGO/1) .................................... 2  
4. Indonesia – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notification 
(G/SG/N/1/ID N/3) ............................................................................................................ 2  
B  NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RELA TED TO SAFEGUAR D MEASURES ............................ 3  
1. Brazil – Fine or Table Wine (G/SG/N/6/BRA/5/Suppl.1) .................................................. 3  
2. Chile – Maize Otherwise Worked (G/SG/N/6/CHL/13–G/SG/N/7/CHL/10–
G/SG/N/11/CHL/6–G and G/SG/N/8/CHL/5–G /SG/N/10/CHL/8–G/SG /N/11/CHL/7) .................... 3  
3. Costa Rica – Pounded Rice  (G/SG/N/6/ CRI/2) .............................................................. 3  
4. Egypt – Cotton Textile and Mixed Cotton Textile (G/SG/N/7/ EGY/5/Suppl.1) ..................... 3  
5. Egypt – Cotton Yarn (G/SG/N/8/EGY/6–G/ SG/N/10/EGY/6–G/SG /N/11/EGY/5) ................. 3  
6. Egypt – Polypropylene (G/SG/N/6/EGY/7–G/SG/N/7/EGY/6–G/SG/N/11/EGY/4 and 
G/SG/N/7/EGY/6 /Suppl.1) ................................................................................................. 3  
7. India – Dioctyl Phthalate (DOP) (G/SG/N/6/IND/30) ...................................................... 3  
8. Indonesia – Wheat Flour (G/SG/N/6/ID N/19) ............................................................... 4  
9. Indonesia – Conveyor Belts or Belting Reinforced Only with Metal of a Width 20–
230 cm (G/SG/N/ 9/IDN/5) ................................................................................................. 4  
10. Jordan – Bars and Rods of Iron an d Steel (G/SG/N/6/JO R/16/Suppl.1)............................. 4  
11. Morocco – Certain Bars and Rods of Iron or Steel (G/S G/N/6/MAR/ 7) .............................. 4  
12. Philippines – Testliner Board (G/SG/N/8/PHL/8/Suppl.2–
G/SG/N/10/PHL/7/Suppl.1–G/S G/N/11/PHL/9/S uppl.1) .......................................................... 4  
13. Philippines - Steel Angle Bars (G/SG/ N/11/PHL/7/Suppl.4–G/SG/N/14/PHL/7) .................. 4  
14. Russian Federation – Combine–Har vesters (G/SG/N/ 6/RUS/1) ........................................ 5  
15. Russian Federation – Tablew are (G/SG/N/6/ RUS/2) ...................................................... 5  
16. Russian Federation – Woven Fabrics of Man–Made Fibres and Filaments 
(G/SG/N/6/RUS/3) ............................................................................................................ 5  G/SG/M/42 
 
- 2 - 
 
  17. Turkey – Footwear (G/SG/N/6/TUR/6/Suppl.2 and G/SG/N/11/TUR/6/Suppl.2–
G/SG/N/14/TUR/2/Suppl.1) ................................................................................................ 5  
18. Turkey – Motorcycles (G/SG/N/11/TUR/7 /Suppl.3–G/SG/N/14/TUR/4/Suppl.2) ................. 5  
19. Turkey – Matches (G/SG/N/10/TUR/12 /Suppl.1–G/SG/N/11/TUR/13/Suppl.2) ................... 5  
20. Turkey – Certain Electrical Appliances (G/SG/N/11/TUR/18–G/ SG/N/14/TUR/9) ................ 5  
21. Ukraine – Casing and Pump–Compressor Seamless Steel Pipes 
(G/SG/N/13/UKR/1 /Suppl.1) .............................................................................................. 5  
C  DISCUSSION OF SYSTEMIC CONCERNS RELATED TO CERTAIN SAFEGUARD 
PROCEEDINGS.................................................................................................................. 6  
D  OTHER BU SINESS ........................................................................................................ 8  
E  ELECTION OF OFFICERS ............................................................................................... 8  
F  ANNUAL REPORT TO THE CO UNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS ........................................... 8  
G  DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING ............................................................................... 8  
 
4. The Chair recalled that documents submitted after the issuance of the airgram would no 
longer be included in the "documents for meetings" website. This did not preclude Members from explaining the latest situation regarding an investigation orally at the Committee meeting.  
A  NATIONAL LEGISLATION 
1. Ecuador – Review of New Legislativ e Notification (G/SG/N/1/ECU/6) 
5. Ecuador responded to the written questions posed by the US in document G/SG/Q1/ECU/9. 
(See document G/SG/Q1/ECU/10 for a written version of the responses submitted subsequently.)  
2. Nepal – Review of New Legislativ e Notification (G /SG/N/1/NPL/1) 
6. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
3. Togo – Review of New Legislativ e Notification (G /SG/N/1/TGO/1) 
7. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
8. No responses were provided to the questions posed by the US in document G/SG/Q1/TGO/1, 
and Togo was not present at the meeting. 
 
4. Indonesia – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notification 
(G/SG/N/1/IDN/3) 
9. Indonesia stated that it was still preparing re sponses to the questions posed by the US in 
document G/SG/Q1/IDN/11. (See document G/SG/Q1/IDN/12 for the responses provided 
subsequently.) 
10. The Chair recalled that the deadline for written questions concerning any legislation reviewed 
at this meeting was 12 November 2012. The deadline for written answers to all written questions, 
including questions submitted in writing prior to this meeting, was 3 December 2012.  
11. The Chair informed the Committee that 28 Members had not yet made a legislative 
notification.1 This notification was one of the importan t obligations of the Safeguards Agreement 
("Agreement"). Members that did not yet have legislation need only submit a simple "nil" 
notification.   
                                               
1 These Members were: Angola, Antigua & Barbuda, Belize, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African 
Republic, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, the Gambia, Grenada, Guinea Bissau, Mali, 
Mauritania, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts & Nevis, Saint Vincent & Grenadines, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Solomon Is lands, Swaziland, Tanzania, Tonga and Vanuatu. G/SG/M/42 
 
- 3 - 
 
  12. The Committee took note of the statements made. 
 
B  NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RE LATED TO SAFEGU ARD MEASURES 
1. Brazil – Fine or Table Wine  (G/SG/N/6/BRA/5/Suppl.1) 
13. Brazil stated that it had held informal consultations with Australia, Chile, the EU, 
New Zealand, South Africa and the US in April 2012, and that subsequently it had also held a 
public hearing on its own initiative.  
14. Australia, Chile, the EU, South Africa, New Zeal and enquired about the latest status of this 
investigation. Chile, the EU and New Zealand added that they saw problems with this 
investigation.   
15. Brazil clarified that the investigating authority was still examining the data, and that a 
deadline for the completion of the investigation had not been set.  
2. Chile – Maize Otherwise Worked (G/SG/N/6/CHL/13–G/SG/N/7/CHL/10–
G/SG/N/11/CHL/6–G and G/SG/N/8/CHL/5–G/SG/N/10/CHL/8–G/SG/N/11/CHL/7) 
16. Argentina stated that it was participating in this investigation with keen interest, and recalled 
that it had submitted comments. 
3. Costa Rica – Pounded Rice (G/SG/N/6/CRI/2) 
17. Costa Rica stated that a resolution was issued on 13 September wherein it was decided not to 
introduce provisional measures. It also stated the investigation would continue.  
18. Argentina stated that it would examine the final determination once it was issued. 
4. Egypt – Cotton Textile and Mixed Cotto n Textile (G/SG/N/7/EGY/5/Suppl.1)  
19. Turkey stated that Egypt's decision to impose a provisional measure was not based on solid 
facts.  
5. Egypt – Cotton Yarn (G/SG/N/8/EGY/6–G/SG/N/10/EGY/6–G/SG/N/11/EGY/5) 
20. Egypt stated that its notification was duly filed in a timely fashion. It also stated that a public 
hearing was held in February 2012, wherein all interested parties were heard.  
6. Egypt – Polypropylene (G/SG/N/6/EGY/7–G/SG/N/7/EGY/6–G/SG/N/11/EGY/4 
and G/SG/N/7/EGY/6/Suppl.1) 
21. The EU enquired about the latest status of the investigation, stating in particular that a 
provisional measure was imposed but subsequently apparently expired. 
22. Turkey questioned the legal bases of the "sus pension" of the provisional measure. It was 
concerned that the suspension had a chilling effect and created uncertainty in the market. 
23. Egypt stated that it had held several consultation s with interested parties in the course of the 
process. The authority decided to suspend the provis ional measure in view of public interest until 
the completion of investigation. 
7. India – Dioctyl Phthalate (DOP) (G/SG/N/6/IND/30) 
24.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. G/SG/M/42 
 
- 4 - 
 
  8. Indonesia – Wheat Flour (G/SG/N/6/IDN/19) 
25. Sri Lanka stated that the investigation should be terminated immediately as the non-
confidential information was insufficient and an objective authority could not have reasonably 
found a significant increase as required by past jurisprudence. Second, it had not been proved 
properly that the complainants represented a major portion of total domestic production. Third, it 
had not been established that serious injury or threat thereof was caused as most performance indicators were positive or improved from 2008 to 2011. Fourth, it had not been established that a 
causal link existed or that an increase in imports in fact caused serious injury. Fifth, there were no 
unforeseen developments. Finally, adequate opportunity was not provided for interested parties to present views.  
26. Turkey stated that the non-confidential information was inadequate for initiation and should 
have been rejected. It agreed with Sri Lanka that most performance indicators related to injury 
were positive or improved during the period of investigation. Turkey also noted that this product has been subject to trade remedy instrument s several times, including three antidumping 
measures.  
27. Australia stated that better evidence needed to be provided to justify initiation. It was also 
unable to see the non-confidential summary, which raised concerns about procedural aspects of 
the investigation. It also saw problems with lack  of evidence regarding the elements of unforeseen 
development, increase of imports and injury. Indonesia had also not provided any procedural details to allow interested parties to exercise their rights including the provision of evidence and views.  Australia asked Indonesia to submit the required details to the Committee.  
28. Indonesia clarified that the investigation was on-going, that no measure had been imposed, 
and that the investigation would be conducted in an objective, fair and transparent manner.  
9. Indonesia – Conveyor Belts or Belting Re inforced Only with Metal of a Width 20–
230 cm (G/SG/N/9/IDN/5) 
29. Japan welcomed the termination of the investigation. 
10. Jordan – Bars and Rods of Iron and Steel (G/SG/N/6/JOR/16/Suppl.1) 
30. Turkey stated that it had participated in the public hearing held on 12 September 2012, and 
requested Jordan to terminate the investigation without imposing any definitive measure.  
31. Jordan stated that it would work with Turkey and other interested Members on this issue.  
11. Morocco – Certain Bars and Rods of Iron or Steel (G/SG/N/6/MAR/7) 
32. The EU noted that the allegation of increased imports was based on a comparison of four 
months of 2011 with four months of 2012. Such a short period was not adequate to draw reliable 
and objective conclusions.  
33. Morocco stated that the investigation was initiated recently, that there was still not enough 
data to arrive at any conclusion, and that the investigating authority would look into a longer 
period.    
12. Philippines – Testliner Boar d (G/SG/N/8/PH L/8/Suppl.2–
G/SG/N/10/PHL/7/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/11/PHL/9/Suppl.1) 
34. There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 
13. Philippines - Steel Angle Bars (G/SG/ N/11/PHL/7/Suppl.4–G/SG/N/14/PHL/7) 
35. There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  G/SG/M/42 
 
- 5 - 
 
  14. Russian Federation – Combine–Harvesters (G/SG/N/6/RUS/1) 
36. The US commended Russia for complying with its notification requirements. The US noted 
that this was the second initiation by the Eurasian Economic Community in the past four years on 
the same product and that the previous investigation was concluded without measure. It hoped 
that this investigation as well as the other three investigations recently initiated and notified would 
be conducted in accordance with Russian's obligations under the Agreement.  
37. The EU echoed the concerns raised by the US. It understood that the domestic industry 
requested this investigation to compensate the redu ction of custom duties that took place due to 
Russia's accession to the WTO. Safeguards should not be used for such purposes. The EU also noted a lack of necessary information. The EU also commented on the investigation on stainless steel pipes, where a quota had been imposed. The EU  pointed out that this had not been notified.  
38. Russian Federation stated that it took its oblig ations under the Agreement seriously, and that 
all investigations would be conducted in a transparent manner. It would duly submit the necessary 
notifications and was open to discussions.  
15. Russian Federation – Tableware (G/SG/N/6/RUS/2) 
39. Sri Lanka stated that the data submitted in this investigation did not show that injury was 
attributable to imports. There was no data on th e trends and profitability of the industry or on 
wages and investment. It also stated that it found it inconvenient to make submissions in Russian.  
40. The EU requested that reasonable time be pr ovided for responses and that swift access be 
granted to the non-confidential file. 
41. The Russian Federation stated that it was op en to discussions and would convey Members' 
concerns to the relevant authorities.  
16. Russian Federation – Woven Fabrics of Man–Made Fibres and Filaments 
(G/SG/N/6/RUS/3) 
42. Turkey stated that it would submit its views in the near future. It was concerned that the 
product coverage of the investigation was very wide.  
17. Turkey – Footwear (G/SG/N/6/TUR/6/Suppl.2 and G/SG/N/11/TUR/6/Suppl.2–
G/SG/N/14/TUR/2/Suppl.1) 
43. There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 
18. Turkey – Motorcycles (G/SG/N/11/TUR /7/Suppl.3–G/SG/N/14/TUR/4/Suppl.2) 
44. There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 
19. Turkey – Matches (G/SG/N/10/TUR/12/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/11/TUR/13/Suppl.2) 
45. There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 
20. Turkey – Certain Electrical Appliances (G/SG/N/11/TUR/18–G/SG/N/14/TUR/9) 
46. There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 
21. Ukraine – Casing and Pump–Compressor Seamless Steel Pipes 
(G/SG/N/13/UKR/1/Suppl.1) 
47. There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 
48. 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 G/SG/M/42 
 
- 6 - 
 
  12 November 2012. Written responses to questions, including questions submitted in writing prior 
to this meeting, should be submitted to the Secr etariat no later than 3 December 2012. As with 
legislative notifications, any unanswered questi ons would be indicated in the draft annotated 
agenda of the next meeting. 
49. The Committee took note of the statements made. 
C  DISCUSSION OF SYSTEMIC CONCERNS RELATED TO CERTAIN SAFEGUARD 
PROCEEDINGS 
50. The US, on behalf of Australia, Canada, the EU , Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Norway, Chinese 
Taipei and Singapore – a group which identified itself as the "Friends of Safeguards Proceedings" – 
voiced systemic concerns with certain safeguard proceedings.2 It noted an alarming increase in the 
number of safeguard actions taken in recent years, which coincided with an increase in the number 
of apparent inconsistencies with obligations under the Agreement. Ensuring that the rules were 
consistently followed benefitted all Members. The "Friends of Safeguards Proceedings" wished to work closely with all Members to move this purpose forward.  
51. The US separately stated, on its own behalf, that much of the recent increase in the number 
of safeguard actions had come from Members who had not traditionally resorted to the instrument. 
Members should ensure that investigations were  fully transparent and consistent with their 
obligations. While differences of views regarding compliance had been resolved without resorting 
to dispute settlement up to now, it should not be assumed that this would continue. Abuses or disregard of provisions would continue to be monitored and addressed.  
52. Norway  made four points. First, preliminary determinations must provide clear evidence of 
serious injury or threat thereof in order to impose a provisional measure. Second, no provision in 
the Agreement allowed for "suspension" of safeguard measures. Third, immediate notification of an initiation was necessary as delayed notifications affected Members' right to defend their 
interests. Finally, as per Article 2, there could be no basis for an investigation if authorities failed 
to correctly identify the domestic industry.   
53. Singapore supported the interventions by the US  and Norway.  There was a crucial and urgent 
need to address these concerns because such an increased use suggested a move toward abuse of 
trade remedies.  
54. Japan supported the statements made and emph asized the importance of transparency, due 
process as well as timely notification. Safeguards were emergency actions unlike antidumping or 
countervailing duties. Notifications were the only way of knowing about safeguard actions unless 
one checked the official gazette every day. Expo rters and other interested parties had to be 
provided with ample opportunity to present their views. If, for example, evidence was requested 
shortly after initiation while notification was delayed, it would deny interested parties the 
opportunity to present their views and defend their interests.  
55. Australia stated that due to the emergency nature of safeguard measures, they could be blunt 
instruments against imports. Thus, it was crucial to ensure due process and transparency. 
Improved notifications would give Members greater confidence on how remedies were being applied. It also stated that the breadth of support  indicated that Members had an active interest in 
the issue, and that it saw value in continuing to discuss at future Committee meetings the issues 
raised. 
56. Chinese Taipei stated that given the nature of  safeguard measures, authorities should ensure 
that procedures and determinations were fully consistent with the Agreement.  
57. New Zealand reiterated that as per Article 8.3, the right to retaliate against a measure would 
be suspended for three years only if the measure was imposed as a result of an absolute increase 
in imports. In this regard, authorities needed to carefully take into account the requirements set 
out in the Agreement.  
                                               
2 See document G/SG/W/226.  G/SG/M/42 
 
- 7 - 
 
  58. Korea was concerned that safeguards may have been used as trade restrictive means in light 
of the global financial crisis. Safeguards were to be applied only in exceptional cases under strict 
conditions. Greater caution was necessary in their application as compared to other trade remedy 
measures.  
59. The EU explained that its concerns were systemic, and not related to individual cases. It 
emphasized that the objective of the paper was to  launch an in-depth discussion on the proper use 
of the instrument in general, and not to target any particular Member.  
60. Canada hoped that drawing attention to the issues in this paper would promote greater 
compliance and encouraged Members to be diligent in following the rules under the Agreement.  
61. Peru agreed that it was important to apply safeguard measures in a transparent manner in 
accordance with the WTO legal framework. Peru considered this to be a good forum to discuss 
conformity of safeguard measures with the rules. Fi nally, Peru reiterated the exceptional nature of 
safeguard measures." 
62. Mexico was concerned about actions not provided for in the Agreement, such as "suspension" 
of measures.  
63. Thailand reiterated that safeguards should not be used to unnecessarily disrupt trade and that 
Members that take action should carefully comply with the Agreement. 
64. China stated that safeguards may unduly disrupt trade because the instrument applied to 
trade that was otherwise fair. On the issue of "suspension" of a measure, it looked forward to 
discussing it on a technical level.   
65. Colombia stated that safeguard investigations needed to be undertaken cautiously, that 
conditions to apply a measure should be strictly abided with, and that procedural aspects like 
holding of consultations should be observed.  
66. Costa Rica shared the concerns raised, and requested Members to ensure that measures were 
not used for protectionist purposes or in frivolous fashions.  
67. Turkey agreed with the concerns raised.  The Committee should resume work on improving 
the completeness and timeliness of notifications.  As the Agreement was not part of the Doha 
negotiations, Members would have to live with the current text. Even though constructive 
discussion had taken place, improvements in transparency were limited. In terms of improving timeliness, Turkey suggested that notifications be e-mailed promptly by the imposing Member – in that Member's own language – to the top ten exporting countries. While the Agreement did not 
provide rules for the timeframe within which an investigation should be concluded, investigations 
should be concluded within a reasonable period of time. 
68. Hong Kong, China agreed with the paper, and was concerned about the increased use of 
safeguards.  
69. Chile recalled that Article 13 mandated the Committee to monitor the general implementation 
of this Agreement, and stated that discussion on  this issue would further that objective. Chile 
agreed with the paper and, in particular, was conc erned about the lack of prompt notification. In 
this regard, it suggested that the Secretariat could compile the relevant dates of the investigation process to analyse how swiftly notifications were submitted. This would allow Members to understand the magnitude of the problem. Finally, it stated that there were similar concerns 
regarding antidumping measures, and hoped that a similar debate would take place in other 
bodies of the WTO. 
70. Morocco agreed that the issues raised in the paper were important, particularly because the 
Agreement had gaps which allowed room for manoeu ver. It might be a good idea to set up a 
special sub-group that could pave the way for discussion and identify best practices.  
71. Pakistan supported the paper. It noted that the disciplines of the Agreement were less 
detailed than those of the Anti-dumping or Subsidies Agreements. On the timeliness of G/SG/M/42 
 
- 8 - 
 
  notifications, it noted that cases such as US-Wheat Gluten  underlined the importance of immediate 
notification.  
72. Ecuador recalled that, with Turkey and Cuba, it  had submitted a proposal seeking to regulate 
the monitoring instrument provided in paragraph 13.1(c).  Proper monitoring by this Committee 
was very important.  
73. The US asked that this item be kept on the ag enda for the spring meeting so that discussions 
could continue.  
74. The Committee took note of the statements made.   
D  OTHER BUSINESS  
75. The Chair recalled that many Members maintain a system where an investigating authority 
makes a recommendation to impose a measure, and then another body takes the final decision of 
whether or not to impose the measure. Members that maintain such a system usually submitted 
notifications to the Committee at a stage where the investigating authority recommended the imposition of a measure. The fact that notifications were made at the recommendation stage was 
obviously good in terms of transparency. Howeve r, many Members failed  to follow up  on these 
notifications, thereby making it difficult to determine whether or not measures ultimately were imposed. The Chair urged all Members to ensure  that whether or not a recommended measure 
came into force was clarified through their notifications.    
76. The Chair noted that, from the spring 2013 meeting onward, the annotated draft agenda and 
the draft annual report would be posted in "Documents for Meetings" on the WTO website. The practice of faxing these documents to Members would be discontinued. In line with the instructions 
from the General Council contained in document WT/BFA/128, the Committee was trying to reduce 
costs and become more environmentally friendly. 
77. India requested that the annotated draft agenda and draft annual report be sent by e-mail as 
well as being posted on the website. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Oman and South Africa seconded 
India's proposal. The Chair took note of the requ est made, and asked delegations that wished the 
draft agenda and drafts of the annual report to be sent by e-mail to inform the Secretariat of the 
e-mail addresses to which these documents should be sent. 
78. The Committee took note of the statements made.   
E  ELECTION OF OFFICERS 
79. The Chair recalled that at the spring 2012 meeting of the Committee, she indicated that she 
did not have sufficient time to hold consultations regarding the position of Vice-Chair, and that she 
would touch base with interested Members and inform the membership of her suggestion as soon as practical. As reported in the fax dated 13 July 2012 sent to all Members, she had sensed wide 
support for re-electing Ms Tomoko Ota as the Vice-Chair. Thus, she proposed that the Committee 
re-elect Ms Tomoko Ota as Vice-Chair of the Committee. 
80. The Committee so decided. 
F  ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS  
81. After adjusting several factual matters in informal mode, the Committee adopted its annual 
report (see document G/L/1009). 
G  DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING 
82. The Chair suggested that the Committee meet in the week of 22 April 2013.  The exact date 
would be confirmed in due course.  
83. The Committee so decided. 
__________