G/SG/Q2/IND/27  
 
25 April 2017  
(17-2253) Page: 1/2 
Committee  on Safeguards  Original: English  
 
NOTIFICATION UNDER A RTICLE 12.1(B) OF TH E AGREEMENT ON  
SAFEGUARDS ON FINDIN G A SERIOUS INJURY O R THREAT  
THEREOF CAUSED BY IN CREASED IMPORTS  
NOTIFICATION OF A PR OPOSAL TO IMPOSE A M EASURE  
NOTIFICATION PURSUAN T TO ARTICLE 9, FOOT NOTE 2  
OF THE AGREEMENT ON SAFEGUARDS  
REPLIES TO QUESTIONS POSED BY T HE UNITED STATES1 REGARDING  
THE NOTIFICATION OF INDIA2  
(Unwrought Aluminium (Aluminium not  
alloyed and Aluminium alloys))  
The following communication, dated 28 October 2016 , is being circulated at th e request of the  
Delegation of India . 
_______________  
Question  1 
 
Article 9.1 of the WTO Agreement on Safeguards ("Agreement") provides for special 
treatment for a developing country if its market share is less than 3 percent and where 
the developing countries' aggregate share is less than 9 percent. Footnote 2 to 
Article  9.1 provides that "[a] Member shall immediately notify an action taken under 
paragraph 1 of Article 9 to the Committee on Safeguards."  Most Members comply with 
the footnote 2 obligation by providing a lis t of the developing countries excluded from a 
measure, and developing countries generally see this as a vital transparency step, as 
notifications are often the best method to know whether a measure will be applied to 
them.  
 
India's corrigendum attempts to provide this transparency by directing developing 
countries to the relevant Customs Notification from 5 February 2016, and providing a 
corresponding Internet address where the notification can be found.  However, the 
provided address merely directs the use r to the main webpage of the Central Board of 
Excise and Customs within the Ministry of Finance. That page has a Customs drop -down 
menu that contains a link to yet another page, http://www.cbec.g ov.in/Customs -
Notifications . The "Safeguards" tab lists only one notification, 01/2016 -Cus.(SG) dated 
29.03.2016, which relates to the hot ro lled safeguards investigation. Could India please 
explain whether and, if so, how, Members, including developing c ountry Members, can 
use the information in India's notification to identify which developing countries are 
excluded from India's safeguard measures?  
 
                                                
1 G/SG/Q2/IND/22 dated 17 May 2016.  
2 G/SG/N/8/IND/29/Corr.1 -G/SG/N/10/IND/20/Corr.1 -G/SG/N/11/IND/15/Corr .1 (dated  2 May 2016).  G/SG/Q2/IND/27  
 
- 2 - 
 
  Reply  
 
India has published the list of developing countries for the purpose of SG agreement, vide its 
notification No.19/2006 -Customs (NT) dated 5 February 2016 which is available in the public 
domain at http://www.cbec.gov.in/htdocs -cbec/customs/c s-act/notifications/notfns -2016/cs -
nt2016/csnt19 -2016. While notifying the final findings or the Customs Notifications imposing the 
safeguard measure, names of specific developing countries against whom the safeguard measures 
are being taken, are indicate d therein. India considers that such a cross reference to the said 
Customs Notification makes the document brief, without the need to repeat the names of 
developing countries. Nevertheless, for further clarity and address the concern of the US, India 
would  either provide a link to the said notification or attach the relevant customs notification itself, 
in its future SG investigation notifications to the WTO.   
 
Question 2  
 
Could India please confirm that the following Internet address is the more appropria te 
one for developing countries (and all WTO members) to refer to in order to determine 
which developing countrie s are excluded from the measure : 
http://www.cbec.gov.in/htdocs -cbec/customs/cs -act/notifications/notfns -2016/cs -nt2016/csnt19 -
2016?. If correct, the United States notes that the notification is identified as "to be 
published".  Could India please also confirm that the notification ha s actually been 
published?  
 
Reply 
 
Yes, the United States has rightly indicated the complete weblink to access the required Customs 
Notification.  
 
Once the notification is issued by the competent authority, notification is endorsed with the words 
"to be pu blished " as all such notifications are also required to be published immediately thereafter 
in the Government Gazette.  
 
Question 3  
 
Given the apparent limitation regarding the provided Internet address of the appropriate 
customs notification, could India please explain why it did not provide the list of 
countries as stated in the notification itself, consistent with how most Members 
discharge their respective Artic le 9.1, footnote 2 obligation? Or, alternatively, at a 
minimum, given that the customs notifi cation predates the WTO notification by almost 
three months, could India not also attach the relevant customs notification to its 
applicable WTO notifications so that developing countries (and all WTO Members) have 
absolute clarity, transparency, and under standing regarding the applicability of the 
measure?  
 
Reply  
 
Please refer the reply provided by India in respect of question no.1 above.  
 
 
__________