RESTRICTED  
  
G/SG/M/45  
 
26 September 2014  
(14-5417)  Page: 1/13  
Committee on Safeguards    
 
 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING 
HELD ON 28 APRIL 2014 
CHAIRPERSON: MR ALEX YUN-HSING NI 
1.  The Committee on Safeguards (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 28 April 2014. 
2.  The Committee adopted the following agenda: 1   NATIONAL LEGISLATION ............................................................................................ 3
 
1.1   Belize - review of new legislative notification (G/SG/N/1/BLZ/1) ....................................... 3  
1.2   The Gambia - review of new legisl ative notification (G /SG/N/1/GMB/1) ............................. 3  
1.3   Montenegro - review of new legislative notification (G/SG/N/1/MNE/1) .............................. 3  
1.4   Papua New Guinea - review of new legislative notification (G/SG/N/1/PNG/1) ..................... 3  
1.5   Sierra Leone - review of new legislative notification (G/SG/N/1/SLE/1) .............................. 3  
1.6   Chinese Taipei - review of new legislative notification (G/SG/N/1/TPKM/3) ......................... 3  
1.7   Turkey - review of new legislativ e notification (G/SG/ N/1/TUR/3/Suppl.2) ......................... 3  
1.8   Cameroon – continuing review of previously reviewed notification 
(G/SG/N/1/CM R/1) ........................................................................................................... 3  
1.9   Chile – Continuing review of previously reviewed notification 
(G/SG/N/1/CHL/ 2/Suppl.2) ................................................................................................ 3  
1.10   Russia – Continuing review of previously  reviewed notification  (G/SG/N/1/RUS/1) ............ 4  
2   NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RE LATED TO SAFEGUAR D MEASURES ........................... 4  
2.1   Australia – Canned tomatoes (G/SG/N/9/AUS/3) ............................................................ 4  
2.2   Australia – Certain processed fruit products (G/SG/N/9/AUS/4) ........................................ 4  
2.3   Chile – Frozen po rk (G/SG/N/9/ CHL/8) ......................................................................... 4  
2.4   Colombia - Steel Wire Rod (G/SG/N/7/COL/1/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/11/COL/1/Suppl.1 
and G/SG/N/7/COL/1/Suppl.2–G/SG/N/11/CO L/1/Suppl.2 and G/ SG/N/8/COL /1)....................... 4  
2.5   Colombia - Bars and Rods (G/SG/N/7/COL/2/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/11/COL/2/Suppl.1) .............. 4  
2.6   Costa Rica – Pounded Rice (1) (G/SG/N/9/CRI/1) ........................................................... 5  
2.7   Costa Rica – Pounded Rice (2) (G/SG/N/6/CRI/3) ........................................................... 5  
2.8   Dominican Republic - Certain Sports and Other Socks (G/SG/N/10/DOM/2/Suppl.3) ............ 5  
2.9   Egypt - Steel Rebar (G /SG/N/7/EGY/8/Suppl.1) ............................................................. 5  
2.10   India – Sodium Citr ate (G/SG/N/6/ IND/36) ................................................................. 5  
2.11   India – Sodium Nitrate (G/SG/N/8/IND/24–G/SG/N/10/IND/15–
G/SG/N/11/IND/10 and G/SG/N/10/IND/15/Suppl.1) ............................................................. 6  
2.12   India - Bare Elastomeric Fi lament Yarn (G/S G/N/6/IND/ 35) ........................................... 6  
2.13   India - Saturated Fatty Alcohols (G/SG/N/6/IND/34) ..................................................... 6  G/SG/M/45 
 
- 2 - 
 
  2.14   India – Seamless Pipe (G/SG/Q2/IND/ 14, G/SG/Q2/IND/15 an d G/SG/Q2/IND/16) ........... 6  
2.15   Indonesia – Cotton yarn other than sewing thread (G/SG/N/6/IDN/11/Suppl.1 AND 
G/SG/N/6/IDN/11/Suppl.2 and G/SG/N/8/IDN /4/Suppl.3–G/SG/N/10/IDN/4/Suppl.3) ................ 7  
2.16   Indonesia - I and H sections of other alloy steel (G/SG/N/6/IDN/25 and 
G/SG/N/6/IDN/25/Corr.1 and G/ SG/N/6/IDN/25/ Suppl.1) ...................................................... 7  
2.17   Indonesia - Bars and rods, hot-rolled, in irregularity wound coils 
(G/SG/N/6/IDN/24 and G/SG /N/6/IDN/24/ Suppl.1) ............................................................... 7  
2.18   Indonesia – Kilowatt Hour  Meters (G/SG/ N/9/IDN/9) .................................................... 7  
2.19   Indonesia – Macker el (G/SG/N/9/ IDN/7) ..................................................................... 7  
2.20   Indonesia – Sheath Cont raceptive (G/SG/ N/9/IDN/8) ................................................... 7  
2.21   Israel – Glass Wool and Rock Wool (G/SG/N/8/ISR/1/Rev.1–
G/SG/N/11/ISR/2/Rev.1 an d G/SG/N/9/I SR/1) ..................................................................... 7  
2.22   Kyrgyz Republic – Wheat Flour (G/SG/N/10/KGZ/2) ...................................................... 8  
2.23   MOROCCO - WIRE RODS AND REINFORCING BARS (G/SG/N/8/MAR/3/Suppl.1–
G/SG/N/10/MAR/3–G/SG/N/11/MAR/2/Suppl .1 and G/SG/N/8/MAR/3/Suppl.2–
G/SG/N/10/MAR/3/Suppl.1–G/S G/N/11/MAR/2/S uppl.2) ........................................................ 8  
2.24   Philippines – Newsprint (G/SG/N/6/PHL/9/Suppl.1) ....................................................... 8  
2.25   Philippines – Galvanized Iron and Pre-Painted Sheets and Coils 
(G/SG/N/6/PHL/10/Suppl.1) ............................................................................................... 8  
2.26   Philippines – Testliner Board (G/SG/N/8/PHL/8/Suppl.3–G/SG/N/10/PHL/7/Suppl.2 
– G/SG/N/11/PHL/ 9/Suppl.3) ............................................................................................. 8  
2.27   Russian Federation - Harvesters (G/SG/N/8/RUS/1/Suppl.4–
G/SG/N/10/RUS/1/Suppl.3–G/SG/N/11/RUS/1/Suppl.5) ......................................................... 8  
2.28   South Africa – Frozen Potato Chips (G/SG/N/8/ZAF/2–G/SG/N/10/ZAF/2–
G/SG/N/11/ZAF/ 2/Suppl.2) ................................................................................................ 8  
2.29   Chinese Taipei - High Density Polyethylene and Linear Low Density Polyethylene 
(G/SG/N/6/TP KM/1) .......................................................................................................... 9  
2.30   Thailand - Non Alloy Hot Rolled St eel Flat Products (G /SG/N/6/THA/4) ............................ 9  
2.31   Turkey - Spectacle frames (G/SG/N/6/TUR/11/Suppl.1 and 
G/SG/N/6/TUR/11/Suppl.1/Corr.1 and G/SG/N/10/TUR/8/Suppl.2–G/SG/N/11/TUR/8/Suppl.2) ................................................................................................ 9
 
2.32   Turkey - Travel goods (G/SG/N/6/TU R/12/Suppl.1 and G/SG/N/8/TUR/9/Suppl.2-
G/SG/N/10/TUR/9/Suppl.2-G/SG/N/11/TUR/9/Suppl.2) .......................................................... 9  
2.33   TURKEY - CERTAIN ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES (G/SG/N/8/TUR/10/Suppl.1–
G/SG/N/10/TUR/10/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/11/TUR/11/Suppl.2 and 
G/SG/N/8/TUR/10/Suppl.1/Corr.1–G/SG/N/10/TUR/10/Suppl.1/Corr.1–G/SG/N/11/TUR/11/Su ppl.2/Corr.1) .................................................................................... 9
 
2.34   Ukraine – Tableware and Kitchenware of Porcelain (G/SG/N/8/UKR/4-
G/SG/N/10/UK R/4) ........................................................................................................... 9  
2.35   Ukraine – Motor Cars (G/SG/N/8/UKR/3/Suppl.1-G/SG/N/10/UKR/3/Suppl.2-
G/SG/N/11/UKR/ 1/Suppl.1) .............................................................................................. 10 
3   NOTIFICATION OF SAFEGUARD MEAS URES BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION .............. 10  
4   DISCUSSION GROUP REGARD ING SAFEGUARD PROCEEDINGS.................................. 11  
5   OTHER BU SINESS ...................................................................................................... 11  
5.1   Statement on an investigation by Indonesia (Wheat Flour) – Item requested by 
Australia, Turkey  and Sri Lanka ......................................................................................... 11 
5.2   Statement regarding notification of a law by Bahrain – Item requested by the US .............. 12 G/SG/M/45 
 
- 3 - 
 
  5.3   Statement on an investigation by Thailand (Hot-rolled Steel Flat Products) – Item 
requested by  Kore a .......................................................................................................... 12 
5.4   Statement on an investigation by Indonesia (Flat-rolled Product) – Item requested 
by Viet Nam ................................................................................................................... . 12 
5.5   Proposal to Hold a Seminar on Noti fications – Item reques ted by New Zealand .................. 12 
6   DATE OF NEXT REGULAR ME ETING ............................................................................ 13  
7   ELECTION OF  OFFICERS ............................................................................................ 13  
 
1  NATIONAL LEGISLATION 
1.1  Belize - review of new legislat ive notification (G/SG/N/1/BLZ/1) 
3.  There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
1.2  The Gambia - review of new legi slative notification  (G/SG/N/1/GMB/1) 
4.  There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 1.3  Montenegro - review of new legi slative notification  (G/SG/N/1/MNE/1) 
5.  The US stated that since the responses to its questions were provided by Montenegro only 
recently1, it would study the responses first.  
1.4  Papua New Guinea - review of new le gislative notification (G/SG/N/1/PNG/1) 
6.  There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
1.5  Sierra Leone - review of new legi slative notification  (G/SG/N/1/SLE/1) 
7.  There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 1.6  Chinese Taipei - review of new le gislative notification (G/SG/N/1/TPKM/3) 
8.  The US stated that since the responses to it s questions were provided by Chinese Taipei only 
recently2, it would study the responses first.  
1.7  Turkey - review of new legislativ e notification (G/SG/N/1/TUR/3/Suppl.2) 
9.  The US commended Turkey for the tran sparency provided by the notification.  
1.8  Cameroon – continuing review of  previously reviewed notification 
(G/SG/N/1/CMR/1) 
10.  The US thanked Cameroon for the responses to  its questions, and stated that it was still 
studying those responses. 
1.9  Chile – Continuing review of previously reviewed notification 
(G/SG/N/1/CHL/2/Suppl.2) 
11.  The US thanked Chile for the responses to it s questions, and stated that it had no more 
follow-up questions. 
                                               
1 See G/SG/Q1/MNE/2.  
2 See G/SG/Q1/TPKM/8.  G/SG/M/45 
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.10   Russia – Continuing review of  previously reviewed notification 
(G/SG/N/1/RUS/1) 
12.  The Chair informed the Committee that the US had requested that the responses to its 
questions and any related discussions be taken up at the Anti-dumping Committee since the 
questions mainly dealt with anti-dumping. There were no other comments or questions. 
13.  The Chair recalled that the deadline for written questions concerning any legislation reviewed 
at this meeting was 19 May 2014. The deadline for written answers to all written questions, 
including questions submitted in writing prior to this meeting, was 10 June 2014.  
14.  The Chair informed the Committee that 22 Members had not yet made a legislative 
notification.3 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. The US thanked the Chair for his efforts to encourage those Members that had not yet 
made a legislative notification to make the necessary notification. However, there were still 
Members that had not yet made any legislative notification. Many of those countries had informed 
the WTO through the Trade Policy Review process th at they did not have safeguard legislation and 
the US encouraged outstanding Members to revi ew their individual situations regarding the 
applicable notification. 
15.  Canada voiced its concerns about the recent high number of safeguard actions. While many of 
those actions were taken by a limited number of frequent users, first-time users were also 
gradually increasing. Canada hoped that this increase in safeguard actions was not a long-term trend, and requested that imposing Members act ca utiously with regards to this instrument that 
was to be used only in special circumstances.   
16.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
2  NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RELATED TO SAFEGUARD MEASURES 
2.1  Australia – Canned tomatoes (G/SG/N/9/AUS/3) 
17.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 2.2  Australia – Certain processed fruit products (G/SG/N/9/AUS/4) 
18.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 
2.3  Chile – Frozen pork (G/SG/N/9/CHL/8) 19.  Brazil welcomed the fact that the investigation was the terminated without a measure. 
2.4  Colombia - Steel Wire Rod (G/SG/N/ 7/COL/1/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/11/COL/1/Suppl.1 
and G/SG/N/7/COL/1/Suppl.2–G/SG/N/11/COL/1/Suppl.2 and G/SG/N/8/COL/1) 
2.5  Colombia - Bars and Rods (G/SG/N/7/COL/2/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/11/COL/2/Suppl.1) 20.  Colombia made a statement regarding four investigations, namely, investigations on steel 
wire rod and on bars and rods, which were on the agenda, as well as investigations on steel angles 
and on angles, shapes and sections of iron or non-alloy steel. Regarding bars and rods, Colombia decided not to impose a final measure although it had imposed a provisional measure. Regarding 
steel angles and regarding angles, shapes and sections of iron or non-alloy steel, the 
                                               
3 These Members were: Angola, Antigua & Barbuda, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Congo, 
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Grenada, Guinea Bissau, Mauritania, Mozambique, Niger, Rwanda, 
Saint Kitts & Nevis, Saint Vincent & Grenadines, Samo a, Solomon Islands, Swazila nd, Tajikistan, Tanzania, 
Tonga and Vanuatu. G/SG/M/45 
 
- 5 - 
 
  investigations were terminated without any measure. Regarding steel wire rod, a final measure 
was imposed. All of these notifications were filed recently.4 
21.  Turkey welcomed the decisions by Colombia regarding bars and rods, steel angles and angles, 
shapes and sections of iron or non-alloy steel. Ho wever, Turkey had doubts regarding the decision 
on steel wire rod. Turkey recalled that it requested in August 2013 to be excluded from any 
possible measure by virtue of Article 9.1 of the Agreement. It also recalled that Turkey was not 
excluded from the provisional measure imposed earlier. Turkey asked that Colombia clarify the 
situation. 
22.  Mexico also had doubts regarding the decision on steel wire rod. In Mexico's view, there were 
several problems regarding transparency and due proc ess. First, the time to react to the invitation 
for consultation was too short. There were also problems regarding identification of the product 
under investigation, analysis of competition between imported product and domestic product, 
analysis of unforeseen developments, of injury and of other factors.  
23.  Japan also voiced concern regarding the decision on steel wire rod. It reiterated the 
exceptional nature of the safeguard instrument and asked Colombia to be careful in investigations. 
It specifically pointed out the fact that some of Colombia's notifications had a time lag of as long as one month after the relevant fact.  
24.  Costa Rica had been following the investigation regarding steel wire rod very closely, and 
requested that it be expressly excluded from the measure.  
25.  Colombia stated that it would refer the comments to the capital. Meanwhile it reiterated that it 
had complied with the relevant procedures, and had also consulted interested parties. Colombia 
explained that the responses to some of the points raised could be found in the notification 
submitted several days before the meeting.5 
2.6  Costa Rica – Pounded Rice (1) (G/SG/N/9/CRI/1) 
26.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 
2.7  Costa Rica – Pounded Rice (2) (G/SG/N/6/CRI/3) 27.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 
2.8  Dominican Republic - Certain Sports and Other Socks (G/SG/N/10/DOM/2/Suppl.3) 
28.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 2.9  Egypt - Steel Rebar (G/SG/N/7/EGY/8/Suppl.1) 29.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 
2.10  India – Sodium Citrate (G/SG/N/6/IND/36) 
30.  The EU recalled that it had already expressed concerns in the past regarding the frequent use 
of safeguards by India. In the view of the EU, India was continuing to do so. The EU found many 
shortcomings with India's investigations. Given that the mere initiation of an investigation would 
affect trade in a negative manner, the EU asked In dia to reconsider its use of the SG instrument. 
31.  The US also raised concerns with the number of SG investigations initiated by India. India had 
initiated the most safeguard investigations of any Member. The US had various concerns with 
India's investigations such as initiations after a low-quality petition, hasty imposition of provisional 
                                               
4 See documents G/SG/N/7/COL/2/Suppl.2–G /SG/N/11/COL/2/Suppl.2 (bars and rods), 
G/SG/N/9/COL/5 (steel angles), G/SG/N/9/COL/4 (angles, shapes and sections of iron or non-alloy steel), and 
G/SG/N/8/COL/1/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/10/COL/1–G/SG/N/11/COL/1/Suppl.3 (steel wire rod). 
5 See document G/SG/N/8/COL/1/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/10/COL/1–G/SG/N/11/COL/1/Suppl.3. G/SG/M/45 
 
- 6 - 
 
  measures, and lack of solid rationale for the im position of final measures, and urged India to 
review its methods and procedures.  
32.  India stated that its investigation process was thorough, and there were many in-built checks. 
For example, an inter-ministerial board care fully examined the recommendations of the 
investigating authority.   
2.11   India – Sodium Nitrate (G/SG/N/8/IND/24–G/SG/N/10/IND/15–
G/SG/N/11/IND/10 and G/SG/N/10/IND/15/Suppl.1) 
33.  The US noted that while the final findings had been published in September 2013, the 
notification was made only in January 2014 and asked why this was so. Referring to another 
investigation, the US understood that an investigation on non-alloyed ingots of unwrought aluminium was recently initiated and asked when that would be notified.  
34.  On the first query, India regretted the delay and explained that it was due to internal change 
of officials. On the second query, India explaine d that the notification would be made very soon.6  
2.12  India - Bare Elastomeric Filament Yarn (G/SG/N/6/IND/35) 
35.  Japan stated that a safeguard measure on this product, if imposed, would have a negative 
impact not only for Japan but also for India itself. It stressed that safeguard was an instrument to 
be used only in exceptional circumstances, and asked India to keep this in mind. 
36.  Chinese Taipei shared the concerns expressed by other Members about the frequent use of 
safeguard measures by India. In particular, Chinese Taipei was concerned that the procedures 
followed by India in the investigations were not satisfactory. On this particular investigation, Chinese Taipei asked India to take into careful consideration all the relevant facts.    
2.13  India - Saturated Fatty Alcohols (G/SG/N/6/IND/34) 
37.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 2.14  India – Seamless Pipe (G/S G/Q2/IND/14, G/SG/Q2/IND/15 and 
G/SG/Q2/IND/16) 
38.  Russia regretted that India's authority had recommended the imposition of a measure 
notwithstanding the fact that Russia had registered its concerns with India's authority. In Russia's 
view, the investigation did not undertake appropriate analysis on increase of imports, on the injury 
incurred by the domestic industry and on non-attrib ution. In short, Russia believed that there was 
no basis to impose a measure. Russia asked India to clarify the situation by responding to the questions it had submitted. It also wished to know when the final decision would be taken. 
39.  Japan also had concerns with this investigation. First of all, Japan understood that its exports 
were not in competition with India's domestic product. In addition, in Japan's view, the 
investigation did not undertake appropriate analysis on unforeseen developments, on increase of 
imports, and on injury. It asked India to respond to  its questions. It also wished to know what the 
timeline of the next steps was.  
40.  The EU asked India to clarify the situation by  responding to the questions it had submitted. 
41.  India stated that while it was analysing the questions, the latest findings had been notified 
very recently.7 India explained that it was still a recommendation by the investigating authority, 
and the measure was not yet imposed.   
                                               
6 Subsequently notified in document G/SG/N/6/IND/37. 
7 See document G/SG/N/8/IND/25–G /SG/N/10/IND/16–G/SG/N/11/IND/11. G/SG/M/45 
 
- 7 - 
 
  2.15  Indonesia – Cotton yarn other than sewing thread (G/SG/N/6/IDN/11/Suppl.1 
AND G/SG/N/6/IDN/11/Suppl.2 and G/SG/N/8/IDN/4/Suppl.3–G/SG/N/10/IDN/4/Suppl.3) 
42.  The US noted that Indonesia was the second largest user of the SG instrument, and in fact, 
there were six notifications from Indonesia that were on the agenda of this meeting. The US had 
serious concerns with Indonesia's investigations in general and encouraged Indonesia to review its methods and procedures and make any necessary reforms to address these concerns. There were 
problems with procedures as well as with transparency.  
43.  The EU reiterated the high number of in stances where Indonesia had been resorting to 
safeguards. The justifications of the use of the measure were often questionable. The EU was also 
worried about the choice of instruments. Many safeguard investigations were initiated after 
allegations about unfair trade from one single exporter. If that was the case, anti-dumping was the 
more appropriate instrument to use. The EU welcomed the fact that Indonesia had notified three terminations. However, it urged Indonesia not resort to safeguards if there was a more 
appropriate instrument.    
44.  Indonesia stated that it was proceeding in line with the Agreement.  
2.16  Indonesia - I and H sections of other alloy steel (G /SG/N/6/IDN/25 and 
G/SG/N/6/IDN/25/Corr.1 and G/SG/N/6/IDN/25/Suppl.1) 
45.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 2.17  Indonesia - Bars and rods, hot-rolled, in irregularity wound coils 
(G/SG/N/6/IDN/24 and G/SG/N/6/IDN/24/Suppl.1) 
46.  Japan shared the concerns of other Members regarding Indonesia's frequent use of safeguards 
as well as lack of transparency of the process. Regarding this specific investigation, Japan was of 
the view that products exported from Japan were not in competition with the product produced by 
the domestic industry. In Japan's view, if a measure was imposed, it would not only hurt Japanese 
exporters but also hurt users in Indonesia. Japan asked Indonesia to take fully into account its views expressed in the hearing.  
47.  Chinese Taipei, as a major exporter to Indonesia, shared the concerns of other Members 
regarding Indonesia's frequent use of safeguards and asked Indonesia to strictly abide by the 
procedures provide for in the Agreement.  
2.18  Indonesia – Kilowatt Hour Meters (G/SG/N/9/IDN/9) 
48.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 
2.19  Indonesia – Mackerel (G/SG/N/9/IDN/7) 49.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
2.20  Indonesia – Sheath Contraceptive (G/SG/N/9/IDN/8) 
50.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  2.21  Israel – Glass Wool and Ro ck Wool (G/SG/N/8/ISR/1/Rev.1–
G/SG/N/11/ISR/2/Rev.1 and G/SG/N/9/ISR/1) 
51.  The EU noted that there was a notification made on 23 December 2013, and asked Israel to 
clarify. 52.  Israel stated that it would check and inform the EU later.  G/SG/M/45 
 
- 8 - 
 
  2.22  Kyrgyz Republic – Wheat Flour (G/SG/N/10/KGZ/2) 
53.  The US noted that while this notification ex plained that a "temporary safeguard" was brought 
into effect and was extended until February 2014, the notification did not describe the measures 
themselves, and the US asked for a clarification. 
54.  In the absence of the delegation of the Kyrgyz  Republic in the room, the Chair stated that the 
question would be conveyed to the Kyrgyz Republic.   
2.23  MOROCCO - WIRE RODS AND REINFORCING BARS (G/SG/N/8/MAR/3/Suppl.1–
G/SG/N/10/MAR/3–G/SG/N/11/MAR/2/Suppl.1 and G/SG/N/8/MAR/3/Suppl.2–
G/SG/N/10/MAR/3/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/11/MAR/2/Suppl.2) 
55.  The EU expressed strong doubts whether the proposed measure was justifiable, and stated 
that it would monitor the situation closely. It also stated that at any rate, applying the measure 
beyond end of 2014 was unacceptable.  
56.  Morocco stated that it was available to consult with the EU, and asked the EU to submit the 
comments in writing.  
2.24  Philippines – Newsprint (G/SG/N/6/PHL/9/Suppl.1) 
57.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 2.25  Philippines – Galvanized Iron and Pre-Painted Sheets and Coils 
(G/SG/N/6/PHL/10/Suppl.1) 
58.  Australia understood that the problem was with imports from only one country, and that the 
imports were apparently below cost, and raised doubts about the use of the safeguard instrument 
in this situation. In Australia's view, the domestic industry has inappropriately attributed injury 
caused by the implementation of various free trad e agreements to imports. In addition, Australia 
sought an update on the timeframes for the investigation.   
59.  The Philippines stated that it would advise bilaterally. 
2.26  Philippines – Testliner Bo ard (G/SG/N/8/PHL/8/Suppl.3–
G/SG/N/10/PHL/7/Suppl.2 – G/SG/N/11/PHL/9/Suppl.3) 
60.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 
2.27  Russian Federation - Harvesters (G/SG/N/8/RUS/1/Suppl.4–
G/SG/N/10/RUS/1/Suppl.3–G/SG/N/11/RUS/1/Suppl.5) 
61.  The EU had many doubts about this measure, but limited its comments to the issue of the 
quota. It noted that the quota for 2014 was 774 pieces. The EU saw no good basis for this figure. 
The EU also had doubts about the implementation of this quota. The EU understood that of the 
quota of 774 pieces, only 44 pieces were allocated. The EU asked why this was so.   
62.  Russia explained that in fact it was surprised when it found out that the traditional suppliers 
did not apply for the first allocation of the quota.  This was the reason why the quota was not fully 
allocated. For the 2015 quota, traditional suppliers would be allocated at the first stage.  
2.28  South Africa – Frozen Potato Chips (G/SG/N/8/ZAF/2–G/SG/N/10/ZAF/2–
G/SG/N/11/ZAF/2/Suppl.2) 
63.  The EU had concerns with this investigation, and was monitoring developments closely. It 
particularly had doubts about the level of the duty proposed. While it welcomed the fact that the 
provisional measure had expired, it expected that South Africa would decide not to impose a final 
measure.   G/SG/M/45 
 
- 9 - 
 
  64.  South Africa stated that it had fully compli ed with the requirements of the Agreement. It 
would refer the EU's questions to the capital.   
2.29  Chinese Taipei - High Density Polyethy lene and Linear Low Density Polyethylene 
(G/SG/N/6/TPKM/1) 
65.  Chinese Taipei explained that the investigation had been terminated, and that the notification 
to that effect would be submitted shortly.8   
2.30  Thailand - Non Alloy Hot Rolled St eel Flat Products (G/SG/N/6/THA/4) 
66.  Turkey stated that the investigation should be terminated since the necessary conditions were 
not met. 
67.  Chinese Taipei asked Thailand to carry out the investigation carefully.  
68.  Japan pointed out that the safeguard instrument was to be used only in exceptional 
circumstances, and asked Thailand to take its comments into full consideration in the 
investigation. 
69.  Australia was following the investigation closely. It understood that the petitioners had asked 
that a provisional measure be imposed. Australia asked Thailand to clarify the relevant timelines.  70.  Thailand asked that the questions be submitted in writing.  
2.31  Turkey - Spectacle frames (G/SG/N/6/TUR/11/Suppl.1 and 
G/SG/N/6/TUR/11/Suppl.1/Corr.1 and G/SG/N/10/TUR/8/Suppl.2–
G/SG/N/11/TUR/8/Suppl.2) 
71.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 2.32  Turkey - Travel goods (G/SG/N/6/TUR/12/Suppl.1 and 
G/SG/N/8/TUR/9/Suppl.2-G/SG/N/10/TUR/9/Suppl.2-G/SG/N/11/TUR/9/Suppl.2) 
72.  The EU was concerned that Turkey usually extended safeguard measures. In fact, Turkey 
sometimes extended measures twice. Given that the purpose of safeguard measures was to help 
the industry adjust, it was not reasonable that a measure lasted, for example, 8 years. The EU 
asked Turkey to reconsider such practice.   
73.  Turkey explained that it was not imposing as many measures in recent years in earlier years, 
and provided an overview of the 16 measures it had imposed since 2006.  2.33  TURKEY - CERTAIN ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES (G/SG/N/8/TUR/10/Suppl.1–
G/SG/N/10/TUR/10/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/11/TUR/11/Suppl.2 and G/SG/N/8/TUR/10/Suppl.1/Corr.1–G/SG/N/10/TUR/10/Suppl.1/Corr.1–
G/SG/N/11/TUR/11/Suppl.2/Corr.1) 
74.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 2.34  Ukraine – Tableware and Kitche nware of Porcelain (G/SG/N/8/UKR/4-
G/SG/N/10/UKR/4) 
75.  Ukraine explained that the authority had decided to impose the final measure, and that the 
notification to that effect was circulated very recently.9 
76.  Turkey stated that exports from Turkey acco unted for less than 3% of the total imports, and 
so Turkey should be exempted from the measur e in light of Article 9.1 of the Agreement. 
                                               
8 Subsequently circulated in document G/SG/N/9/TPKM/1. 
9 See document G/SG/N/8/UKR/4/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/10/UKR/4/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/11/UKR/2. G/SG/M/45 
 
- 10 - 
 
  77.  The EU stated that this case illustrated perfectly the problem of the use of the safeguard 
instrument when imports from one specific source were the cause of the injury. The EU understood 
that one particular country accounted for more th an 94% of total imports, and the average import 
price of that exporting country was substantiall y lower than the average import price of other 
exporting countries. The measure would disproportionally affect exports from countries that had an 
import price much higher than the average import  price. The EU urged Ukraine to reconsider its 
position. It also asked that the pace of liberalization be accelerated. 
78.  Ukraine took note of the comments.  
2.35  Ukraine – Motor Cars (G/SG/N/8/UKR/3/Suppl.1-G/SG/N/10/UKR/3/Suppl.2-
G/SG/N/11/UKR/1/Suppl.1) 
79.  Ukraine explained that the measure had been lib eralized. It then referred to the suspension of 
concessions taken by Turkey, stated that this suspension was not consistent with the Agreement, 
and asked Turkey to discontinue the suspension.    
80.  Turkey welcomed the liberalization and stated that it was considering the next step.  
81.  Japan welcomed the liberalization as the first step to the right direction, although it came 
much later than it should have. Japan reiterated its view that the measure was inconsistent with 
the Agreement, and reminded Ukraine that a panel proceeding was in place.  
82.  Korea continued to be concerned with the measure. It recalled that there was insufficient 
evidence to justify the measure, that no adequate consultation was held and that the measure was 
notified one year after the decision. Korea noted that it was a third party to the ongoing dispute 
against Ukraine regarding this measure and asked that the measure be withdrawn.  
83.  Russia was also concerned with the measure, which in its view was inconsistent with the 
Agreement. Russia asked that the measure be withdrawn.  
84.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
3  NOTIFICATION OF SAFEGUARD MEASURES BY THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION  85.  The Chair explained that this item was put on  the agenda at the request of the US, the EU and 
Chinese Taipei. 
86.  The US recalled that at the autumn 2013 meetin g, it pointed out the lack of notification from 
Russia regarding one investigation and one measure. No notification had yet been made. Since 
then, there were five additional investigations and measures all of which had not been notified. 
The products involved were flatware of stainless steel, certain fasteners, activated carbon, caramel 
and graphite electrodes. The US was of the view that those investigations and measures should be 
notified, and asked Russia to clarify the situation.  It reserved the right under Article 12.8 of the 
Agreement to notify those measures.  
87.  Chinese Taipei noted that notifications were often the only way for exporters to learn about 
safeguard actions. In this light, it encouraged Russi a to provide full notifications of all measures in 
line with its obligations.  
88.  The EU agreed with the previous speakers  and requested Russia to notify the existing 
measures that had not been notified.  
89.  Canada, Japan and Ukraine agreed with the previous speakers. 
90.  Australia recalled that Russia had explained before its accession how it would ensure 
compliance with the obligations in the Agreement, and that it would notify all investigations 
launched before accession as well as all measures resulting from those proceedings. Australia asked Russia to fully abide by its transparency obligations.    G/SG/M/45 
 
- 11 - 
 
  91.  Russia stated that there was no obligation in the Agreement or in its accession protocol 
regarding notifications of reviews that did not relate to findings of serious injury or of decisions not 
to apply a measure or not to extend a measure. Russia was not violating any obligations.    
4  DISCUSSION GROUP REGARDING SAFEGUARD PROCEEDINGS 
92.  The Chair explained that this item was placed on the agenda at the request of the delegations 
of Australia; Canada; the EU; Japan; Korea; New Zealand; Norway; Separate Customs Territory of 
Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu; Singapore; and the US. 
93.  The EU reminded Members that the informal discussion group meeting would take place after 
the present meeting. The discussion was open to a ll Members. The EU recalled that this discussion 
group evolved from a paper submitted to the Committee in October 2012.10 The first discussion 
group was held in April 2013. Many Members had ur ged a continuation of the discussion so that 
the paper would not be just a one-time exercise. The idea behind this discussion group was to 
provide a broader perspective than the one in no rmal Committee meetings, taking a distance from 
discussions of individual cases, and to focus more  on each other's experiences and to learn from 
each other. The topic for that day's discussion was to include: structure of an investigation, 
establishment of timelines for the various phases of an investigation, comparison of investigatory structure with other phases related to a measure, and how to make the required WTO 
notifications. 
94.  The US noted that the informal discussion group had now achieved some regularity, and on 
that basis, it suggested that some topics discussed in the informal discussions could be discussed 
in the framework of the Committee. It recalled that there was a process in the Anti-dumping 
Committee whereby Members submitted papers on se lected topics and suggested considering that 
a similar process be adopted here. The US asked the Chair to hold consultations to pursue such a possibility, and if the Members were amenable to the idea, to consult about the possible first 
topics.   
95.  Canada, Chinese Taipei and New Zealand supported the US suggestion that the Chair hold 
consultations.  
96.  Ecuador and India each stated that it wished to see the proposal in written form so that 
Members could consider it well. Ecuador considered that having the proposal in writing was useful, 
since in a Member-driven process, it was important that Members were well informed of the content of the proposals under consideration. 
97.  The US stated that rather than submitting th e proposal in paper, it preferred that the Chair 
first hold consultations. 
98.  The Chair stated that he had noted the US request. Since this was the last Committee 
meeting he would chair, he asked the incoming chair to hold informal consultations on this matter.      99.  The Committee took note of the statements.  
5  OTHER BUSINESS  
5.1  Statement on an investigation by Indo nesia (Wheat Flour) – Item requested by 
Australia, Turkey and Sri Lanka 
100.  Australia made a statement regarding Indonesia's investigation regarding wheat flour that 
was notified in June 2013.11 Australia had participated in the proceeding, and continued to be of 
the view that imposition of a measure was not warranted. It understood that Indonesia was 
planning to impose a quota, and apparently also limit the ports of entry. Australia observed that 
ten months had passed since the proposal was made by the investigation authority, and that 
Indonesia's internal time-limit to take a decision had apparently passed. Australia asked Indonesia 
not to impose the measure. 
                                               
10 See document G/SG/W/226. 
11 See document G/SG/N/8/IDN/15–G/SG/N/10/IDN/15. G/SG/M/45 
 
- 12 - 
 
  101.  Turkey explained that it was a major exporter  of the investigated product and that it had, 
like Australia, actively participated in the proceed ing. Turkey continued to be of the view that the 
situation did not warrant the imposition of a safeguard measure. It asked Indonesia not to impose the measure. 
102.  Sri Lanka did not see any causal relation between imports and injury. In fact, imports have 
declined toward the end of the investigation period . Sri Lanka regretted the fact that a provisional 
measure was imposed and that it continued to be in place for more than 200 days. It asked 
Indonesia to terminate the investigation without any final measure.   
103.  Ukraine shared the concerns of the previous speakers.  
104.  Indonesia asked that the questions be submitted in writing.  
5.2  Statement regarding notification of a law by Bahrain – Item requested by the US 
105.  The US noted that the Trade Policy Review report for Bahrain issued recently explained that 
Bahrain adopted in 2011 a new GCC Common Law on  anti-dumping, countervailing measures and 
safeguards. This law had not yet been notified to the Committee. The US asked Bahrain to make 
the notification as soon as possible.  
106.  In the absence of the delegate of Bahrain in  the room, the Chair stated that he would convey 
the US request to Bahrain.   
5.3  Statement on an investigation by Thaila nd (Hot-rolled Steel Fl at Products) – Item 
requested by Korea 
107.  Korea had concerns regarding Thailand's safeguard measure on hot-rolled steel flat 
products.12 Korea was of the view that the measure was inconsistent with the Agreement. Notably, 
the product subject to the measure was not the same  as the product covered in the investigation. 
Specifically, steel used in the automobile industry was excluded from the measure. Korea did not find this to be reasonable. Korea also found the lack of non-attribution analysis to be problematic. 
Korea asked Thailand to terminate the measure.  
108.  Thailand asked that the question be submitted in writing.  
5.4  Statement on an investigation by Indo nesia (Flat-rolled Product) – Item requested 
by Viet Nam 
109.  Viet Nam made a statement regarding Indonesi a's investigation on flat-rolled product of iron 
or non-alloy steel that was initiated in December 2012.13 Viet Nam had submitted comments on 
this notification, but had not yet heard any reaction. Viet Nam asked Indonesia to clarify the 
situation.  
110.  Indonesia asked that the question be submitted in writing. 
5.5  Proposal to Hold a Seminar on Notifications – Item requested by New Zealand 
111.  New Zealand stated that Members have often noted that the nature and extent of details 
contained in notifications from Members varied. Against this background, New Zealand proposed 
that the Chair consult with the Secretariat regarding the possibility of holding a seminar regarding 
notifications in order to improve the quality of notifications. New Zealand further suggested that 
such seminar could be recorded so that Members could refer to it later as well.   
112.  The US, Colombia, Canada, Japan, Chinese Taipei, Australia and the Dominican Republic 
welcomed the idea and supported the proposal pu t forward by New Zealand. Australia supported a 
safeguards-specific seminar. 
                                               
12 See document G/SG/N/8/THA/2/Suppl.3–G/SG/N/10/THA/2–G/SG/N/11/THA/2/Suppl.2. 
13 See document G/SG/N/6/IDN/22. G/SG/M/45 
 
- 13 - 
 
  113.  The Chair stated that since this was the last Committee meeting he would chair, he would 
ask the incoming Chair to hold an informal  consultation on this matter.      
114.  The Committee took note of all the statements made under Other Business.  
6  DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING 
115.  The Chair suggested that the Committee meet  in the week of 27 October 2014. The exact 
date would be confirmed in due course.  
116.  The Committee so decided. 
7  ELECTION OF OFFICERS 117.  The Chair stated that the chair of the Counc il for Trade in Goods had carried out informal 
consultations on the nomination of chairs for the different bodies operating under the auspices of 
the Council for Trade in Goods. The proposed nominations were taken note of by the Council for 
Trade in Goods. Concerning this Committee, the ch air of the Council for Trade in Goods proposed 
the nomination of Ms Kim Kampel of South Africa. He therefore proposed that the Committee elect Ms Kim Kampel as Chair.  
118.  The Committee so decided. 
119.  Regarding the position of Vice-Chair of the Committee, the Chair stated that he had 
conducted consultations with a number of Member s, and on the basis of those consultations he 
proposed that the Committee elect Mr Mitsuhiro Fukuyama of Japan as Vice-Chair of the 
Committee.  
120.  The Committee so decided. 
__________