G/SG/Q2/UKR/1
17 April 2015
(15-2052)  Page: 1/3
Committee on Safeguards  Original: English
 
NOTIFICATION UNDER ARTICLE 12.1(B) OF THE  
AGREEMENT ON SAFEGUARDS ON FINDING 
A SERIOUS INJURY OR THREAT THEREOF  
CAUSED BY INCREASED IMPORTS 
 
NOTIFICATION UNDER ARTICLE 12.1(C) OF THE AGREEMENT 
ON SAFEGUARDS ON TAKING A DECISION 
TO APPLY A SAFEGUARD MEASURE 
 
NOTIFICATION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 9, FOOTNOTE 2 
OF THE AGREEMENT ON SAFEGUARDS 
QUESTIONS POSED BY EGYPT REGARDING THE NOTIFICATION OF UKRAINE1 
(Tableware and kitchenware of porcelain) 
The following communication, dated 16 April 2015, is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of Egypt. 
_______________ 
 
 On 16 May 2013 Ukraine initiated a safeguard investigation on kitchenware and tableware of porcelain (G/SG/N/6/UKR/10 of 30 May 2013). 
 
Upon making a finding of serious injury or threat thereof caused by increased imports, there was notification under Article 12.1 (b) of the Agreement on Safeguards on 26 March 2014 
(G/SG/N/8/UKR/4-G/SG/N/10/UKR/4). 
 On 4 April 2014 the Interdepartmental Commissi on on International Trade took Decision № SP-
309/2014/4421-06 on the application of safeguard me asures on imports into Ukraine of tableware 
and kitchenware of porcelain regardless of their country of origin and export which was circulated on 29 April 2014 (G/SG/N/8/UKR/4/SUPPL.1-G/SG/N/10/UKR/4/Suppl.1-G/SG/N/11/UKR/2).  
Question 1 
 Egypt argues that Ukraine didn't comply with Article 9.1 of the Agreement on Safeguard which 
provides that safeguard measures shall not apply to a developing country Member as long as its 
shares of imports of the product concerned in  the importing Member does not exceed 3%, 
provided that  developing country Members with less than 3 per cent import share collectively 
account for not more than 9 per cent of total imports of the product concerned. 
 Egypt asserts that Article 9.1 must be read in conjunction with Article 3.1. In Egypt's view, whether a Member is a developing country accounting for less than three percent of total imports 
is a pertinent issue in the application of Article 9. 1 and, therefore, must be subject to "findings and 
reasoned conclusions" published in accordance with Article 3.1.  
                                               
1 G/SG/N/8/UKR/4/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/10/UKR/4/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/11/UKR/2.   G/SG/Q2/UKR/1 
 
- 2 - 
 
  Egypt argues that the Ukraine's process for identifying developing countries and applying the 
safeguard measures is inconsistent with the Safeguards Agreement. And whether its criteria permits results consistent with the terms of the Safeguards Agreement.  
Moreover, Ukraine must take into consideration the long-standing practice under the GATT 
proceeded by the WTO has been that the determin ation of a Member's development status is by 
self-selection . 
 
In addition, Egypt asserts that according to the WTO practice, WTO Members qualify themselves as a developing country ( self-designation), according  to United Nations Countries Classification 
and Preferential Treatment granted by other WTO Members in considering Egypt as a developing 
country. 
 The application of Ukraine's criteria would allow a WTO Member to exclude countries, which level 
of development would qualify them under the generally accepted term of "developing country" 
from the benefit of being treated under the special and differential treatment provisions within the WTO with respect to other Members' safeguard measures, and to discriminate between countries 
whose level of development would allow them to be objectively considered as "developing 
countries".   Egypt argues that Ukraine in applying safeguard measure has deprived Egypt rights granted in 
accordance with Article 9.1 of the Agreement on Sa feguard and exclude it from the benefit in this 
safeguard case or any future case without any justification.    
Would Ukraine please explain on what basis di d Ukrainian IA consider Egypt as a developed 
country taking into account the United Nations Countries Classification and Preferential Treatment granted by other WTO Members in considering Egypt as a developing country and also WTO self-
designation methodology to determine the WTO level of development which violated the provisions 
of Article 9.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards. Consequently, the Articles 3-1 and 4-2 of the 
safeguard Agreement?  
Question 2 
 Egypt considers that measuring a particular developing country's share of total imports has 
relevance with the analysis of serious injury or causation, making Article 9.1 calculations relevant 
to the determination under Articles 2.1 and 4.2(b) whether imports have caused serious injury. Thus, "the existence of a 'developing country' ... an d the fact that the de minimis test is met" are 
"pertinent issues of fact" to be addressed under Article 3.1.  
 We hereby like to inform you that Ukrainian authority mentioned in point 13 of the abovementioned notifications list of developing countries that were exempted from the safeguard 
measures imposed. This list did not include Egypt although Egypt did not export the concerned 
product to Ukraine market during 2012, 2013 and until February 2014 according to Ukrainian statistics committee including third POI (II quarter 2012 – I quarter 2013). 
 
It's clear from the Ukrainian statistics committee that Ukraine didn't import the concerned product from Egypt into Ukrainian market from 2007 to  2010 and export only 7.9 tone in 2011 which 
represent 0.124% of the total imports to Ukraine. Furthermore no imports from Egypt from 2012 
till October 2013 that include the POI (II quarter 2012 – I quarter 2013).  
Would Ukraine please explain how the IA conducted their analysis of imports evolution and serious 
injury according to Articles 2-1 and 4-2?  Question 3 
 
Egypt argues that the Ukrainian IA has failed in its above-mentioned notification to fulfill the 
requirements incorporated in the article XIX of GATT which states that:  
 
a. If, as a result of unforeseen developmen ts and of the effect of the obligations 
incurred by a contracting party under this Agreement, including tariff concessions, any product is being imported into the territory of the contracting 
party in such increased quantities and under such conditions as to cause or G/SG/Q2/UKR/1 
 
- 3 - 
 
  threaten serious injury to domestic producers  in that territory of like or directly 
competitive products, the contracting party shall be free, in respect of such product, and to the extent and for such time as may be necessary to prevent or remedy such injury, to suspend the obligatio n in whole or in part or to withdraw 
or modify the concession. 
And in conjunction with Article 3-1 regarding "findings and reasoned conclusions" published in this 
context. The Ukrainian IA shall indicate throughout  its notification and reports that the unforeseen 
development faced by the domestic industry which created conditions as to cause or threaten 
serious injury to meet the requirement of Article XIX in which it has failed to demonstrate.   Would the Ukrainian IA explain the reasons for absences of the unforeseen development 
requirement in all notifications issued by Ukraine that violates Article XIX and consequently 
Articles 1, 3-1 of WTO Safeguard Agreement?  
Question 4 
 Egypt argues that the applications lodged by the Ukrainian domestic industry did not the 
requirement of Article 7 of WTO Safeguard Agreement that states that: 
 
"4. In order to facilitate adjustment in a situation where the expected duration of a safeguard measure as notified under the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 12 is 
over one year, the Member applying the meas ure shall progressively liberalize it at 
regular intervals during the period of app lication.  If the duration of the measure 
exceeds three years, the Member applying such a measure shall review the situation 
not later than the mid-term of the measure and, if appropriate, withdraw it or increase 
the pace of liberalization.  A measure extended under paragraph 2 shall not be more restrictive than it was at the end of the initial period, and should continue to be 
liberalized." 
According to the above-said Article, the implementa tion plane of structural adjustment that aim to 
develop Ukraine's domestic industry was not illustrated when the Safeguard measures be implemented. Also, the application didn't explain in details on how domestic industry in Ukraine 
could improve their productivity and efficiency duri ng the implementation of Safeguard measures.   
 Would Ukraine explain why the Ukrainian IA did not demonstrate the adjustment plane of domestic 
industry according to Article 7-4? And in which basis the IA liberalize measure in absences of 
structural adjustment plane?  
__________