RESTRICTED  
  
G/SG/M/43  
 
20 August 2013  
(13-4454)  Page: 1/10  
Committee on Safeguards    
 
 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING 
HELD ON 23 APRIL 2013 
CHAIRPERSON: MS LILLIAN BWALYA 
1.  The Committee on Safeguards (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 23 April 2013. 
2.  At the outset, Chinese Taipei stated that it wished to make a statement regarding an 
investigation by Russia under "Other Business". Turkey stated that it wished to make a statement 
regarding an investigation by Morocco also under "Other Business".  
3.  The Committee adopted the following agenda: 1   NATIONAL LEGISLATION ............................................................................................ 2
 
1.1   Review of notifications of new or amen ded legislation or regulations not previously 
reviewed by the Committee (including supplemen tal notifications of existing provisions 
not previously reviewed) .................................................................................................... 2  
1.1.1   India - review of new legislativ e notification (G/SG/ N/1/IND/3/Suppl.1) ......................... 2  
1.1.2   Mali - review of new legislat ive notification (G /SG/N/1/MLI/1) ....................................... 3  
1.1.3   Russia - review of new legislative notification (G/SG/N/1/RUS/1) ................................... 3  
1.1.4   Ukraine - Review of New Legislativ e Notification (G/SG/ N/1/UKR/1/Suppl.1) ................... 3  
1.2   Continuing review of prev iously reviewed notifications .................................................... 3  
1.2.1   Indonesia – continuing review of previously reviewed notification 
(G/SG/N/1/ID N/3) ............................................................................................................ 3  
1.2.2   Togo – Continuing review of previous ly reviewed notification  (G/SG/N/1/TGO/1) ............. 3  
2   NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RE LATED TO SAFEGUAR D MEASURES ........................... 4  
2.1   Brazil – Fine or Table Wine (G/SG/N/9/BRA/2) ............................................................... 4  
2.2   Dominican Republic - Certain Sports and other Socks (G/SG/ N/10/DOM/2/Suppl.2) ............ 4  
2.3   Egypt – Polypropylene (G/SG/N/7/EGY/6/ Suppl.2) ......................................................... 4  
2.4   Egypt – Raw and White Sugar (G/SG/N/6/EGY/8–G/SG/N/7/EGY/7–
G/SG/N/11/EGY/6 and G/SG/N/6/EGY/8/Corr.1–G/SG/N/7/EGY/7/Corr.1–
G/SG/N/11/EGY/6/Corr.1) .................................................................................................. 4  
2.5   Egypt – Steel Rebar (G/SG/N/6/EG Y/9–G/SG/N/7/EGY/8–G /SG/N/11/EGY/7) .................... 4  
2.6   India – Dioctyl Phthalate (DOP) (G/SG/N/8/IND/23–G/SG/N/10/IND/14–
G/SG/N/11/IND/9) ............................................................................................................ 4  
2.7   India – Phthalic Anhydr ide (G/SG/N/6/IN D/29/Suppl.1) .................................................. 4  
2.8   Indonesia – Kilowatt Hour  Meters (G/SG/ N/6/IDN/23) .................................................... 5  
2.9   Indonesia – Flat-Rolled Product of Ir on or Non-Alloy Steel (G/SG/N/6/ID N/22) ................... 5  
2.10   Indonesia – Wheat Flour (G/SG/N/6/ IDN/19/Suppl.1 and G/SG/N/7/IDN/1 and 
G/SG/N/7/IDN/1/Suppl.1) .................................................................................................. 5  G/SG/M/43 
 
- 2 - 
 
  2.11   Indonesia – D-Glusitol (Sorbitol) (G/SG/N/6/IDN/21) .................................................... 5  
2.12   Indonesia – Articles of Iron or Steel Wire (G/SG/N/10/IDN/11/Suppl.1–
G/SG/N/11/ID N/11) .......................................................................................................... 5  
2.13   Indonesia – Dextrose Monohydrate (G/SG/N/6/IDN/4/Suppl.1 and 
G/SG/N/6/IDN/4/Suppl.2 and G/SG/N/8/IDN /2/Suppl.1-G/SG/N/10/ IDN/2/Suppl.1) .................. 6  
2.14   Indonesia – Sheath Contraceptive (G/SG/N/6/IDN/20 and 
G/SG/N/6/IDN/20/ Suppl.1) ................................................................................................ 6  
2.15   Indonesia – Seamless Pipe Casing and Tubing (G/SG/N/8/IDN/14-
G/SG/N/10/ID N/14) .......................................................................................................... 6  
2.16   Jordan – Bars and Rods of Iron (G/SG/N/8/JOR/8–G/SG/N/10/JOR/8–
G/SG/N/11/JOR/4) ............................................................................................................ 6  
2.17   Philippines – Float Glass (G/SG/N/11/ PHL/8/Suppl.2–G/SG/N/14/PHL/6/Suppl.2) ............. 6  
2.18   Russian Federation - Harvesters (G/SG/N/7/RUS/1–G/SG/N/11/RUS/1 and 
G/SG/N/7/RUS/1/Suppl.1–G/S G/N/11/RUS/1/S uppl.1) .......................................................... 6  
2.19   Russian Federation – Wove n Fabrics (G/SG/ N/6/RUS/3) ................................................ 7  
2.20   South Africa – Frozen Potato Chips (1) (G/SG/N/6/ZAF/2 an d G/SG/N/9/Z AF/1) ............... 7  
2.21   South Africa – Frozen Pota to Chips (2) (G/S G/N/6/ZAF/3) ............................................. 7  
2.22   Thailand - Hot Rolled Steel Flat Products (G/SG/N/6/THA/2 and G/SG/N/7/THA/2–
G/SG/N/8/THA/2–G/S G/N/11/THA/2) .................................................................................. 7  
2.23   Thailand - Glass Block (G/SG/N/8/THA/1/Suppl.4–G/SG/N/10/THA/1/Suppl.2–
G/SG/N/11/THA/1/Suppl.4 and G/SG/N/14/THA/1) ................................................................ 7  
2.24   Thailand - Woven Fa brics (G/SG/N/ 6/THA/3) ............................................................... 7  
2.25   Turkey - Terephthalic  Acid (G/SG/N/6/TUR/17) ............................................................ 7  
2.26   Turkey - Cotton Yarn (G/SG/N/10/TUR/1 1/Suppl.1) ...................................................... 8  
2.27   Ukraine – Matches (G/SG/N/10/UKR/2/Suppl.2 and 
G/SG/N/10/UKR/2/Suppl.2/Corr.1 AND G/SG/N/10/UKR/2/Suppl.3) ......................................... 8  
2.28   Ukraine – Motor Cars (G/SG/N/8/UK R/3-G/SG/N/10/UKR/3-G/ SG/N/11/UKR/1) ............... 8  
2.29   Viet Nam - Vegetable Oils (G/SG/N/ 6/VNM/2) .............................................................. 9  
3   DISCUSSION GROUP REGARD ING SAFEGUARD PROCEEDINGS.................................... 9  
4   OTHER BU SINESS ........................................................................................................ 9  
4.1   Certain SG Investigations by the Eurasian Econom ic Commission ..................................... 9  
4.2   Certain SG Investigations by Morocco ........................................................................... 9  
5   DATE OF NEXT REGULAR ME ETING ............................................................................ 10  
6   ELECTION OF  OFFICERS ............................................................................................ 10  
 
1  NATIONAL LEGISLATION 
1.1  Review of notifications of new or amen ded legislation or regulations not previously 
reviewed by the Committee (including supplem ental notifications of existing provisions 
not previously reviewed) 
1.1.1  India - review of new legislativ e notification (G/SG/N/1/IND/3/Suppl.1) 
4.  India responded to the written questions posed by the US in document G/SG/Q1/IND/11. (See 
document G/SG/Q1/IND/12 for a written version of the responses submitted subsequently.)  G/SG/M/43 
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.1.2  Mali - review of new legislat ive notification (G/SG/N/1/MLI/1) 
5.  There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 1.1.3  Russia - review of new legisl ative notification (G/SG/N/1/RUS/1) 
6.  Russia stated that the responses to the US  questions submitted in document G/SG/Q1/RUS/1 
were forthcoming. It added that Members could find information related to its trade defence 
system in the report of the working party on  Russia's accession to the WTO. Russia also 
acknowledged receipt of Australia's questions. 
1.1.4  Ukraine - Review of New Legislat ive Notification (G/SG/N/1/UKR/1/Suppl.1) 
7.  Ukraine stated that the responses to the US  questions submitted in document G/SG/Q1/UKR/9 
were forthcoming.1 
1.2  Continuing review of prev iously reviewed notifications 
1.2.1  Indonesia – continuing review of previously reviewed notification 
(G/SG/N/1/IDN/3) 
8.  The Chair stated that questions regarding th is notification have been submitted from the 
United States in document G/SG/Q1/IDN/11, and Indonesia had submitted its responses in 
document G/SG/Q1/IDN/12. 
9.  While the US appreciated Indonesia's responses,  it asked Indonesia to clarify the responses to 
question 6. That is, to elaborate as to what factors would be examined to determine whether a 
safeguard measure continues to be necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury. 
10.  Indonesia took note of the questions. 
1.2.2  Togo – Continuing review of previous ly reviewed notification (G/SG/N/1/TGO/1) 
11.  The Chair stated that questions regarding this notification had been submitted from the 
United States in document G/SG/Q1/TGO/1, but had not been responded to.  
12.  Togo explained that the responses were currently being prepared.2 
13.  The Chair recalled that the deadline for written questions concerning any legislation reviewed 
at this meeting was 13 May 2013. The deadline for written answers to all written questions, 
including questions submitted in writing prior to this meeting, was 3 June 2013.  
14.  The Chair informed the Committee that 29 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.  
15.  The US noted that there were Members that had not yet made any legislative notification. The 
names of those countries were regularly recorded in the minutes of each Committee meeting. In 
reviewing that list, the US noted that almost all of those countries had informed the WTO through  
the Trade Policy Review process whether it had safeguard legislation in place. The US encouraged 
all Members who had yet to make their respective notifications to review their individual situations and make the applicable notifications.   
                                               
1 Subsequently circulated as G/SG/Q1/UKR/11. 
2 The responses were subs equently circulated as document G/SG/Q1/TGO/2. 
3 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, Lao, 
Mauritania, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts & Nevis, Saint Vincent & Grenadines, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands,  Swaziland, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Tonga and Vanuatu. G/SG/M/43 
 
- 4 - 
 
  16.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
2  NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RELATED TO SAFEGUARD MEASURES 
2.1  Brazil – Fine or Table Wine (G/SG/N/9/BRA/2) 17.  Brazil stated that it held a hearing in Brazil in June and held informal consultations in Geneva, 
and subsequently the investigation was terminated without any measure.  18.  Chile, Australia and South Africa welcomed the information. 
2.2  Dominican Republic - Certain Sports and other Socks (G/SG/N/10/DOM/2/Suppl.2) 
19.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 
2.3  Egypt – Polypropylene (G/SG/N/7/EGY/6/Suppl.2) 20.  The US noted that the investigation was terminated in light of "public interest", and asked 
Egypt to identify the factors that were consider ed. In addition, the US asked whether the same 
factor would be examined in every safeguard investigation. 
21.  Egypt explained that in this specific investigation there were two factories that produced the 
product and that it was judged that domestic demand could not be satisfied by those two factories, 
in particular since one of these two factories was closed due to an accident. Egypt also explained 
that the factors to be considered differed from case to case.  
2.4   Egypt – Raw and White Sugar (G/SG/N/6/EGY/8–G/SG/N/7/EGY/7–
G/SG/N/11/EGY/6 and G/SG/N/6/EGY/8/Corr.1–G/SG/N/7/EGY/7/Corr.1–
G/SG/N/11/EGY/6/Corr.1) 
22.  Egypt explained that responses to the questionnaire were received from the EU and Brazil. 
Consultations with the EU were held in March, and it was consulting with Brazil. 
23.  The EU had several concerns with this investigation. First, the EU was of the view that solid 
analysis, including regarding "unforeseen developments", was necessary even in the case of 
preliminary determinations. Second, there was only one analysis for the investigation of two 
separate products. Third, the analyses on injury and causal relationship were insufficient. The EU 
expected the investigation to be terminated. 
24.  Egypt explained that the preliminary determination was based on the data provided from the 
domestic industry, that the data was analysed for both products, and that the investigation would 
be concluded soon.  
2.5   Egypt – Steel Rebar (G/SG/N/6/EGY/9–G/SG/N/7/EGY/8–G/SG/N/11/EGY/7) 25.  Egypt explained that in this investigation, questionnaires were sent to interested parties, 
responses were received, and a public hearing was held. Conclusion of the investigation was 
expected soon.  
26.  Turkey and Ukraine stated that there were problems with this investigation, and believed that 
the investigation should be terminated without any measure.  2.6  India – Dioctyl Phthalate (D OP) (G/SG/N/8/IND/23–G/SG/N/10/IND/14–
G/SG/N/11/IND/9) 
27.   There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 
2.7  India – Phthalic Anhydride (G/SG/N/6/IND/29/Suppl.1) 28.   There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. G/SG/M/43 
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.8  Indonesia – Kilowatt Hour Meters (G/SG/N/6/IDN/23) 
29.  The US took the floor to make a general statement regarding the various recent SG actions 
taken by Indonesia. The US noted that in the Tr ade Policy Review process, Indonesia had stated 
that safeguards were being used to counter the negative effects of trade liberalization. The US 
stated that safeguard measures were not a genera lized tool against any negative effects perceived 
by a country. The US also stated that certain stakeholders had complained that procedural irregularities and lack of transparency made it di fficult to defend their interests. The US requested 
Indonesia to give greater scrutiny to the use of safeguard investigations, and improve its internal 
processes.   
30.  The EU shared the concerns of the US, and added that safeguards were instruments to be 
used in exceptional circumstances against trade that was otherwise legitimate. The EU also urged 
Indonesia to carefully choose the adequate instrument, and to resort to a country-specific 
instrument if the problem was indeed export country-specific.   
2.9  Indonesia – Flat-Rolled Product of Ir on or Non-Alloy Steel  (G/SG/N/6/IDN/22) 
31.  Chinese Taipei stated that it was concerned with this investigation. First, a non-confidential 
summary of the relevant data was not available. Second, the notification to the WTO did not 
contain sufficient information.    
32.  Indonesia stated that it would convey the comments to its capital.  
33.  Viet Nam also expressed concerns about the unavailability of the non-confidential summary of 
the relevant data. In addition, Viet Nam requested that the investigation be made in a transparent 
manner. It also stated that Indonesia's analyses on serious injury, causal relationship, and 
unforeseen development were inadequate. 
34.  Indonesia stated that it would consult with Viet Nam.  
2.10  Indonesia – Wheat Flour (G/SG/N/6/ IDN/19/Suppl.1 and G/SG/N/7/IDN/1 and 
G/SG/N/7/IDN/1/Suppl.1) 
35.  Turkey stated that it had held consultations with Indonesia regarding this investigation. 
Turkey was of the view that the conditions for initiation of an investigation as well as the 
conditions for imposition of a provisional measure were not met. Turkey asked that the 
investigation be terminated. 
36.  Sri Lanka stated that it had serious concerns with this investigation. In its view, there was no 
basis for the actions taken by Indonesia. Sri Lanka asked that the investigation be terminated. 
37.  Australia was also concerned with this investigation, had participated in consultations with 
Indonesia and stated that lack of transparency continued to be a problem. 
38.  Indonesia stated that the investigation was still on-going.  
2.11  Indonesia – D-Glusitol (Sorbitol) (G/SG/N/6/IDN/21) 39.  The EU stated that there was no causal link  and pointed out that there was only one producer 
of this product in Indonesia which continued to export.  
2.12  Indonesia – Articles of Iron or Steel Wire (G/SG/N/10/IDN/11/Suppl.1–
G/SG/N/11/IDN/11) 
40.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  G/SG/M/43 
 
- 6 - 
 
  2.13  Indonesia – Dextrose Monohydrate (G/SG/N/6/IDN/4/Suppl.1 and 
G/SG/N/6/IDN/4/Suppl.2 and G/SG/N/8/IDN/2/Suppl.1-G/SG/N/10/IDN/2/Suppl.1) 
41.  The US understood that the original measure had expired on 23 August 2012. It asked how 
Indonesia could initiate an extension review two months later in October 2012 and asked whether 
Indonesia continued to apply the measure during the review period.   
42.  The EU stated that it had the same concern. 
43.  Indonesia stated that the comments would be conveyed to the capital and stated that 
Indonesia was acting consistently with the Agreement.  
2.14  Indonesia – Sheath Contraceptive (G/SG/N/6/IDN/20 and 
G/SG/N/6/IDN/20/Suppl.1) 
44.  The US stated that it took issue with this  investigation. On 3 April 2013, Indonesia submitted 
a notification, in which it informed that a hearing would be held on 28 March and asked interested 
parties wishing to participate in the hearing to id entify themselves by 22 March. The US noted that 
both of these dates had already passed at the time  of the notification. The US wondered how this 
could be consistent with Article 3 of the Agreement.   
45.  Indonesia stated that interested parties could submit comments in writing during the 
investigation period. 
2.15  Indonesia – Seamless Pipe Casing and Tubing (G/SG/N/8/IDN/14-
G/SG/N/10/IDN/14) 
46.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  2.16  Jordan – Bars and Rods of Iron (G/SG/N/8/JOR/8–G/SG/N/10/JOR/8–
G/SG/N/11/JOR/4) 
47.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  2.17  Philippines – Float Glass (G/SG/N/11/PHL/8/Suppl.2–
G/SG/N/14/PHL/6/Suppl.2) 
48.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 2.18  Russian Federation - Harvesters (G/SG/N/7/RUS/1–G/SG/N/11/RUS/1 and 
G/SG/N/7/RUS/1/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/11/RUS/1/Suppl.1) 
49.  The EU saw several problems with this investigation. First, while this investigation covered 
both combine harvesters and its modules, the form er was measured in terms of pieces while the 
latter in terms of weight. Such data could not justify increase of quantity. Second, while the 
domestic industry was defined as 5 producers, the investigation analysed only 2 producers. The EU 
wondered why Russia limited its analysis. Third, the finding did not have sufficient justification that explained the "unforeseen developments". Finally the EU was of the view that the level of the 
provisional duty was disproportionate.   
50.  The US also had problems with this investigation. First, while provisional measures were 
allowed only in cases where delay would cause damage that was difficult to repair, the US 
wondered whether this was the situation in this case. Second, the causal relationship was not 
clear. Imports declined for a certain period, and some of the economic indicators had improved. 
Third, analysis of unforeseen developments was not sufficient. In this regard, the US noted that Russia was of the view that such discipline was not applicable to this investigation since the 
application was filed before Russia's accession to the WTO. The US was of the view that the issue 
was to be determined not by the timing of the fi ling of the application, but by the timing of the 
findings. Finally, analysis on non-attribution was not satisfactory.  G/SG/M/43 
 
- 7 - 
 
  51.  The Russian Federation stated that it had he ld a hearing, had consulted the relevant parties, 
had made all necessary notifications, and thus had done its best regarding transparency. As for 
the first question from the EU, imports were analysed  not only in terms of weight but also in terms 
of pieces. As for the second question from the EU, the two producers were those that made the 
complaint and so data was provided from these two firms. As for the queries concerning critical 
circumstances and disproportionality, Russia was of the view that there was sufficient evidence to support its action.   
2.19  Russian Federation – Woven Fabrics (G/SG/N/6/RUS/3) 
52.  Turkey pointed out that there were 8 products under consideration in this investigation, and 
that the causal link was not clear. Turkey requested that the investigation be terminated.  53.  The Russian Federation recalled it had discu ssed with Turkey the issue of products under 
consideration, and reiterated that the investigation was still on-going.  
2.20  South Africa – Frozen Potato Chips (1) (G/SG/N/6/ZAF/2 and G/SG/N/9/ZAF/1) 2.21  South Africa – Frozen Potato Chips (2) (G/SG/N/6/ZAF/3) 
54.  South Africa stated that it would explain th e two items together. It explained that the first 
investigation initiated on 23 November 2012 was subsequently terminated for procedural 
irregularities. A new investigation on the same product was initiated on 8 March 2013, and was 
on-going. This way of proceeding was to ensure full transparency and to allow all interested parties 
adequate opportunity to make representations.  
55.  The EU stated that while it welcomed the termination of the first investigation, it had concerns 
with the second investigation. More specifically, it had concerns regarding the existence of an 
increase of imports, injury and causation. 
56.   Egypt also had concerns with the investigation. In its views, data was now outdated, imports 
were not increasing, the rule of non-attribution was not followed, and causation was not proven. 
Egypt asked that the investigation be terminated.  
57.  South Africa reiterated that the investigation was on-going, and stated that the comments 
would be conveyed to the capital. 
2.22  Thailand - Hot Rolled Steel Fl at Products (G/SG/N/6/THA/2 and 
G/SG/N/7/THA/2–G/SG/N/8/THA/2–G/SG/N/11/THA/2) 
58.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 2.23  Thailand - Glass Block (G/SG/N/ 8/THA/1/Suppl.4–G/SG/N/10/THA/1/Suppl.2–
G/SG/N/11/THA/1/Suppl.4 and G/SG/N/14/THA/1) 
59.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 2.24  Thailand - Woven Fabrics (G/SG/N/6/THA/3) 
60.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 
2.25  Turkey - Terephthalic Acid (G/SG/N/6/TUR/17) 61.  The EU was concerned that the investigation was initiated on the basis of insufficient 
evidence. First, it noted that there was not a recent, sudden or sharp increase of imports. Second, 
it was not convinced about the causal relationship. Imports have actually pushed the price up. Domestic consumption was growing, while domestic production was not increased, and so imports simply filled in for the lack of supply. The EU requested that no measure be imposed.   G/SG/M/43 
 
- 8 - 
 
  2.26  Turkey - Cotton Yarn (G/SG/N/10/TUR/11/Suppl.1) 
62.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 2.27  Ukraine – Matches (G/SG/N/10/UKR/2/Suppl.2 and 
G/SG/N/10/UKR/2/Suppl.2/Corr.1 AND G/SG/N/10/UKR/2/Suppl.3) 
63.  The US asked what the basis of the termination of the measure was. The US also pointed out 
that Ukraine had not notified the initiation of a re view of whether or not to extend the measure.   
64.  Ukraine stated that it would consider the questions posed.  
2.28  Ukraine – Motor Cars (G/SG/N/8/UKR/3-G/SG/N/10/UKR/3-G/SG/N/11/UKR/1) 65.  The EU stated that this was a curious case in that imports had actually declined. The EU was 
of the view that serious injury was a result of the collapse in domestic demand, rather than the 
result of imports. The EU was also disturbed abou t the fact that the decision of the authority was 
not publicized for one year, and that the data used in the investigation was already obsolete. The 
EU also noted that Ukraine had not offered consul tations. The EU requested that the measure be 
terminated. 
66.  Japan stated that Ukraine had not offered co nsultations as stipulated in Article 12.3 of the 
Agreement, and requested that Ukraine hold join t consultations with all the Members that had 
requested them, and that all relevant information be provided.4  
67.  Korea stated that it had several concerns regarding this investigation. First, while it was an 
unusual situation of imports actually declining, Ukraine did not disclose sufficient information. 
Second, the manner in which Ukraine categorized the imported cars was inadequate, and that had a bearing on the analysis of non-attribution. Third, there was no indication of progressive 
liberalization as required under Article 7.4 and 12.2 of the Agreement. Finally, while a safeguard 
measure was an instrument meant to address an emergency situation, the fact that Ukraine could wait for a year between the finding and the decision to impose a measure indicated that this was 
not an emergency situation. Korea asked that the measure be withdrawn.   
68.  Pointing out that it was one of the major expo rters of this product to Ukraine, Turkey stated 
that it was not offered an adequate opportunity for prior consultations as stipulated in Article 12.3. 
In Turkey's view, this investigation was inconsistent with the Agreement as well as the findings of 
past panels and the Appellate Body.   
69.  Russia and Canada stated that they had concerns  with this investigation. Russia recalled that 
it had requested consultations with Ukraine. 
70.  The US had several comments. First, it noted that while the investigation was initiated in 
July 2011, no notification was made until recently. The US wished to know why the investigation 
took so long to complete. Second, the US noted that Ukraine based the decision on a finding of a 
threat of injury. Pointing out that a threat of injury needed to be "clearly imminent" according to 
the Agreement, the US wished to know how a finding based on a situation in 2010 would indicate that the threat was "clearly imminent". Third, th e US noted that the notification did not indicate 
progressive liberalization as required under Article 7.4 and 12.2 of the Agreement. Finally, the US 
understood that Ukraine did not provide opportunity for consultations with interested parties prior to the imposition of the measure. The US wished to know how this could be consistent with the Agreement.  
71.  China urged Ukraine to abide by the rules. 
72.  Ukraine explained that it had made all necessary notifications, that it had held consultations in 
April 2012, and that it had fully complied with the Agreement. It recalled that it had also offered 
explanations in the Council for Trade in Goods. Ukraine also informed that its authority had 
decided to temporarily cease the application of the safeguard measure on imports of hybrid cars. 
                                               
4 The statement of Japan is reproduced in full in document G/SG/W/229. G/SG/M/43 
 
- 9 - 
 
  As for the consultations being requested, it recalled that Ukraine had proposed to meet in Kiev 
although the date was currently under consideration.  
2.29  Viet Nam - Vegetable Oils (G/SG/N/6/VNM/2) 73.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 
74.  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 
13 May 2013. Written responses to questions, including questions submitted in writing prior to this 
meeting, should be submitted to the Secretariat no later than 3 June 2013. As with legislative 
notifications, any unanswered questions would be indicated in the draft annotated agenda of the next meeting. 
75.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
3  DISCUSSION GROUP REGARDING SAFEGUARD PROCEEDINGS 76.  The Chair explained that this item was placed on the agenda at the request of the delegations 
of Australia; Canada; the European Union; Japan; Korea; New Zealand; Norway; Separate 
Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu; Singapore; and the United States. 
77.  The EU explained that an invitation to an  informal discussion starting after the present 
Committee meeting had been sent on behalf of the "Friends of Safeguard Proceedings" to all WTO 
Members. All Members were welcome. The EU recalled that at the last Committee meeting, a 
discussion paper G/SG/W/226 had been presented. This paper raised certain systemic concerns 
regarding safeguards investigations. The idea underlying that paper was to prompt an informal discussion from a broader perspective than th e one in standard Committee meetings, removed 
from any individual cases. The informal discussion group had been organized for this purpose. The 
topic selected for that afternoon was "initiation of  safeguard investigations". The questions to be 
discussed included: "What procedures were applied?" and "What checks were carried out to ensure 
consistency with international and domestic obligations?"  
78.  The US, Singapore, Chinese Taipei, Domini can Republic and Morocco thanked the EU and 
supported the initiative.  
79.  The Committee took note of the statements.   
4  OTHER BUSINESS  4.1  Certain SG Investigations by the Eurasian Economic Commission 80.  Chinese Taipei referred to a Decision No. 143 taken by the Eurasian Economic Commission on 
23 August 2012 to extend a safeguard measure on stainless steel pipes. Chinese Taipei was of the 
view that the quota was not allocated properly, and more fundamentally, no information was provided regarding this action. Chinese Taipei asked Russia to respect the obligations it incurred 
when it acceded to the WTO as well as other WTO obligations, and asked it to bring the measure 
into conformity with such obligations.  
81.  Russia asked that the questions be submitted in writing.  
4.2  Certain SG Investigations by Morocco 82.  Turkey referred to the investigation by Mo rocco regarding reinforcing bars and wire rods 
notified in document G/SG/N/6/MAR/7. Turkey was of the view that there were problems with this 
investigation, and stated that Turkey rese rved all rights under the WTO Agreements.  
83.  Morocco stated that the investigation was still on-going, and that the preliminary result would 
be made public soon.  G/SG/M/43 
 
- 10 - 
 
  84.  The Committee took note of the statements made.  
5  DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING 
85.  The Chair suggested that the Commi ttee meet in the week of 14 October 2013.5 The exact 
date would be confirmed in due course.  
86.  The Committee so decided. 
6  ELECTION OF OFFICERS 
87.  The Chairperson stated that the chairperson of the Council for Trade in Goods had carried out 
informal consultations on the nomination of chairpersons 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. She stated that concerning this Committee, the chairperson of the Council for Trade in Goods proposed the nomination of Mr Alex Yun-hsing Ni of Chinese Taipei. She 
therefore proposed that the Committee elect Mr Alex Yun-hsing Ni as Chairperson.  
88.  The Committee so decided. 
89.  Regarding the position of Vice-Chairperson of the Committee, the Chairperson stated that she 
had conducted consultations with a number of Members, and on the basis of those consultations 
she proposed that the Committee elect Mr William Kendall of Canada as Vice-Chair of the Committee.  
90.  The Committee so decided. 
__________ 
  
 
                                               
5 It was subsequently communicated to the Members, in a fax dated 26 April, th at the meeting would be 
held in the week of 21 October 2013 .