RESTRICTED  
  
G/SG/M/48  
 
1 March 2016  
(16-1248)  Page: 1/12  
Committee on Safeguards    
 
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING 
HELD ON 26 OCTOBER 2015 
CHAIRPERSON: MR VÍCTOR ECHEVARRÍA UGARTE 
1.  The Committee on Safeguards (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 26 October 2015. 
2.  The Committee adopted the following agenda: 1   NATIONAL LEGISLATION ............................................................................................ 2
 
1.1   European Union – Review of New Le gislative Notification  (G/SG/N/1/ EU/2) ........................ 2  
1.2   Malawi – Review of New Legislativ e Notification (G/SG/ N/1/MWI/1/Re v.1) ......................... 3  
1.3   Qatar – Review of New Legislat ive Notification (G /SG/N/1/QAT/3) .................................... 3  
1.4   United States – Review of New Legislat ive Notification (G/SG/ N/1/USA/1/Suppl.1) ............. 3  
1.5   Cameroon – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications 
(G/SG/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1) ................................................................................................ 3  
2   NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RE LATED TO SAFEGUAR D MEASURES ........................... 3  
2.1   Chile – Steel Wire Rod (G/SG/N/6/CHL/16-G/SG/N/7/CHL/12-G/SG/N/11/CHL/9 and 
G/SG/N/6/CHL/16/Suppl.1-G/SG/N/7/CHL/12/ Suppl.1-G/SG/N/11/CHL/9/Suppl.1) .................... 4  
2.2   Colombia – Bars and Rods of Lo w-Carbon Steel (G/SG/N/6/COL/4/Suppl.2–
G/SG/N/14/COL/1/Suppl.1) ................................................................................................ 4  
2.3   Ecuador - Wood and Bamboo Flooring and Accessories Thereof 
(G/SG/N/8/ECU/4/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/10/ECU/5–G /SG/N/11/ECU/2 and G/ SG/N/8/ECU/4) ............ 4  
2.4   Egypt – White Sugar (Item Requested by the EU; G/SG/N/6/EGY/12–
G/SG/N/7/EGY/10–G/SG/N/11/EGY/9) ................................................................................. 4  
2.5   India – Hot-Rolled Flat Products of Non-Alloy and Other Alloy Steel in Coils of a 
Width of 600 mm or More (G/SG/N/6/IND/41 and G/SG/N/7/IND/10-G/SG/N/11/IND/14 
and G/SG/N/7/IND/10/Suppl.1-G /SG/N/11/IND/14 /Suppl.1) .................................................. 4  
2.6   Indonesia - Bars and Rods (G/SG/N/8/IDN/18/Suppl.1–
G/SG/N/10/IDN/18/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/11/IDN/16 and G/SG/N/8/IDN/18/Suppl.1/Corr.1–
G/SG/N/10/IDN/18/Suppl.1/Corr. 1–G/SG/N/11/IDN/ 16/Corr.1) .............................................. 5  
2.7   Indonesia - Coated Paper and Paperboard, not Including Banknotes Paper 
(G/SG/N/8/IDN/19–G/SG/N/10/IDN/19 and G/SG/N/8/IDN/19/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/10/IDN/19/Suppl.1 and G/SG/N/8/IDN/19/Suppl.1/Corr.1–
G/SG/N/10/IDN/19/Su ppl.1/Corr.1) .................................................................................... 6
 
2.8   Indonesia - Dextrose Monohydrate (G/SG/N/6/IDN/27 and 
G/SG/N/6/IDN/27/ Suppl.1) ................................................................................................ 6  
2.9   Jordan - Writing and Printing Paper (G/SG/N/8/JOR/9–G/SG/N/10/JOR/9–
G/SG/N/11/JOR/5) ............................................................................................................ 6  
2.10   Malaysia - Hot-Rolled  Coils (G/SG/N/ 6/MYS/3) ............................................................. 6  G/SG/M/48 
 
- 2 - 
 
  2.11   Malaysia - Hot Rolled Steel Plate (G/SG/N/8/MYS/1–G/SG/N/10/MYS/1–
G/SG/N/11/MYS/1/Suppl.1 and G/SG/N/8 /MYS/1/Corr.1–G/SG/N/10/MYS/1/Corr.1–
G/SG/N/11/MYS/1/Suppl.1/Corr.1) ...................................................................................... 6  
2.12   Morocco - Cold Rolled Sheets and Plated or Coated Sheets (G/SG/N/8/MAR/4–
G/SG/N/10/MAR/4–G/SG/N/11/MAR/4 and G/SG/N/8/MAR/4/Suppl.1–
G/SG/N/10/MAR/4/Suppl.1–G/S G/N/11/MAR/4/S uppl.1) ........................................................ 6  
2.13   Morocco - Paper in Rolls and Paper in Reams (G/S G/N/6/MAR/9) .................................... 7  
2.14   Morocco - Wire Rods and Reinforcing Bars (G/SG/N/10/MAR/3/Suppl.2–
G/SG/N/14/MA R/1) ........................................................................................................... 7  
2.15   Philippines – Newsprint (G/SG/N/8/PHL/9–G/SG/N/10/PHL/8–G/SG/N/11/PHL/10 
and G/SG/N/8/PHL/9/Corr.1–G/SG/N/10/PHL /8/Corr.1–G/SG/N/11/PHL/10/Corr.1 and 
G/SG/N/6/PHL/9/Suppl.2) .................................................................................................. 7  
2.16   Philippines - Steel Angle Bars (G/SG/N/10/PHL/6/Suppl.3-
G/SG/N/11/PHL/7/Suppl.5-G/S G/N/14/PHL/7/S uppl.1) .......................................................... 7  
2.17   Thailand - Hot Rolled Steel Flat Products (G/SG/N/6/THA/2/Suppl.1–
G/SG/N/14/TH A/2) ........................................................................................................... 8  
2.18   Tunisia - Ceramic Tiles (G/SG/N/ 6/TUN/5)................................................................... 8  
2.19   Turkey - Porcelain and Ceramic Tabl eware, Kitchenware (G /SG/N/6/TUR/21) ................... 8  
2.20   Turkey – Transmission Apparatus In corporating Reception Apparatus (Cellular) 
Portable Telephone (Item Requested by Korea) (G/SG/N/6/TUR/19 and G/SG/N/6/TUR/ 19/Corr.1).................................................................................................. 8
 
2.21   Turkey - Wallpaper and Similar Wallcoverings (G/SG/N/8/TUR/15–
G/SG/N/10/TUR/15–G/SG /N/11/TUR/ 20) ............................................................................. 9  
2.22   Ukraine - Flexible Porous Plates, Blocks and Sheets of Polyurethane Foams 
(G/SG/N/6/UK R/11) .......................................................................................................... 9  
2.23   Viet Nam - Monosodium Glutamate (G/SG/N/6/VNM/3 and 
G/SG/N/6/VNM/3/Corr.1) ................................................................................................... 9  
2.24   Zambia – Flat–Rolled Products of Iron, Non–Alloy Steel, Trailers and Semi-Trailers 
(G/SG/N/6/ZMB/1-G/ SG/N/7/ZMB/1) .................................................................................. 9  
3   DISCUSSION GROUP REGARD ING SAFEGUARD PROCEEDINGS.................................. 10  
4   NOTIFICATI ON SEMINAR .......................................................................................... 10  
5   OTHER BU SINESS ...................................................................................................... 10  
5.1   Timing of notifications – Item requested by Australia ..................................................... 10 
5.2   Notifications taken up at Committee meetings – Item requ ested by the US ....................... 10 
5.3   Status of Pakistan's SG Measures Amendment Bill – Item requested by the US .................. 11 
5.4   Statement regarding an investigation by Egypt (automotive batteries) – Item 
requested by the EU ......................................................................................................... 11 
6   ANNUAL REPORT TO THE CO UNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS ........................................ 11  
7   DATE OF NEXT REGULAR ME ETING ............................................................................ 12  
 
1  NATIONAL LEGISLATION 
1.1  European Union – Review of New Le gislative Notification (G/SG/N/1/EU/2) 
3.  Written questions concerning this notification had been received from the United States in 
document G/SG/Q1/EU/1, and the EU had submitted its responses in document G/SG/Q1/EU/2. 
4.  The US stated that it was still studying the responses.  G/SG/M/48 
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.2  Malawi – Review of New Legislativ e Notification (G/SG/N/1/MWI/1/Rev.1) 
5.  There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 1.3  Qatar – Review of New Legislat ive Notification (G/SG/N/1/QAT/3) 
6.  Written questions concerning this notification had been received from Australia in document 
G/SG/Q1/QAT/4. 
7.  Qatar stated that it was still drafting responses.  
1.4  United States – Review of New Legisl ative Notification (G /SG/N/1/USA/1/Suppl.1) 
8.  There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.  
1.5  Cameroon – Continuing Review of  Previously Reviewed Notifications 
(G/SG/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1) 
9.  Written questions from the United States concerning this notification, contained in document 
G/SG/Q1/CMR/3, were still outstanding. Cameroon was not represented in the room, and so the 
Chair asked the Secretariat to request that the de legation of Cameroon provide the responses in 
writing. 
10.  The US stated, for the record, that the questions were submitted in September 2014, and it 
was looking forward to the responses. 
11.  The Chair recalled that the deadline for written questions concerning any legislation reviewed 
at this meeting was 16 November 2015. The deadline for written answers to all written questions, 
including questions submitted in writing prior to this meeting, was 7 December 2015. 
12.  The Chair informed the Committee that 23 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. 
13.  The US thanked the Chair and the Secretariat for the efforts to facilitate legislative 
notifications and noted that an increasing number of Members had made the legislative 
notifications. At the same time, there remained a number of countries that had not made such notifications. The US noted that for nearly all of  those who had not made the notifications, their 
Trade Policy Review reports indicated whether or not they had any safeguard legislation. The US 
reiterated that notification was simple if there was no legislation, and encouraged Members who had not yet made their legislative notifications to review their situations and to make the applicable notification.  
14.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
2  NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RELATED TO SAFEGUARD MEASURES 
15.  Canada; Japan; the US; Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu 
("Chinese Taipei"); Australia; Korea; the EU; Israel; New Zealand; Mexico; Norway; Pakistan and 
Malaysia expressed concerns regarding the increased number of safeguard ("SG") actions, pointed 
out the special nature of SG instrument in the sense that it affects otherwise legitimate trade, and 
asked that the imposing Members strictly abide by the disciplines in the Agreement.  
16.  Japan added that over-supply in the steel and certain other industries in some emerging 
economies seemed to be the source of the proliferation of SG and other trade remedy measures. It 
                                               
1 These Members were: Angola, Antigua and Barb uda, Cabo Verde, Central African Republic, 
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Mauritania, Mozambique, Niger, Rwanda, 
Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Tonga, Vanuatu and Yemen.  G/SG/M/48 
 
- 4 - 
 
  asked relevant Members to adequately monitor the situation. The US added that in its view, there 
were sometimes questionable SG actions. Australia added that delay in notifications was also a 
problem.   
2.1  Chile – Steel Wire Rod (G/SG/N/6/CHL/16-G/SG/N/7/CHL/12-G/SG/N/11/CHL/9 
and G/SG/N/6/CHL/16/Suppl.1-G/SG/N/7/CHL/12/Suppl.1-
G/SG/N/11/CHL/9/Suppl.1)  
17.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 
2.2  Colombia – Bars and Rods of Lo w-Carbon Steel (G/SG/N/6/COL/4/Suppl.2–
G/SG/N/14/COL/1/Suppl.1) 
18.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 2.3  Ecuador - Wood and Bamboo Flooring and Accessories Thereof 
(G/SG/N/8/ECU/4/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/10/ECU/5–G/SG/N/11/ECU/2 and 
G/SG/N/8/ECU/4) 
19.  Written questions concerning this notification had been received from the US in document 
G/SG/Q2/ECU/14.  
20.  Ecuador stated that it had just submitted the responses.
2  
21.  The US stated that it would study the responses.   
2.4  Egypt – White Sugar (Item Requ ested by the EU; G/SG/N/6/EGY/12–
G/SG/N/7/EGY/10–G/SG/N/11/EGY/9) 
22.  The Chair stated that this item had been in cluded in the agenda at the request of the EU.  
23.  The EU noted that Egypt currently had th ree active SG investigations, and the EU had 
concerns about all three. Regarding the investigat ion on white sugar, the EU understood that the 
essential facts and conclusion report that was issued recently had addressed the problems that the EU raised earlier, and that the report suggested that no final measure be imposed. This 
investigation should not have been initiated to begin with. The quick imposition of provisional 
measure on such weak grounds was not justified. Among other things, there was no injury incurred by the domestic industry. The EU asked that Egypt terminate the investigation promptly 
and refund the provisional duties paid.   
24.  Egypt stated that it had indeed taken into consideration the comments from the interested 
parties including the EU.  2.5  India – Hot-Rolled Flat Products of No n-Alloy and Other Alloy Steel in Coils of a 
Width of 600 mm or More (G/SG/N/6/IND/41 and G/SG/N/7/IND/10-
G/SG/N/11/IND/14 and G/SG/N/7/IND/10/Suppl.1-G/SG/N/11/IND/14/Suppl.1) 
25.  The US recalled that it had stated several times in the past that it had serious systemic 
concerns with the way India conducted SG investigations. This investigation was initiated on 
7 September 2015. And India recommended the imposition of a provisional measure two days later. The US did not believe that two days was sufficient to make a proper determination, 
including by seeking inputs from the interested part ies, as required by Article 6 of the Agreement. 
The US doubted whether India had the intention of  conducting a real and thorough examination, 
and wondered whether India was content with proceeding based simply on the domestic industry's allegations.  
26.  Ukraine had several concerns regarding this investigation. First, Ukraine disagreed with 
India's analysis regarding increase of imports. Am ong other things, Ukraine was of the view that a 
forecast was not an appropriate way to determine increase of imports. Second, Ukraine disagreed 
                                               
2 Subsequently circulated as G/SG/Q2/ECU/15.  G/SG/M/48 
 
- 5 - 
 
  with India's injury analysis. Many of the indicato rs recorded positive developments. Third, Ukraine 
was of the view that India had violated Articl e 12.4 of the Agreement. That is, India offered 
consultations in a notification dated 28 Septembe r 2015, and then India sent another notification 
on the same date informing of the imposition of the provisional measure. It was apparent that no 
consultations were provided. Ukraine requested a detailed response from India on these issues.  
27.  The Republic of Korea had several concerns regarding this investigation. In Korea's view, 
there was no meaningful increase of imports, no unforeseen developments, and no serious injury. 
Nor were there critical circumstances that justified the imposition of a provisional measure. Korea 
also did not think that the product converge wa s adequate. In addition, India had not made the 
notifications in a timely manner.  Korea asked that the provisional measure be withdrawn.  
28.  China raised concern about the fact that India imposed a provisional measure two days after 
the initiation of the investigation. In addition , there were no unforeseen developments, and no 
critical circumstances that justified the imposition of a provisional measure. Nor was there serious injury. China asked that the investigation be terminated without a final measure.  
29.  The Russian Federation reiterated that SG was an instrument to be used only in exceptional 
circumstances. Russia also noted that India imposed a provisional measure two days after the 
initiation of the investigation. In Russia's view this showed that India had not made an appropriate 
determination. Russia asked India to fully abide by the Agreement. 
30.  Chinese Taipei was concerned about the short period during which the interested parties could 
submit comments. Chinese Taipei had systemic concerns about the procedures followed by India in 
general and asked India to fully abide by the Agreement. 
31.  The EU first stated that in a situation where the problem arose from a limited number of 
sources, the instruments of anti-dumping or countervailing duties should be used, since these 
instruments do not affect legitimate trade. Second, certain products that the domestic industry 
was not producing needed to be excluded from the measure. Third, the EU disagreed with the 
analysis of injury and causality. In particular, in relation to causality, several other factors needed 
to be taken into account. EU asked India to improve the analysis.  
32.  Turkey recalled that it had submitted comments as an interested party, and asked India to 
consider those comments. Turkey had concerns with the injury and causality analysis. In 
particular, Turkey disagreed with the time-frame used to determine injury. 
33.   India reiterated that the investigation was still on-going. As for critical circumstances, the 
data in the notification clearly showed the existence of critical circumstances. India had noted the 
comments made, and invited interested parties to submit written comments to the investigating authority if they so wished.    
2.6  Indonesia - Bars and Rods (G/SG/N/8/IDN/18/Suppl.1–
G/SG/N/10/IDN/18/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/11/IDN/16 and G/SG/N/8/IDN/18/Suppl.1/Corr.1–G/SG/N/10/IDN/18/Suppl.1/Corr.1–
G/SG/N/11/IDN/16/Corr.1) 
34.  The EU pointed out that Indonesia was the most frequent user of the SG instrument. SG was 
an emergency instrument to be used only in exceptional circumstances. SG targeted all imports 
and affected otherwise legitimate trade. On this specific investigation, 93% of the imports came 
from 3 countries. In such a situation, a quantitative measure should be used rather than duty 
increase. In similar future cases, anti-dumping or countervail duties should be used.  
35.  Japan registered its systemic concern regarding the large number of SG actions recently taken 
by Indonesia. SG was an instrument to be used only in exceptional circumstances. On this specific 
investigation, Japan had the following concerns. Firs t, while some products were excluded from the 
scope of the measure due to the fact that they did not compete with domestic products, the scope 
of the measure was still not correct. More products  needed to be excluded. Second, interested 
parties were not provided meaningful opportunities  to consult. Japan asked Indonesia to withdraw 
the measure.  G/SG/M/48 
 
- 6 - 
 
  36.  Chinese Taipei also had systemic concerns regarding the large number of SG actions recently 
taken by Indonesia and pointed out that SG was an instrument to be used only in exceptional 
circumstances. It also agreed with other Members that SG was not the right choice of instrument 
here. 
37.  Indonesia stated that it had made the correct determinations. Regarding Japan's point, 
Indonesia confirmed that certain products were indeed taken out of the scope in light of what 
Japan stated at the hearing.   
2.7  Indonesia - Coated Paper and Pape rboard, not Including Banknotes Paper 
(G/SG/N/8/IDN/19–G/SG/N/10/IDN/19 and G/SG/N/8/IDN/19/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/10/IDN/19/Suppl.1 and G/SG/N/8/IDN/19/Suppl.1/Corr.1–G/SG/N/10/IDN/19/Suppl.1/Corr.1) 
38.  Japan was disappointed with this notification . In Japan's view, there were several problems 
that were inconsistent with the WTO rules. Most importantly, the measure included products that 
were not competing with domestic products. Japan asked Indonesia to terminate the measure.    
39.  Indonesia explained that what the investigating authority found was threat of serious injury. 
It stated that it had made the relevant determinations correctly.  
2.8  Indonesia - Dextrose Mo nohydrate (G/SG/N/6/IDN/27 and 
G/SG/N/6/IDN/27/Suppl.1) 
40.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 2.9  Jordan - Writing and Printing Paper (G/SG/N/8/JOR/9–G/SG/N/10/JOR/9–
G/SG/N/11/JOR/5) 
41.  The US noted that the notification stated that  the date of introduction of the measure was the 
date of publication in two daily local newspapers, and that the date of introduction of the measure 
shall be notified to the Committee on Safeguards once the decision was published. The US asked 
Jordan to clarify the status of the investigation.  
42.  The EU saw several problems with this investigation, and so the measure should not be 
imposed. The analysis regarding increased imports was not adequate, nor was the causality 
analysis. The increase of imports was, in EU's view, the result of the lack of efficiency of the 
domestic industry. Increase in imports was a result of the fact that the domestic industry could not meet domestic demand. Thus, there was no causal link between any increased imports and injury.   
43.  Jordan asked that questions be submitted in wr iting. It also clarified that the measure had not 
been imposed and that there was no timeline for the Council of Ministers to make a decision.  
2.10  Malaysia - Hot-Rolled Coils (G/SG/N/6/MYS/3) 44.  Japan had serious concerns with this investigation. This was not an exceptional situation that 
warranted a SG action. 2.11  Malaysia - Hot Rolled Steel Pl ate (G/SG/N/8/MYS/1–G/SG/N/10/MYS/1–
G/SG/N/11/MYS/1/Suppl.1 and G/SG/N/8/MYS/1/Corr.1–
G/SG/N/10/MYS/1/Corr.1–G/SG/N/11/MYS/1/Suppl.1/Corr.1) 
45.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 2.12  Morocco - Cold Rolled Sheets and Plated or Coated Sheets (G/SG/N/8/MAR/4–
G/SG/N/10/MAR/4–G/SG/N/11/MAR/4 and G/SG/N/8/MAR/4/Suppl.1–
G/SG/N/10/MAR/4/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/11/MAR/4/Suppl.1) 
46.  The Chair stated that items 12 and 15 on the agenda circulated before the meeting dealt with 
the same product, and so he would take these two items together. G/SG/M/48 
 
- 7 - 
 
  47.  The US asked (i) whether the scope of the measure had changed with the second notification 
made on 9 September 2015, (ii) whether the measure was a tariff rate quota and if so, how it 
would be liberalized and (iii) when the measure came into force.  
48.  Morocco clarified that the second notification made on 9 September 2015 was an amendment 
made, after relevant consultations, to the origin al measure, and other than what was amended by 
the second notification, the contents of the first notification made on 20 May 2015 remained valid.  
2.13  Morocco - Paper in Rolls and Paper in Reams (G/SG/N/6/MAR/9) 
49.  The EU recalled that it had in the past alre ady raised concerns about the increased use of the 
S G  i n s t r u m e n t  b y  M o r o c c o .  T h e  E U  s t r e s s e d  t h a t  S G  s h o u l d  b e  u s e d  o n l y  i n  e x c e p t i o n a l  
circumstances and asked Morocco to strictly abide by the relevant rules. Regarding the investigation at hand, the EU noted that an anti-dumping measure was already in place on this 
same product and asked why a SG measure was also needed. The EU did not think that an 
investigation could be initiated on such weak grounds. In particular, the EU doubted whether there was any causal link.     
50.  Morocco stated that the investigation was still on-going and that it was abiding by the 
relevant rules. 
2.14  Morocco - Wire Rods and Reinforcing Bars (G/SG/N/10/MAR/3/Suppl.2–
G/SG/N/14/MAR/1) 
51.  Noting that this was a notification regarding a possible extension of the existing measure, the 
EU stated that it had already expressed concerns regarding the original measure. Among other 
things, the domestic industry had a share of mo re than 95%. The EU also had several concerns 
regarding the investigation at hand. The EU first noted that the original measure was a tariff rate 
quota, and so it cannot be that imports still caused injury. The important question was whether the industry had recovered. On this issue, the EU noted that the industry now had new entrants 
and so it doubted that the industry was still in an unhealthy condition. Finally, the EU noted that 
there was no data regarding capacity.  
52.  Turkey recalled that the imposition of the original measure was notified on 
19 December 2013. That notification indicated that  Turkey was being excluded from the measure 
by virtue of Article 9.1 of the Agreement. Turkey  was then included back into the measure by a 
notification made on 19 May 2014. Morocco then notified in August 2015 that it initiated an investigation whether or not to extend the measur e. Turkey understood that Turkey's share in the 
total imports was zero per cent in the first three mo nths of 2015, and so it needed to be excluded 
from the measure. At any rate, Turkey doubte d whether there was any legitimate ground to 
extend the measure.      
53.  Morocco stated that the review investigation was on-going. It also reiterated that imports had 
continued to rise even after the imposition of the original measure. Morocco would take into 
account the comments raised.  
2.15  Philippines – Newsprint (G/SG/N/8/PHL/9–G/SG/N/10/PHL/8–
G/SG/N/11/PHL/10 and G/SG/N/8/PHL/9/Corr.1–G/SG/N/10/PHL/8/Corr.1–G/SG/N/11/PHL/10/Corr.1 and G/SG/N/6/PHL/9/Suppl.2) 
54.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 
2.16  Philippines - Steel Angle Bars (G/SG/N/10/PHL/6/Suppl.3-
G/SG/N/11/PHL/7/Suppl.5-G/SG/N/14/PHL/7/Suppl.1) 
55.  The US noted that a measure was in place since 2009. It was first extended in 2012. This 
notification was another extension of the measure. The US asked whether the Philippines had ever 
conducted a mid-term review as required by Article 7.4 of the Agreement.    
56.  The Philippines explained that under its domestic system, all SG measures underwent two 
types of reviews. The first was an annual review  conducted by the Minist ry of Trade, and the G/SG/M/48 
 
- 8 - 
 
  second was a mid-term review conducted by the Tari ff Commission. As for the specific dates of the 
mid-term review, the Philippines would check and inform the US. 
2.17  Thailand - Hot Rolled Steel Fl at Products (G/SG/N/6/THA/2/Suppl.1–
G/SG/N/14/THA/2) 
57.  Turkey explained that when the original measure was imposed in September 2013, Turkey 
was excluded from the measure by virtue of Article 9.1 of the Agreement. But Thailand 
subsequently notified in November 2014 that it included Turkey back into the measure. Thailand 
now initiated a review to determine whether or not to extend the existing measure. Turkey's share 
in the imports in Thailand in the latest period  was approximately 2%, so Turkey needed to be 
excluded from the measure.    
58.  Thailand explained that the review was still on-going.  
2.18  Tunisia - Ceramic Tiles (G/SG/N/6/TUN/5) 59.  Turkey had several concerns regarding this investigation. First, it questioned whether the 
applicants satisfied the condition of "major proportion" as provided for in Article 4.1 (c) of the 
Agreement. Second, Turkey did not think there was causal relationship. Third, Turkey's share in 
imports was less than 3%, and thus even if this investigation resulted in a measure, Turkey needed to be excluded from that measure.    
60.  The EU was of the view that this investigation was initiated on weak grounds. There were 
several problems. First, the EU doubted whether the imports were actually rising. Second, it was 
doubtful that there was injury. Third, other factors were apparently the cause of alleged injury, and there was no causal relationship between imports and such injury.     
61.  Tunisia stressed that it rarely resorted to SG . Tunisia would consult with Turkey and the EU.    
2.19  Turkey - Porcelain and Ceramic Ta bleware, Kitchenware (G/SG/N/6/TUR/21) 
62.  The EU had doubts about this investigation. First, in the EU's view, there was no injury. 
Second, there was no causal relationship, nor unforeseen developments. In case Turkey 
nonetheless proceeded to impose a measure, the EU asked that the form of the measure address 
the real problem: imports from countries that truly show increases. The EU did not want the 
measure to penalize imports from other sources. 
63.  Turkey took note of the EU's comments and stated that the investigation was currently on-
going. 
2.20  Turkey – Transmission Apparatus Inco rporating Reception A pparatus (Cellular) 
Portable Telephone (Item Requeste d by Korea) (G/SG/N/6/TUR/19 and 
G/SG/N/6/TUR/19/Corr.1) 
64.  The Republic of Korea had concerns with this investigation, and recalled that Korea had raised 
these concerns at the last meeting as well as in the consultations. First, Korea did not agree with 
the analysis regarding increase of imports, and the situation did not constitute any emergency situation. Nor was there any unforeseen development. Second, there was no injury. Third, there 
was no causal relation between imports and the al leged injury. Korea asked that the investigation 
be terminated without any measure. 
65.  The EU had systemic concerns with this investigation. The EU did not agree with the analysis 
regarding increase of imports. The EU also noted that domestic production started only after 2013. 
Neither injury nor causal relationship existed. The EU asked Turkey to clarify what the current 
status of the investigation was. 
66.  The US asked whether this investigation was still on-going, since it was aware of reports to 
the effect that this investigation was terminated.   G/SG/M/48 
 
- 9 - 
 
  67.  China had concerns with this investigation. It disagreed with Turkey's analysis regarding 
increased imports, injury analysis and causal relationship. China asked Turkey to take into account 
all the concerns of the relevant parties, to strictly abide by the relevant rules, and to terminate the investigation. 
68.  Viet Nam echoed the concerns expressed by the previous speakers. 
69.  Referring to the question from the US, Turkey clarified that the investigation was currently on-
going and that the investigating authority expected to reach a conclusion by 5 March 2016 at the 
latest. Turkey also reiterated that it was conducting the investigation consistent with the relevant 
rules.  
2.21  Turkey - Wallpaper and Sim ilar Wallcoverings (G/SG/N/8/TUR/15–
G/SG/N/10/TUR/15–G/SG/N/11/TUR/20) 
70.  The EU had concerns with this investigatio n. It first noted that the measure was based on 
threat of injury, but on the other hand the level of the measure was prohibitive. The EU did not 
agree with the analysis. The EU underlined that consultations were on-going and that it had raised 
questions regarding the determination of threat of injury, price analysis, causal analysis and level 
of the proposed measure. The EU was waiting for Turkey's responses in the consultations.  
71.  Turkey stated that it indeed consulted with  the EU and had provided responses. But Turkey 
was willing to continue the consultations. 
2.22  Ukraine - Flexible Porous Plates, Blocks and Sheets of Polyurethane Foams 
(G/SG/N/6/UKR/11) 
72.  The EU stated that it had already submitted its comments regarding this investigation in the 
course of the proceeding. The EU did not agree with Ukraine's analysis regarding increase of 
imports, or with the injury analysis. Furthermore, there was no unforeseen development. The EU asked Ukraine to terminate the investigation. 
73.  Ukraine stated that it was conducting the investigation in accordance with the Agreement, and 
that it was considering the comments received from the interested parties.   
2.23  Viet Nam - Monosodium Gl utamate (G/SG/N/6/VNM/3 and 
G/SG/N/6/VNM/3/Corr.1) 
74.  Thailand was concerned with this investigation, in particular, regarding the injury analysis and 
the lack of unforeseen developments. Thailand aske d Viet Nam to abide by the relevant rules in 
the Agreement.      
75.  Viet Nam stated that it was conducting the investigation in line with the relevant rules in the 
Agreement.      
2.24  Zambia – Flat–Rolled Products of Iron , Non–Alloy Steel, Trailers and Semi-Trailers 
(G/SG/N/6/ZMB/1-G/SG/N/7/ZMB/1) 
76.  The Chair stated that the US had submitted questions regarding this investigation in 
document G/SG/Q2/ZMB/1. The delegation of Zambia was not represented in the room. 
77.  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 
16 November 2015. Written responses to questions, including questions submitted in writing prior to this meeting, should be submitted to the Secr etariat no later than 7 December 2015. As with 
legislative notifications, any unanswered questi ons would be indicated in the draft annotated 
agenda of the next meeting. 
78.  The Committee took note of the statements made. G/SG/M/48 
 
- 10 - 
 
  3  DISCUSSION GROUP REGARDING SAFEGUARD PROCEEDINGS 
79.  The Chair explained that this item was placed on the agenda at the request of the delegations 
of Australia, Canada, the EU, Japan, Korea, Ne w Zealand, Norway, Chinese Taipei, Singapore and 
the US. 
80.  The EU reminded Members that the informal discussion group meeting would take place after 
the present meeting. The discussion was open to all Members. The idea behind this discussion 
group was to provide a broader perspective than the one in normal Committee meetings, removed 
from discussions of individual cases, and to focu s more on each other's experiences and to learn 
from each other. The topics for that day's discussion were: (i) hearings and (ii) public file. 
4  NOTIFICATION SEMINAR 81.  This item was included in the agenda at the Chair's initiative. The Chair recalled that in 
October 2014, the Secretariat made a technical presentation regarding notifications at the request 
of the Members. He wished to now seek the views of Members regarding the usefulness of having another similar seminar in 2016. The presentation of October 2014 was recorded and was 
currently accessible in the Members site of the WTO website. He wished to hear whether there was 
any idea about issues to be covered by a similar seminar. He stressed that this exercise should deal only with technical and administrative matters. 
82.  No Member asked for the floor, and so the Chair stated that he noted that there was no 
particular interest in the idea.  
5  OTHER BUSINESS 5.1  Timing of notifications – Item requested by Australia 
83.  Australia recalled the discussion that took place at the April 2015 meeting of the Committee 
when Japan proposed to include more information in the annex of the annual report. Australia 
stated then that it wanted to include more information than what Japan was proposing. 
Concretely, it proposed that timing of key actions taken under Article 12.1 of the Agreement be 
included in the relevant annex. Australia wished to reiterate this proposal once again. Although 
Australia did not oppose the revision of the annex included in the draft annual report which was to 
be discussed under the next agenda item, Australia asked that the Chair hold an informal meeting 
on this issue.  
84.  The US, New Zealand, Norway, Mexico, Canada, Korea, Japan, the EU, and Chinese Taipei 
supported Australia's idea. 
85.  The Chair offered clarifications for the record. He recalled that the agenda of the spring 2015 
meeting of the Committee included an item entitled "Information on Timing of Notifications", which 
was an item specifically requested by Japan. Japan proposed to include in the annual report the 
date when initiation notifications were submitted. Many Members voiced their support, and there 
was no Member that expressed doubt or reservation. Thus, the then-chair stated that she noted wide support for that idea, and would consult with the Secretariat as to how exactly to amend the 
relevant annex of the annual report. At that spring  meeting, in addition to supporting that idea, 
Australia made a suggestion to add more information to the annual report. There was no detailed follow-up at that meeting, and so the then-chair invited discussions to continue under the incoming chair. The Committee had now heard Australia's proposal and the Chair stated that he 
would hold an informal meeting to discuss Australia's idea. 
5.2  Notifications taken up at Committee meetings – Item requested by the US 
86.  The US understood that not all notifications submitted were automatically included in the 
agenda of a Committee meeting. The US noted that  this had been the practice of the Committee 
for a long time. Given the proliferation of safeguard actions as well as an increase in the variety of notifications made, the US proposed that the Committee reconsider this practice and automatically 
have all notifications included in the agenda of the Committee meetings.  G/SG/M/48 
 
- 11 - 
 
  87.  Mexico, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway, Chinese Taipei, Chile, Israel and Japan 
supported the US idea. 
88.  India and Pakistan stated that it needed to hear more details regarding the idea.  
89.  The EU did not oppose the idea, but wondered whether that would not overload the agenda. 
90.  Korea and Thailand supported the idea but asked for further discussions.   
91.  Colombia asked whether additional format  for new notifications would become necessary. 
92.  The US clarified that it was not asking for new types of notifications. 
93.  The Chair suggested that the Committee hold an informal meeting to continue the discussion 
on this issue together with the issue Australia raised some minutes ago.  
94.  India asked whether the US could provide the idea in writing. India also asked whether 
Australia could provide its idea in writing. 
95.  Australia could submit a paper if that helped the Chair, but Australia wished to be treated in 
the same way as any other Member, and did not understand that there was a requirement that all 
proposals needed to be submitted in writing.    
96.  The US would reflect on the issue. The US reiterated that the idea was simple.  
5.3  Status of Pakistan's SG Measures Amendment Bill – Item requested by the US 
97.  The US noted that Pakistan's Parliament passed the SG Measures Amendment Bill and the 
National tariff Commission Bill recently. While the US was not seeking a substantive discussion at 
the meeting, it wished to register its interest in those bills.  
98.  Pakistan stated that its Parliament had indeed passed two laws regarding SG. The notification 
was in the process of being circulated.3 The laws could also be consulted on the Pakistan National 
Assembly website. 
5.4  Statement regarding an investigatio n by Egypt (automotive batteries) – Item 
requested by the EU 
99.  The EU understood that Egypt's investigating authority had recently published an essential 
facts report regarding the investigation on automotive batteries. The EU did not agree with many 
of its contents. The EU asked Egypt to proceed in a strictly objective manner.  
100.  Egypt took note of the statement of the EU. Egypt stressed that the document referred to 
included only a proposal to impose a measure. 
101.  The Committee took note of all the statements made under Other Business. 
6  ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS  
102.  The Chair recalled that he sent faxes to the Members on 5 October and 7 October. In those 
faxes, he recalled that Members had no objection at the spring 2015 meeting to the idea that 
certain information – namely, the date that the notification informing the Committee of an 
initiation of a SG investigation was submitted – be added in the annex of the annual report. He 
further recalled that in the fax dated 7 October, he sent an example of exactly how this new information would appear in the annual report. It was further explained in that fax that unless he 
heard objection by 16 October, he would ask the Secretariat to proceed and produce the draft 
annual report in the manner as shown in that example. Since he heard no objection to the proposal to include in the annual report the date when initial notifications were submitted, he 
                                               
3 Subsequently circulated as G/SG/N/1/PAK/3/Suppl.1. G/SG/M/48 
 
- 12 - 
 
  asked the Secretariat to send on 21 October the draft of the annual report using that format, 
which was now to be discussed. 
103.  India stated that while it did not oppose the changes made to Annex 2, it was of the view 
that any changes to the format of the annual report should be taken only after an agreement 
taken at a formal Committee meeting.  
104.  The US referred to the clarification from Russia contained in footnote 2 of Annex 3. The US 
thanked Russia for formally acknowledging the existence of these measures and for identifying 
them in the annual report.  
105.  The Russian Federation stated that the clarification by Russia contained in footnote 2 of 
Annex 3 was for the purpose of transparency. 106.  After correcting and adjusting some technical matters, the Committee adopted its annual 
report (see document G/L/1130–G/SG/141). 7  DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING 107.  The Chair suggested that the Committee meet in the week of 25 April 2016. The exact date 
would be confirmed in due course. 
108.  The Committee so decided. 
__________