RESTRICTED  
  
G/SG/M/44  
 
27 March 2014  
(14-1851)  Page: 1/12  
Committee on Safeguards    
 
  MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING 
HELD ON 22 OCTOBER 2013 
CHAIRPERSON: MR ALEX YUN-HSING NI 
1.  The Committee on Safeguards (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 22 October 2013. 
2.  At the outset, the US stated that under Other Business it wished to make a statement 
regarding an un-notified safeguard investigation by Russia. Russia stated that under Other 
Business it wished to make a statement regarding an un-notified safeguard investigation by 
Colombia. The Chair stated that he wished to make several statements under Other Business 
regarding notifications and other procedural matters. 
3.  The Committee adopted the following agenda: 
1   NATIONAL LEGISLATION ............................................................................................ 3  
1.1   Cameroon – Review of New Legisl ative Notification (G /SG/N/1/CMR/1) ............................. 3  
1.2   Chile – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/SG/N/1/CHL/2/Suppl.2) .......................... 3  
1.3   Lao PDR – Review of New Legisl ative Notification (G/SG/N/1/ LAO/1)................................. 3  
1.4   Macao, China – Review of New Legi slative Notification (G/SG/N/1/MA C/3) ......................... 3  
1.5   Morocco – Review of New Legislat ive Notification (G /SG/N/1/MA R/2) ................................ 3  
1.6   Indonesia – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notification 
(G/SG/N/1/ID N/3) ............................................................................................................ 3  
1.7   Russia – Continuing Review of Previously  Reviewed Notification  (G/SG/N/1/RUS/1) ............ 3  
2   NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RE LATED TO SAFEGUAR D MEASURES ........................... 4  
2.1   Australia – Canned tomatoes (G /SG/N/6/AUS/3 and G/ SG/N/8/AUS /3) ............................. 4  
2.2   Australia - Certain processed fruit products (G/SG/N/6/AUS/4 and 
G/SG/N/8/A US/4) ............................................................................................................. 4  
2.3   Chile – Maize (G/SG/N/6/CHL/14–G/SG/N/8/CHL/6; G/SG/N/7/CHL/11–
G/SG/N/11/CHL/8; G/SG/N/7/CHL/11/ Suppl.1 and G/SG /N/9/CHL/7) ...................................... 5  
2.4   Chile – Frozen pork (G/SG/N/6/ CHL/15 and G/SG/N/6/C HL/15/Corr.1) ............................. 5  
2.5   Colombia - Steel wire rod (G/SG/N/6/COL/4 and G/SG/N/7/COL/1-
G/SG/N/11/CO L/1) ........................................................................................................... 5  
2.6   Colombia - Steel an gles (G/SG/N/ 6/COL/5) ................................................................... 5  
2.7   Colombia – Bars of iron or non-alloy st eel (rebar) and wire rods of iron or non-alloy 
steel (G/SG/N/6/COL/6 and G/SG/N/7/COL/2-G/SG/N/11/COL/2) ............................................ 5  
2.8   Colombia – Sections of iron or non-alloy steel and rods of iron or steel 
(G/SG/N/6/CO L/7) ............................................................................................................ 6  
2.9   Egypt – Raw and white sugar (G/SG/N/7/EGY/7/Suppl.1 and 
G/SG/N/7/EGY/7/Suppl.1/Corr.1) ........................................................................................ 6  G/SG/M/44 
 
- 2 - 
 
  2.10   India – Seamless pipes, tubes and holl ow profiles of iron or non - alloy steel 
(G/SG/N/6/IN D/32) .......................................................................................................... 6  
2.11   India – Sodium nitr ite (G/SG/N/6/ IND/31) .................................................................. 6  
2.12   India – Methyl acetoacetate (G/SG/N/6/IND/33 and G/SG/N/6/IND/33/Corr.1) ................. 6  
2.13   India – Phthalic anhydrid e (G/SG/N/10/IND /13/Suppl.1) ............................................... 6  
2.14   India – PX-13 (G/S G/N/6/IND/28/S uppl.1) .................................................................. 6  
2.15   Indonesia - Dextrose monohydrate (G/SG/N/10/IDN/2/Suppl.2) ..................................... 7  
2.16   Indonesia - Flat-rolled product of iron or non-alloy (G/SG/N/10/IDN/22/Suppl.2) .............. 7  
2.17   Indonesia - D-glusitol (s orbitol) (G/SG/ N/9/IDN/6) ....................................................... 7  
2.18   Indonesia - Wheat flour (G/SG/N/8/IDN/15–G/SG/N/10/IDN/15) .................................... 7  
2.19   Indonesia - Seamless pipe casing and tubing (G/SG/N/8/IDN/14/Suppl.1–
G/SG/N/10/IDN/14/Suppl.1–G /SG/N/11/IDN /12) .................................................................. 7  
2.20   Jordan – Bars and rods of iron and steel (G/SG/N/6/JOR/16/Suppl.1) .............................. 8  
2.21   Kyrgyz Republic - Wheat flour (G/S G/N/6/KGZ/4 and G/SG/N /6/KGZ/4/Co rr.1) ................ 8  
2.22   Morocco – Wire rods and reinforcing bars (G/SG/N/7/MAR/2–G/SG/N/8/MAR/3–
G/SG/N/11/MA R/2) ........................................................................................................... 8  
2.23   Philippines – Newspr int (G/SG/N/6/ PHL/9) .................................................................. 8  
2.24   Philippines – Galvanized iron and pre-painted sheets and coils (G/SG/N/6/PHL/10) ........... 8  
2.25   Russian Federation – Harvesters and modules thereof (G/SG/N/8/RUS/1 and 
G/SG/N/8/RUS/1/Corr.1 and G/SG/N /8/RUS/1/Suppl. 1–G/SG/N/10/RUS/1–
G/SG/N/11/RUS/1/Suppl.2, G/SG/N/8/RUS /1/Suppl.2–G/SG/N/ 10/RUS/1/Suppl.1–
G/SG/N/11/RUS/1/Suppl.3 and G/SG/N/8/RUS/1/Suppl.3 G/SG/N/10/RUS/1/Suppl.2-
G/SG/N/11/RUS/ 1/Suppl.4) ............................................................................................... 8  
2.26   Russian Federation – Tableware and kitchenware of porcelain (G/SG/N/8/RUS/2–
G/SG/N/10/RUS/2 and G/SG/N/8/RUS/2/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/10/RUS/2/Suppl.1-
G/SG/N/11/RU S/2) ........................................................................................................... 9  
2.27   South Africa – Frozen potato chips (G/SG/N/7/ZAF/2–G/SG/N/11/ZAF/2 and its 
corrigendum and G/SG/N/7/ZAF/2/Su ppl.1–G/SG/N/11/ZA F/2/Suppl.1) ................................... 9  
2.28   Thailand – Glass block (G/SG/N/8/THA/1/Suppl.5–G/SG/N/10/THA/1/Suppl.3 and 
its corrigendum and G/SG/N/8/THA/1 /Suppl.6–G/SG/N/10/THA/1/Suppl.4–
G/SG/N/11/THA/1/Suppl.5) ................................................................................................ 9  
2.29   Thailand – Hot rolled steel flat products (G/SG/N/7/THA/2/Suppl.1–
G/SG/N/8/THA/2/Suppl.1 and G/SG/N/7/T HA/2/Suppl.2–G/SG/N/8/THA/2/Suppl.2–
G/SG/N/11/THA/2/Suppl.1 and G/SG/N/8/THA/2/Suppl.3-G/SG/N/10/THA/2-
G/SG/N/11/THA/2/Suppl.2) ................................................................................................ 9  
2.30   Thailand – Woven fabric (G/SG/N/9/TUR/1) ................................................................ 10 
2.31   Turkey – Certain electrical a ppliances (G/SG/N/14/TUR/9/Suppl.1) ................................ 10 
2.32   Ukraine – Motor cars (G/SG/N/10/UKR/3/Suppl.1) ....................................................... 10 
2.33   Ukraine – Tableware and kitchenw are of porcelain (G /SG/N/6/UKR/10) .......................... 10 
2.34   Ukraine – Casing and pump-compressor seamless steel pipes 
(G/SG/N/8/UKR/1/Suppl.2–G/SG/N/14/UKR /1/Suppl.1 and its corrigendum) ............................ 11 
2.35   Viet Nam – Vegetable oil (G/SG/N/7/VNM/1 and G/SG/N/8/VNM/2–
G/SG/N/10/VNM/1–G/ SG/N/11/VNM/1) .............................................................................. 11 
3   DISCUSSION GROUP REGARD ING SAFEGUARD PROCEEDINGS.................................. 11  
4   OTHER BU SINESS ...................................................................................................... 11  
4.1   US statement regardin g investigation by Russia ............................................................ 11 G/SG/M/44 
 
- 3 - 
 
  4.2   Russia's statement regardin g investigation by Colombia ................................................. 11 
4.3   Chair's statement regarding en couragement of "nil " notifications ..................................... 12 
4.4   Chair's statement regarding certain administrative matters such as submission of 
notifica tions ................................................................................................................. ... 12 
5   ANNUAL REPORT TO THE CO UNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS ........................................ 12  
6   DATE OF NEXT REGULAR ME ETING ............................................................................ 12  
 
 
1  NATIONAL LEGISLATION 
1.1  Cameroon – Review of New Legisl ative Notification (G/SG/N/1/CMR/1) 
4.  There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
5.  No responses were provided to the questions posed by the US in document G/SG/Q1/CMR/1, 
and Cameroon was not present at the meeting. 
1.2  Chile – Review of New Legislativ e Notification (G/SG/N/1/CHL/2/Suppl.2) 
6.  Chile explained that it had recently submitted responses to the questions posed by the US in 
document G/SG/Q1/CHL/3. (These responses we re subsequently circulated in document 
G/SG/Q1/CHL/4.) 
7.  The US reserved the right to pose further questions regarding the responses. 
1.3  Lao PDR – Review of New Legisl ative Notification (G/SG/N/1/LAO/1) 
8.  There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 1.4  Macao, China – Review of New Legi slative Notification  (G/SG/N/1/MAC/3) 
9.  There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
1.5  Morocco – Review of New Legisl ative Notification (G/SG/N/1/MAR/2) 
10.  Morocco explained its responses to the questions posed by the US in document 
G/SG/Q1/MAR/1. (These responses were subseque ntly circulated in document G/SG/Q1/MAR/2.) 
 1.6  Indonesia – Continuing Review of  Previously Reviewed Notification 
(G/SG/N/1/IDN/3) 
11.  Indonesia explained its responses to the questions posed by the US in document 
G/SG/Q1/IDN/13. (These responses were subsequently circulated in document G/SG/Q1/IDN/14.) 
 
1.7  Russia – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notification 
(G/SG/N/1/RUS/1) 
12.  Russia explained that it had recently submitted responses to the questions posed by the US in 
document G/SG/Q1/RUS/1 and to the questions po sed by Australia in document G/SG/Q1/RUS/2. 
(These responses were subsequently circulated in documents G/SG/Q1/RUS/3 and G/SG/Q1/RUS/4.) 
13.  The US reserved the right to pose further questions regarding the responses. 
 
14.  The Chair recalled that the deadline for written questions concerning any legislation reviewed 
at this meeting was 12 November 2013. The deadline for written answers to all written questions, 
including questions submitted in writing prior to this meeting, was 3 December 2013.  G/SG/M/44 
 
- 4 - 
 
  15.  The Chair informed the Committee that 26 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.   
16.  The US encouraged those Members who did not have any legislation regarding SG to file nil 
notifications.   
17.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
2  NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RELATED TO SAFEGUARD MEASURES 18.  At the outset of this part of the agenda, Canada observed that it was concerned with the 
recent high number of safeguard measures imposed, and requested imposing Members to strictly 
observe the relevant obligations, stressing that fact that safeguards were unique among the three 
trade remedy instruments in that they were not applied against unfair trade.    
2.1  Australia – Canned tomatoes (G/SG/N/6/AUS/3 and G/SG/N/8/AUS/3) 19.  The US, referring to this notification as well as the next item on the agenda (i.e. investigation 
on certain processed fruit products), commended the level of information contained in those 
notifications and stated that they served as good examples for other delegations.   
20.  South Africa wished to comment on this item as well as the next item (i.e. Australia's 
investigation on certain processed fruit products). Explaining that food processing sector was one 
of its most important manufacturing sectors in South Africa in terms of employment creation, it noted it had registered its commercial interests with the Australian authorities and previously expressed its concerns with the two investigations. South Africa welcomed the fact that the 
Australian Productivity Commission had recommended that the authorities not impose the 
provisional measures, and stated that that decision aligned with the inputs that South Africa had provided in the investigations. It was of the view that the increase of imports was not recent, 
sudden, or sharp enough, and that injury was caused by factors other than increased imports. 
South Africa asked that, in light of the lack of comp elling evidence to justify imposition of definitive 
Safeguard measures in terms of standards laid down under the Agreement and relevant 
jurisprudence,  the investigations be terminated without a measure. 
21.  The EU welcomed the fact that Australia decided not to impose a provisional measure, but 
stated that the investigation should not have been initiated to begin with. The EU saw no causal 
link between the imports and injury, and so re quested that the investigation be terminated. 
Finally, the EU asked whether these considerations would be taken into account in the ongoing 
anti-dumping investigation regarding the same product.  
22.  Chile welcomed the fact that Australia decided not to impose a provisional measure, and 
stated that it was following the investigation closely.  23.  Australia, reacting to the question of the EU , clarified that the SG investigation and the anti-
dumping investigation were two separate investigations with different standards. It then clarified 
the next steps regarding submission of writte n comments and the holding of a hearing.   
2.2  Australia - Certain processed fruit products (G/SG/N/6/AUS/4 and 
G/SG/N/8/AUS/4) 
24.  Turkey believed that the necessary criteria we re not met, and requested that the investigation 
be terminated. 
                                               
1 These Members were: Angola, Antigua & Barbuda, Belize, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, 
Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, the Gambia, Grenada,  Guinea Bissau, Mauritania, Monte 
Negro, Mozambique, Niger, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts & Nevis, Saint Vincent & Grenadines, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Tanzania, Tonga and Vanuatu. G/SG/M/44 
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.3  Chile – Maize (G/SG/N/6/CHL/14–G/SG/N/8/CHL/6; G/SG/N/7/CHL/11–
G/SG/N/11/CHL/8; G/SG/N/7/CHL/11/Suppl.1 and G/SG/N/9/CHL/7) 
25.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 2.4  Chile – Frozen pork (G/SG/N/6/CHL/15 and G/SG/N/6/CHL/15/Corr.1) 
26.  Chile explained that the investigation was terminated.
2 
27.  Brazil welcomed the termination, and reiterat ed that safeguards were measures to be taken 
only in exceptional circumstances.    
2.5  Colombia - Steel wire rod (G/SG/N/6/COL/4 and G/SG/N/7/COL/1-
G/SG/N/11/COL/1)  
28.  The EU wished to comment on all four investigations of Colombia that were on the agenda of 
the meeting. Colombia had initiated four investigations in one month. Safeguards were measures 
to be taken only in exceptional circumstances, and should be used with caution. Regarding the 
specific item at hand, the EU did not consider that the increase of imports was sufficiently recent, sharp or sudden. In addition, it was questionable whether there was injury and whether causal 
relationship with imports existed. 
29.  Mexico had serious concerns with all four Colombian investigations. Mexico was particularly 
unhappy about the untimeliness of the notifications. Three of the four initiation notifications were 
made one month after the actual initiation an d created problems regarding the deadlines for 
comments. Mexico also saw problems in the lack of analysis on like products, on unforeseen developments, and on critical circumstances. It also found it problematic that in one investigation (i) the analysis focused only on two countries ignoring the other exporters and (ii) data regarding 
injury was taken from an entity not participating in the investigation while ignoring data from 
participating entities. 
30.  Japan saw several problems with the four Colombian investigations. Japan found the lateness 
of the notifications particularly problematic. For example, the notifications of initiation of some 
investigations were significantly delayed.     
31.  Peru stated that, in its view, this investigation did not fully conform to the SG Agreement.   
32.  Brazil agreed with the views of Mexico regarding all four Colombian investigations.  
33.  Colombia stated that it would convey the capital all the comments made.   
2.6  Colombia - Steel an gles (G/SG/N/6/COL/5) 
34.  Turkey wished to comment on this item as  well as on the next two agenda items regarding 
investigations of Colombia (i.e. investigations regarding bars of iron or steel and regarding 
sections of iron or non-alloy steel). Turkey agreed with many of the points raised by the speakers under the previous agenda item. In particular, Turkey was concerned about the lateness of the 
notifications. Turkey requested that the investigations be terminated.  
35.  Colombia stated that the notifications were made timely in the Official Gazette and that the 
interested parties were informed directly.  
36.  Turkey stated that that did not change its views.   
2.7  Colombia – Bars of iron or non-alloy steel  (rebar) and wire rods of iron or non-alloy 
steel (G/SG/N/6/COL/6 and G/SG/N/7/COL/2-G/SG/N/11/COL/2) 
37.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 
                                               
2 See document G/SG/N/9/CHL/8. G/SG/M/44 
 
- 6 - 
 
  2.8  Colombia – Sections of iron or no n-alloy steel and rods of iron or steel 
(G/SG/N/6/COL/7) 
38.  The US agreed with many of the points made regarding all of Colombia's investigations in the 
agenda of the meeting. Regarding this item specifically, it was problematic that the notification 
was made on 3 September while the investigation was initiated on 1 August.   
2.9  Egypt – Raw and white sugar (G/SG/N/7/EGY/7/Suppl.1 and 
G/SG/N/7/EGY/7/Suppl.1/Corr.1) 
39.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 
2.10  India – Seamless pipes, tubes and hollo w profiles of iron or non - alloy steel 
(G/SG/N/6/IND/32) 
40.  The EU noted that India was one of the most active users of the SG measure, and in the EU's 
view, India's SG measures were taken on weak gr ounds. It noted that the import surge was often 
due to one or two countries, and thus, the situation was not one where the SG instrument was suitable. In addition, half of the investigations concerned a product already covered by anti-
dumping duties. The EU did not find this appropriate. More specifically on this investigation, the EU 
saw several problems: (i) there was a significant difference between the data submitted by the complainants and the data referred to in the notice of initiation, (ii) the increase of imports was 
not recent or sharp enough, (iii) there was no evidence of serious injury or causal relationship. 
41.  Russia agreed with the EU. It noted that it was only imports from China that increased. Russia 
requested India not to impose a measure.   42.  Japan also was concerned. It noted in particular that products exported from Japan were not 
in competition with the subject domestic products. 43.  India stated that it was acting consistently  with the SG Agreement, and asked that questions 
be submitted in writing.  
2.11  India – Sodium nitrite (G/SG/N/6/IND/31) 
44.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 2.12  India – Methyl acetoacetate (G/S G/N/6/IND/33 and G/SG/N/6/IND/33/Corr.1) 
45.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 
2.13  India – Phthalic anhydride (G/SG/N/10/IND/13/Suppl.1) 46.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 2.14  India – PX-13 (G/SG/N/6/IND/28/Suppl.1) 
47.  The EU stated that while this notification was about an investigation to determine whether or 
not to extend the existing measure, the EU understood that the existing measure had already 
expired, and so no extension was possible. Nor was a new measure possible due to the limitation 
provided for in Article 9.2 of the SG Agreement. In  addition, the EU was of the view that there was 
neither serious injury nor causal relationship. Thus, it requested that the investigation be terminated.  
48.  The US also stated that it understood that the existing measure had already expired, and so 
no extension was possible. The US requested conf irmation that the measure was currently not in 
place.  
49.  India asked that the questions be submitted in writing.  G/SG/M/44 
 
- 7 - 
 
  2.15  Indonesia - Dextrose monohy drate (G/SG/N/10/IDN/2/Suppl.2) 
50.  The EU was worried about the number of investigation by Indonesia. It was also not satisfied 
with the quality of the analysis in those investigations. The EU reiterated that safeguards were 
instrument to be used only in exceptional circumstances.   
51.  Indonesia explained that its investigations were carried on in a careful manner.   
2.16  Indonesia - Flat-rolled product of ir on or non-alloy (G/SG/N/10/IDN/22/Suppl.2) 
52.  The US noted that the notification, which was submitted on 23 April 2013, stated that a 
hearing would be held on 23 April 2013 – that is, on the same day that the notification was 
submitted. This was clearly not a timely notification.  
53.  Chinese Taipei had concerns with this notification. It had not received sufficient information, 
including the non-confidential summary of relevant documents. It requested consultations with 
Indonesia in accordance with Article 12.3. 
54.  Viet Nam had concerns with this investigation and requested adequate opportunities to be 
heard.  
55.  Indonesia took note of the statements.  
2.17  Indonesia - D-glusitol (sorbitol) (G/S G/N/9/IDN/6) 
56.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 
2.18  Indonesia - Wheat flour (G/SG/N/8/IDN/15–G/SG/N/10/IDN/15) 
57.  The US noted that in this notification su bmitted on 3 June 2013, the Indonesian authority 
asked that interested parties inform their intention to undertake consultations "no later than 
7 days after the date of the relevant WTO communication regarding this notification being 
circulated". On the other hand, in the same notification, the date of the hearing was specified as 
5 June 2013. This was not adequate.     
58.  Australia also had concerns with the fact that there was only a very short time between the 
date of the notification and the date of the hear ing. In addition, Australia was not convinced that 
imports were the cause of injury, or for that matter, that imports were increasing. It also did not see any serious injury. Australia noted that this was a proposal to impose a measure, and it asked 
that the measure not be imposed and the investigation be terminated.      
59.  Turkey recalled that it was one of the majo r exports of the subject product to Indonesia, and 
stated that it was disappointed with this notification. It asked that the measure not be imposed 
and the investigation be terminated.      
60.  Indonesia took note of the statements.  
2.19  Indonesia - Seamless pipe casing  and tubing (G/SG/ N/8/IDN/14/Suppl.1–
G/SG/N/10/IDN/14/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/11/IDN/12) 
61.  Japan reiterated that safeguard measures were to be used only in exceptional circumstances, 
and in this regard, Japan registered its concerns regarding all of the investigations by Indonesia on 
the agenda of the meeting. As for this investigation, Japan saw two problems. First, when the 
initiation of this investigation was notified in spring 2013, the time between the notification and 
the hearing was too short. Specifically, while th at notification was submitted on 19 March 2013, 
the hearing was held on 1 April 2013. Second, for the specific notification at hand, while the measure was imposed on 6 August 2013, it was notified only on 22 August 2013.     
62.  Indonesia took note of the statement.  G/SG/M/44 
 
- 8 - 
 
  2.20  Jordan – Bars and rods of ir on and steel (G/SG/N/6/JOR/16/Suppl.1) 
63.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 2.21  Kyrgyz Republic - Wheat flour (G/SG/N/6/KGZ/4 and G/SG/N/6/KGZ/4/Corr.1) 64.  Russia understood that a provisional measure was imposed simultaneously with the initiation 
of the investigation. It recalled that a provisional measure can be imposed only after a preliminary 
determination, and asked Kyrgyz Republic to prov ide detailed evidence regarding such preliminary 
determination. Russia asked that the provisional measure be withdrawn, and the investigation be 
terminated.  
65.   Kyrgyz Republic took note of the statement.  
2.22  Morocco – Wire rods and reinforcing bars (G/SG/N/7/MAR/2–G/SG/N/8/MAR/3–
G/SG/N/11/MAR/2) 
66.  The EU stated that the small import increa se did not warrant imposition of a provisional 
measure. It also did not see a causal relationship. 
67.  Morocco took note of the statement.  
2.23  Philippines – Newsprint (G/SG/N/6/PHL/9) 68.  The EU noted that the Philippines was resorting to many SG measures recently, and stated 
that SG measures were to be used on ly in exceptional circumstances.   
69.  The Philippines took note of the statement. 
2.24  Philippines – Galvanized iron and pre-painted sheets and coils 
(G/SG/N/6/PHL/10) 
70.  Japan was closely following this investigation. It stressed the need to provide interested 
parties with adequate opportunity to submit views, and to properly reflect those views in the result 
of the investigation. 
71.  Australia was concerned with the lack of timeliness of the notification. Australia also asked 
when consultations would be held.    72.  The Philippines took note of the statements. As for Australia's question, it replied that the 
public hearing would probably be held in November 2013.   
2.25  Russian Federation – Harvesters and modules thereof (G/SG/N/8/RUS/1 and 
G/SG/N/8/RUS/1/Corr.1 and G/SG/N/8/RUS/1/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/10/RUS/1–G/SG/N/11/RUS/1/Suppl.2, G/SG/N/8/RUS/1/Suppl.2–G/SG/N/10/RUS/1/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/11/RUS/1/Suppl.3 and G/SG/N/8/RUS/1/Suppl.3 
G/SG/N/10/RUS/1/Suppl.2-G/SG/N/11/RUS/1/Suppl.4) 
73.  Russia explained that after the provisional measure was imposed, it had held consultations 
with the major exporters including the US and the EU. Subsequently, it was decided to impose the 
final measure in the form of a duty, but that decision was stalled in the internal procedure of the 
Customs Union. It was eventually decided to impose the measure in the form of a quota. The imposition of the measure would be notified shortly.
3    
74.  The EU had concerns with this measure. It did not see meaningful increase of imports, 
unforeseen development, nor serious injury. It also  did not find the gradual liberalization of the 
measure to be sufficient. It had doubts about applying a measure after suspending the entry into 
                                               
3 Subsequently notified in G/SG/N/8/RUS/1/Suppl.4–G/SG/N/10/RUS/1/Suppl.3–
G/SG/N/11/RUS/1/Suppl.5. G/SG/M/44 
 
- 9 - 
 
  force of the original measure for 6 months, and it did not find any convincing reason why a quota 
was chosen.    
75.  The US stated that the Russian finding erroneously attributed the cause of serious injury to 
factors other than increased imports. It also found the level of the quota unreasonably low. While 
the US appreciated that consultations were offered, Russia had not provided sufficient information 
to make the consultations meaningful.       
76.  Canada agreed with the concerns raised by the EU and the US. 
77.  Russia stated that it was continuing to cons ult interested Members, and also pointed out that 
the full report that contained deta ils can be found on its website.  
2.26  Russian Federation – Tableware and kitchenware of porcel ain (G/SG/N/8/RUS/2–
G/SG/N/10/RUS/2 and G/SG/N/8/RUS/2/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/10/RUS/2/Suppl.1-
G/SG/N/11/RUS/2) 
78.  Ukraine stated that there was no evidence of serious injury, and asked that the measure be 
terminated.  
79.  The EU noted that the increase of imports was basically due to one country and stated that 
safeguards may not be the best means to cope with the situation.  
80.  Russia took note of the statements. With regard to the point made by Ukraine, Russia 
stressed that the domestic industry was operating under significant loss, which deteriorated during 
the investigating period.  
2.27  South Africa – Frozen potato chips (G/SG/N/7/ZAF/2–G/SG/N/11/ZAF/2 and its 
corrigendum and G/SG/N/7/ZAF/2/S uppl.1–G/SG/N/11/ZAF/2/Suppl.1) 
81.  The EU noted that the same product was also  subject to an anti-dumping measure. The EU 
noted that the methodology for determining the increase of imports was not correct, that there 
was no serious injury, that the analysis regarding causal link was not satisfactory and that the 
level of the duty of the provisional measure was too high.   
82.  South Africa explained the course of action it  had followed up to now, noting it had and would 
continue to abide by transparency and due process requirements. South Africa was a very 
moderate user of the SG instrument and was fully aware of the exceptional nature of this measure 
and the conditions circumscribing its use. South Africa took note of the comments and advised that all submissions by parties would be taken into account. It reiterated that the final conclusion was yet to come.  
2.28  Thailand – Glass block (G/SG/N/ 8/THA/1/Suppl.5–G/SG/N/10/THA/1/Suppl.3 
and its corrigendum and G/SG/N/8/THA/1/Suppl.6–G/SG/N/10/THA/1/Suppl.4–G/SG/N/11/THA/1/Suppl.5) 
83.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 
2.29  Thailand – Hot rolled steel flat  products (G/SG/N/7/THA/2/Suppl.1–
G/SG/N/8/THA/2/Suppl.1 and G/SG/N/7/THA/2/Suppl.2–G/SG/N/8/THA/2/Suppl.2–
G/SG/N/11/THA/2/Suppl.1 and G/SG/N/8/THA/2/Suppl.3-G/SG/N/10/THA/2-
G/SG/N/11/THA/2/Suppl.2) 
84.  The US saw no evidence of serious injury, and was unsure how the duty level was 
determined. 
85.  Korea had serious concerns with this investigation, and was considering various options 
regarding how to react to this situation.  
86.  Russia saw no evidence of serious injury, and asked that the measure be withdrawn. G/SG/M/44 
 
- 10 - 
 
  87.  Thailand asked that the questions be submitted in writing. 
2.30  Thailand – Woven fabric (G/SG/N/9/TUR/1) 
88.  Japan welcomed the termination of the investigation. 
2.31  Turkey – Certain electrical appliances (G/SG/N/14/TUR/9/Suppl.1) 
89.  The EU noted that the measure had been ex tended and expressed its disappointment with the 
decision. It noted that this was the second extension of the original measure. 
90.  Turkey explained that, as the EU noted, th e decision of extension was duly notified on 
14 October.4   
2.32  Ukraine – Motor cars (G/SG/N/10/UKR/3/Suppl.1) 91.  Japan regretted the course of action taken by Ukraine. Ukraine had been collecting safeguard 
duty for 6 months already, without waiting for the official decision. It also had serious doubts 
about the findings. The increase of imports was not absolute, but relative to domestic production. 
In that case, in Japan's view, Ukraine needed to conduct a stricter analysis regarding causal relationship. Japan understood that Ukraine was of  the view that consultations under Article 12.3 
had already been held in April. However, the purpose of consultations under Article 12.3 was to 
review relevant information, and since relevant information was not provided, the meeting in April could not qualify as consultations under Article 12.3. Japan asked that the measure be terminated. 
Japan was seriously considering taking further steps under the DSU in the near future.   
92.  The EU had strong concerns with this action. This final decision to impose a measure came 
one year after the conclusion of the investigatio n. In addition, the EU was of the view that 
consultations pursuant to Article 12.3 had not been held, and asked Ukraine to hold such 
consultations. 
93.  Korea stated that the measure did not sati sfy several requirements of the Agreement. For 
example, sufficient information was not provided, and no Article 12.3 consultations were held. 
Unless sufficient information was provided, Korea could not consult with Ukraine regarding 
adequate compensation. Korea asked that the measure to be terminated.  
94.  Russia recalled that it was one of the main ex porters of the subject product, and stated that it 
was concerned with the measure: the measure was not based on evidence, there was no 
"parallelism", and the analysis was not consistent. Russia also had not received responses to the comments it made in consultations. It requested that the measure be withdrawn.      
95.  Australia agreed with the concerns raised, and reiterated that transparency was important. It 
also asked about the rationale for excluding hybrid cars from the measure.     96.  Ukraine believed that the measure was in co nformity with the Agreement and asked that any 
questions be submitted in writing.  
2.33  Ukraine – Tableware and kitchenw are of porcelain (G/SG/N/6/UKR/10) 
97.  The EU noted that the rise of imports of the subject product was virtually due to only one 
country. That country accounted for 70% of the imports, with a share 10 times larger than the 
second largest exporter. The export price from  that country was also lower than the other 
exporters. Thus, in the EU's view, resorting to another instrument was more adequate in this case. The EU also saw several problems with this investigation. For example: "unforeseen development" was not explained, it was doubtful whether seriou s injury existed, and the duty rate of 40% was 
excessive.   
98.  Ukraine asked that the questions be submitted in writing.  
                                               
4 See document G/SG/N/8/TUR/10/Suppl.1–G/SG/N /10/TUR/10/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/11/TUR/11/Suppl.2. G/SG/M/44 
 
- 11 - 
 
  2.34  Ukraine – Casing and pump -compressor seamless steel pipes 
(G/SG/N/8/UKR/1/Suppl.2–G/SG/N/14/UKR/1/Suppl.1 and its corrigendum) 
99.  Russia stated that this decision regarding te mporary suspension lacked evidentiary basis, and 
asked that necessary information be provided.    
100.  Ukraine asked that the questions be submitted in writing.  
2.35  Viet Nam – Vegetable oil (G/SG/N/7/VNM/1 and G/SG/N/8/VNM/2–
G/SG/N/10/VNM/1–G/SG/N/11/VNM/1) 
101.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 
102.  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 
12 November 2013. Written responses to questions, including questions submitted in writing prior 
to this meeting, should be submitted to the Secr etariat no later than 3 December 2013. As with 
legislative notifications, any unanswered questi ons would be indicated in the draft annotated 
agenda of the next meeting. 
103.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
3  DISCUSSION GROUP REGARDING SAFEGUARD PROCEEDINGS 
104.  The Chair explained that this item was placed on the agenda at the request of the "Friends of 
Safeguards Proceedings". 105.  The US, on behalf of the "Friends of Safeguards Proceedings"
5, recalled the informal 
discussion held following the Committee meeting in April, and reported that Members who 
participated in that discussion urged that this informal discussion be continued. As such, another 
informal discussion would be held after this Co mmittee meeting. The discussion was open to all 
Members. The idea was to discuss safeguard proceedings from a broader perspective – distanced from individual cases – in order to focus on how Members abide by the various requirements in the 
Agreement, and learn from each other and share best  practices. The topics selected for this time 
were "what the investigating authorities examine/take into account when they evaluate whether to invoke critical circumstances" and "imposition of provisional measures". 
106.  The Committee took note of the statements.   
4  OTHER BUSINESS  
4.1  US statement regarding investigation by Russia 107.  The US commented on an investigation by the Eurasian Economic Commission ("EEC"), of 
which Russia was a member, regarding corrosion resistant pipe and tubes. The US understood that 
in August 2012, a safeguard measure in the form of a duty that had been in place since 2011 was 
transformed into a quota. In August 2013, the EEC initiated a review of this measure. None of 
these actions were notified. The US asked for clarification of the situation.       
108.  Russia took note of the statement.   
4.2  Russia's statement regarding investigation by Colombia 
109.  Russia wished to comment on an investigat ion initiated by Colomb ia on 17 September 2013 
regarding seamless pipe. Russia pointed out that this investigation was not notified. Russia asked 
for clarification of the situation.       
                                               
5 See document G/SG/W/226.  G/SG/M/44 
 
- 12 - 
 
  4.3  Chair's statement regarding en couragement of "nil" notifications 
110.  The Chair recalled that 26 Members had not yet made a legislative notification. Many of 
these countries apparently did not have any safeguard law or regulation, and in fact had confirmed 
this in other contexts such as in their Trade Po licy Reviews. Thus, he had asked the Secretariat to 
get in touch individually with those delegations, as k them to confirm that they do not indeed have 
any law or regulation, and help them submit a "nil" notification. 
111.  The US welcomed the Chair's effort to encourage nil notifications. 
4.4  Chair's statement regarding certain admi nistrative matters such as submission of 
notifications 
112.  The Chair noted that, while there was still r oom for improvement, in the last several years 
Members had become more transparent in notifying the status of their investigations. That was 
good news. But this sometimes meant that a specific notification did not fit squarely into one of 
the notification templates. That was unavoidable , since templates were not meant to cover each 
and every situation. He was informed by the Secretariat that in such situations, some Members 
sometimes insisted on providing a particular title to  their notifications. He appealed to Members to 
refrain from doing so. Titles of similar notification s needed to be kept as consistent as possible, 
and so the choice of exact wording of the title was best left to the Secretariat.  
113.  The Chair also explained that, in an effort to reduce paper, for the past year or so, the 
Secretariat had been making available on-line in the "Documents for meetings" website the documents to be used in a particular meeting. To assist Members during this transition period, the 
Secretariat had been sending faxes informing Members that certain documents had been placed on 
that website. Now that Members were familiar with the new system, the Secretariat would no 
longer be sending such faxes. Members were thus requested to regularly check the "documents for meetings" website, beginning about six weeks before a given meeting, since this was the usual 
interval for posting the annotated draft agenda. 
114.  Finally, he asked delegates to help the Secretariat update the e-mail address of delegations. 
If a delegation had a new delegate covering Safeguards, it should inform the Secretariat. If a 
Member was unsure what was the last e-mail address registered for its delegation, it was 
requested to consult the Secretariat, or look in the "Documents for meetings" online for room document RD/ADP/3/Rev.1 – RD/S CM/4/Rev.1 – RD/SG/3/Rev.1. 
115.  The Committee took note of the statements made.   
5  ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS  116.  The Committee adopted its annual report (see document G/L/1054).  
6  DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING 
117.  The Chair suggested that the Committee meet in the week of 28 April 2014. The exact date 
would be confirmed in due course.  
118.  The Committee so decided. 
 
__________