RESTRICTED  
  
G/SG/M/51  
 
1 September  2017 
(17-4673) Page: 1/11 
Committee on Safeguards    
 
 MINUTES OF THE REGUL AR MEETING  
HELD ON 24 APRIL 201 7 
CHAIRPERSON: MR YUSONG CHEN (CHIN A) 
1.  The Committee on Safeguards (the "Committe e") held a regular meeting on 24 April 2017 . 
2.  The Committee adopted the following agenda:  
1   NATIONAL LEGISLATION ................................ ................................ .............................  2 
1.1   Review of Notifications of New or Amended Legislation or Regulations Not Previously 
Reviewed by the Committee (Including Supplemental Not ifications of Existing Provisions 
Not Previously Reviewed)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 2 
1.2   Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications  ................................ ....................  3 
2   NOTIFICATIONS OF ACT IONS RELATED TO SAFE GUARD MEASURES  ...........................  4 
2.1   India - Unwrought Aluminium (G/SG/N/8/IND/29/Suppl.1 –G/SG/N/9/IND/16)  ....................  4 
2.2   India - Hot-Rolled Flat Sheets and Plates (Excluding Hot Rolled Flat Products in Coil 
Form) of Alloy or Non -Alloy Steel (G/SG/N/8/IND/30/Suppl.1 -
G/SG/N/10/IND/21/Suppl.1 -G/SG/N/11/IND/16/Suppl.1)  ................................ ........................  4 
2.3   Indonesia - Flat-Rolled Product of Iron or Non -Alloy Steel 
(G/SG/N/6/IDN/22/Suppl.2 –G/SG/N/14/IDN/2 and G/SG/N/6/IDN/22/Suppl.3 –
G/SG/N/14/IDN/2/Suppl.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 
2.4   Jordan  - Aluminium Bars, Rods and Profiles (G/SG/N/8/JOR/10/S uppl.2-
G/SG/N/10/JOR/10 –G/SG/N/11/JOR/6/S uppl.2) ................................ ................................ ..... 5 
2.5   Morocco - Paper in Rolls and Reams (G/SG/N/8/MAR/5/Suppl.1 –
G/SG/N/10/MAR/5/Suppl .1–G/SG/N/11/MAR/5/Suppl.1)  ................................ .........................  5 
2.6   Saudi Arabia and Others - Ferro Silico Manganese  ................................ ...........................  5 
2.7   Saudi Arabia and Others - Flat-Rolled Products of Iron or Non -Alloy Steel  ...........................  5 
2.8   South Africa - Flat-Rolled Products of Iron or Non -Alloy Steel, or Other Alloy Steel 
but Excluding Stainless Steel (G/SG/N/8/ZAF/4)  ................................ ................................ ..... 5 
2.9   South Africa - Certain Flat -Rolled Products of Iron, Non -Alloy Steel or Other Alloy 
Steel (Not Including Stainless Steel) (G/SG/N/6/ZAF/4)  ................................ ..........................  5 
2.10   Thailand - Non Alloy Hot Rolled Steel Flat Products in Coils and Not in Coils 
(G/SG/N/6/THA/4/Suppl.1 –G/SG/N/14/THA/3)  ................................ ................................ ....... 6 
2.11   Thailand - Structural Hot Rolled H -Beam with Allo y (G/SG/N/8/THA/4 –
G/SG/N/10/THA/4 –G/SG/N/11/THA/5 and G/SG/N/8/THA/4/Suppl.1 –
G/SG/N/10/THA/4/Suppl.1 –G/SG/N/11/THA/5/Suppl.1)  ................................ ..........................  6 
2.12   Turkey - Porcelain and Ceramic Tableware, Kitchenware (G/ SG/N/9/TUR/7)  .....................  6 
2.13   Turkey – Pneumatic Tyres (G/SG/N/6/TUR/22 –G/SG/N/7/TUR/12 –
G/SG/N/11/TUR/21)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  6 
2.14   Ukraine - Tableware and Kitchenware of Porcelain (G/SG/N/6/UKR/10/Suppl.1 –
G/SG/N/14/UKR/2)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  6 G/SG/M/51  
 
- 2 - 
 
  2.15   Ukraine - Flexible Porous Plates, Blocks and Sheets of Polyurethane Foams 
(G/SG/N/8/UKR/5 -G/SG/N/10/UKR/5 -G/SG/N /11/UKR/3)  ................................ ........................  6 
2.16   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)  ................................ ................................ ....................  7 
3   CREATION OF A WORKIN G GROUP ON IMPLEMENT ATION (G/SCM/W/567 –
G/SG/W/236 AND G/SCM /W/568 –G/SG/W/237) (ITEM RE QUESTED BY 
BRAZIL)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  7 
4   ADDITION OF CERTAIN INFORMATION INTO THE  ANNUAL REPORT (ITEM 
REQUESTED BY AUSTRAL IA) ................................ ................................ ............................  8 
5   STATUS OF SAFEGUARD INVESTIGATIONS INITI ATED BY TUNISIA (ITE M 
REQUESTED BY THE UNI TED STATES)  ................................ ................................ ..............  9 
6   CHINA'S SAFEGUARD IN VESTIGATION ON SUGAR  (ITEM REQUESTED BY 
BRAZIL)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................  10 
7   DISCUSSION GROUP REG ARDING SAFEGUARD PRO CEEDINGS ................................ .. 10 
8   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 10 
8.1   Statement by Malaysia Regarding its Investigations – Item Requested by Malaysia  ............. 10 
8.2   Statement Regarding an Investigation by Tunisia – Item Requested by Turkey  .................. 10 
8.3   Statement Regarding an Investigation by Malaysia – Item Requested by the EU  ................. 11 
9   DATE OF NEXT REGULAR  MEETING  ................................ ................................ ............  11 
10   ELECTION OF OFFICERS  ................................ ................................ ..........................  11 
 
 
1  NATIONAL LEGISLATION  
1.1  Review of Notifications of New or Amended Legislation o r Regulations Not 
Previously Reviewed by the C ommittee (Includ ing Supplemental Notifications o f Existing 
Provisions Not Previously Reviewed)  
1.1.1   Afghanistan – Review o f New Legislative Notification (G/SG/N/1/AFG/1)  
3.  The Chair stated that wr itten questions had been received from the United States ("US") in 
document G/SG/Q1/AFG/1.  
4.  Afghanistan  was not present at the meeting.  
1.1.2   Armenia  – Review of New L egislat ive N otification ( G/SG/N/ 1/ARM/ 3) 
5.   The Chair stated that written questions had been rece ived from Mexico  in document 
G/SG/Q1/ ARM/4.  
6.  Armenia  stated that the responses were submitted recently.1 
7.  Mexico  stated that it would study the responses.  
1.1.3   El Salvador  – Review of New L egisl ative Notification ( G/SG/N/1/SLV/3/Suppl.1 ) 
8.  The Chair stated that w ritten questions had been received from the US in document 
G/SG /Q1/SLV/7 and from Mexico in document G/SG/Q1/SLV/8.   
9.  El Salvador  stated that the responses would be provided in writing.   
                                                
1 Subsequently circ ulated in document G/SG/Q1/ARM/5 . G/SG/M/51  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.1.4   Kyrgyz Republic – Review of New L egisl ative N otification ( G/SG/N/1/KGZ /3) 
10.  The Chair stated that written questions had been received from Mexico in document 
G/SG/Q1/KGZ/1.  
11.  Kyrgyz Republic  stated that the responses would be provided in writing.2  
1.2  Continuing Review o f Previously Reviewed Notifications  
1.2.1   Cameroon – Continuing Rev iew of Previously Reviewed N otifications 
(G/SG/N/1/CMR/1)  
12.  The Chair  stated that written questions  received from the US  in document G/SG/Q1/CMR/3 
were left unanswered.  
13.  Cameroon  was not present  at the meeting.   
1.2.2   Russian Federation  – Continuin g review of prev iously reviewed notifications 
(G/SG/N/1/RUS/2 ) 
14.  The Chair stated that although written questions had been received from the US in document 
G/SG/Q1/RUS/7 and its corrigendum, the US wished that the discussion regarding t his document 
take place in the Anti -dumping C ommittee.  
1.2.3   Dominican Republic  – Continuin g review of previously reviewed notifications 
(G/SG/N/1/DOM/2/Suppl.2 ) 
15.  The Chair stated that Dominican Republic had submitted, in document G/SG/Q1/DOM/10, 
responses to the questions from the US .   
16.  The US thank ed Dominican Republic for the responses.  
1.2.4   Kazakhstan  – Continuin g review of previously reviewed notifications 
(G/SG/N/1/KAZ/1/Rev.1 ) 
17.  The Chair stated that Kazakhstan  had submitted, in document G/SG/Q1/KAZ/2, responses to 
the questions from the US .   
18.  The US thanked Kazakhstan for the responses.  
19.  The Chair recalled that the deadline for written questions concerning any legislation  reviewed 
at this meeting was 15 May 2017 . The deadline for written answers to all written questions, 
including questions submitted i n writing prior to this meeting, was 6 June 2017 . 
20.  The Chair informed the Committee that 22 Members had not yet made a legislative 
notification.3 This notification was one of the important obligations of the Safeguards Agreement 
("Agreement"). Members that did not yet have legislation need only submit a simple "nil" 
notification.   
21.  The US noted that many Members had not yet made a notification. For nearly all of those who 
had not made a notification, their Trade Policy Review reports indicated whether they di d or did 
not have any safeguard legislation. The US reiterated that the 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 n otification.  
                                                
2 Subsequently ci rculated in document G/SG/Q1/KGZ/4 . 
3 These Members were: Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Cabo Verde, Centr al African Republic, 
Democratic  Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Grenada, Guinea -Bissau, Liberia, Mauritania, Mozambique, Niger, 
Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent  and the Grenadines, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, 
Tajikistan, Tanzania, Tonga and Yemen.  G/SG/M/51  
 
- 4 - 
 
  22.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
2  NOTIFICATIONS OF ACT IONS RELATED TO SAFE GUARD MEASURES  
23.  Canada  was encouraged that the general trend of SG actions seemed to be declining. SG was 
a unique instrument in that it applied to trade t hat was not unfair, unlike anti -dumping duties or 
countervailing duties. Canada asked Members to diligently follow the relevant rules.     
24.  Japan  remained concerned over the use of SG, especially over the rapidly increasing use of 
SG in the steel sector in the recent years. For example, the number of SG measures imposed in 
the metal sector between 2011 and 2016, that is 6 years,  was more than half of the number 
between 1995 and 2016, that is 21 years . Japan understood that there was oversupply of steel, 
especially in emerging economies. This was, in Japan's view, due to expansion of capacity without 
regard to economic rationale. Deterioration of market balance triggered frequent use of trade 
remedy measures. Japan expected the Committee to monitor the situati on closely, and asked 
Members to duly abide by the rules.    
25.  Australia  noted that while on its face the notifications seemed to be decreasing, SG activity 
was still at a high level. It reminded Members that the Agreement imposed strict rules. In addition, 
Australia observed that there were often considerable delays between the initiation and findings in 
investigations which called into question whether the decision for emergency action was justified.  
26.  The Republic of Korea  urged Members to be cautious in the  use of SG, lest protectionist 
sentiment could rise.  
27.  The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu  ("Chinese Taipei ") was 
also concerned with the frequent use of SG. It reiterated that SG was an exceptional instrument.   
2.1  India - Unwro ught Aluminium (G/SG/N/8/IND/29/Suppl.1 –G/SG/N/9/IND/16)  
28.  India explained that the investigating authority decided not to recommend any SG measure in 
this case.  
29.  The US noted that it had not yet received responses to its questions contained in document 
G/SG /Q2/IND/22.  
30.  India explained that it had already submitted the responses in writing.4   
2.2  India  - Hot-Rolled Flat Sheets a nd Plates (Excl uding Hot Rolled Flat Products in Coil 
Form) of Alloy o r N on-Alloy Steel ( G/SG/N/8/IND/30/Suppl.1 -
G/SG/N/10/IND/21/Suppl. 1-G/SG/N/11/IND/16/Suppl. 1) 
31.  India explained that the responses to the questions from the US and Ukraine had already 
been submitted.5   
2.3  Indonesia - Flat-Rolled Product of Iron o r Non -Alloy Steel  
(G/SG/N/6/IDN/22/Suppl.2 –G/SG/N/14/IDN/2 and G/SG/N/6/IDN/22/S uppl.3–
G/SG/N/14/IDN/2/Suppl.1)  
32.  Viet Nam  was concerned with this investigation, and was  of the view that the investigation 
had not been conducted properly. In fact, Viet Nam was currently challenging the measure in a 
dispute. Viet Nam asked that the origin al measure and the latest investigation be terminated.   
33.  Chinese Taipei  regretted that Indonesia initiated another investigation in order to extend the 
measure. It joined Viet Nam in requesting that the original measure and the latest investigation be 
terminated.   
                                                
4 See document G/SG/Q2/IND/27. This document was submitted on 28 October 2016. The Secretariat 
should have included this document in the agenda of this meeting.  
5 See document s G/SG/Q2/IND /25 and G/SG/Q2/IND /26. G/SG/M/51  
 
- 5 - 
 
  34.  Indonesia  was waiting for the panel report, where the original measure was challenged. The 
investigation at issue was initiated because the domestic industry submitted a petition.  
35.  Japan  regretted this latest investigation. Japan asked Indonesia to strictly abide by the rules, 
including ensuring that the domestic industry was adjusting.  
2.4  Jordan - Aluminium Bars, Rods a nd Profiles  (G/SG/N/8/JOR/10/S uppl.2-
G/SG/N/10/JOR/10 –G/SG/N/11/JOR/6/S uppl.2) 
36.  The Chair stated that the US had submitted follow -up questions on this investigation, 
contained in document G/SG/Q2/JOR/10 , and that Jordan had submitted the responses, contained 
in document G/SG/Q2/JOR/11 . 
37.  The US thanked Jordan for the responses.   
2.5  Morocco - Paper in Rolls and Reams ( G/SG/N/8/MAR/5/S uppl.1–
G/SG/N/10/MAR/5/Suppl.1 –G/SG/N/11/MAR/5/Suppl.1 ) 
38.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
2.6  Saudi Arabia and Others6 - Ferro Silico Manganese  
39.  The Chair stated that the US had submitted follow -up questions7 on this investigation, and 
that the GCC countries had submitted the responses8.  
40.  The US thanked the GCC countries for the responses.   
2.7  Saudi Arabia and Others9 - Flat-Rolled Products of Iron o r Non -Alloy Steel  
41.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
2.8  South Africa - Flat-Rolled Products of Iron or Non -Alloy Steel, or Other Alloy Steel 
but Excluding Stainless Steel (G/SG/N/8/ZAF/4)  
42.  Turkey  recalled that it had provided comments directly to the investigating authority, and 
reiterated that since the share of imports from Tur key was less than 3% Turkey should be 
excluded even if a measure were to be imposed.  
2.9  South Africa - Certain Flat -Rolled Products of Iron, Non -Alloy Steel o r Other Alloy 
Steel (Not Including Stainless Steel) (G/SG/N/6/ZAF/4)  
43.  The Chair  stated that questions  from the US posed in June 2016, contained in document 
G/SG/Q2/ZAF/3, were still left unanswered.  
44.  South Africa  stated that it was preparing the responses.10  
                                                
6 This notification was submitted by Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of  on behalf of the GCC countries. ( Members 
of the GCC countries are: Bahrain, Kingdom of; Kuwait, the State of; Oman, Qatar;  Saudi Arabia, Kingd om of; 
and United Arab Emirates. ) The symbol of the  main document is: G/SG/N/7/ARE/1 –G/SG/N/11/ARE/1 –
G/SG/N/7/BHR/1 –G/SG/N/11/BHR/1 –G/SG/N/7/KWT/1 –G/SG/N/11/KWT/1 –G/SG/N/7/OMN/1 –
G/SG/N/11/OMN/1 -G/SG/N/7/QAT/1 –G/SG/N/11/QAT/1 -G/SG/N/7/SAU/1 -G/SG/N/11/SAU/1.  There is also a 
supplement to this document.  
7 See G/SG/Q2/ARE/3 –G/SG/Q2/BHR/2 –G/SG/Q2/KWT /2–G/SG/Q2/OMN/2 –G/SG/Q2/QAT/2 –
G/SG/Q2/SAU/2.  
8 See G/SG/Q2/ARE/4 –G/SG/Q2/BHR/3 –G/SG/Q2/KWT /3–G/SG/Q2/OMN/3 –G/SG/Q2/QAT/3 –
G/SG/Q2/SAU/3.  
9 This notification was subm itted by Saudi Arabia on behalf of the GCC.  The symbol of the main 
document is: G/SG/N/8/ARE/1 –G/SG/N/8/BHR/1 –G/SG/N/8/KWT/1 –G/SG/N/8/OMN/1 –G/SG/N/8/QAT/1 –
G/SG/N/8/SAU/1. There is also a corrigendum to this document.  
10 Subsequently submitted in document G /SG/Q2/ZAF/4.  G/SG/M/51  
 
- 6 - 
 
  2.10  Thailand - Non Alloy Hot Rolled Steel Flat Products in Coils and Not in Coils 
(G/SG/N/6/THA/4/S uppl.1–G/SG/N/14/THA/3)  
45.  Japan  regretted this latest inve stigation. Japan asked Thailand  to strictly abide by the rules, 
including ensuring that the domestic industry was adjusting.  
46.  Thailand  assured Japan that the rules would be duly followed.   
2.11  Thailand - Structural Hot Rolled H -Beam with Alloy (G/SG/N/8/THA/4 –
G/SG/N/10/THA/4 –G/SG/N/11/THA/5 and  G/SG/N/8/THA/4/S uppl.1–
G/SG/N/10/THA/4/S uppl.1–G/SG/N/11/THA/5/S uppl.1) 
47.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
2.12  Turkey - Porcelain and Ceramic Tabl eware, Kitchenware (G/SG/N/9/TUR/7)  
48.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
2.13  Turkey – Pneumatic Tyres (G/SG/N/6/TUR/22 –G/SG/N/7/TUR/12 –
G/SG/N/11/TUR/21)  
49.  Japan  regretted this investigation, in particular the fact that a provisional measur e was 
proposed at the same time as the initiation of the investigation. Japan asked Turkey to strictly 
abide by the rules.    
50.  The European Union  ("EU") was concerned with this investigation. First, it wondered why this 
investigation was initiated ex offici o. Second, there seemed to be neither a significant increase of 
imports nor serious injury. Any injury that existed was, in the EU's view, a result of bad 
investment decisions. The EU was of the view that this investigation should not have been 
initiated, and at the minimum, imposition of a provisional measure was not warranted.    
51.  China  was concerned with this investigation. It asked Turkey to strictly abide by the rules.    
52.  Chinese Taipei  was concerned with this i nvestigation, in particular with the fact that a 
provisional measure was imposed at the same time as the initiatio n of the investigation. SG was 
an exceptional instrument, and thus the rules needed to be strictly abided by.  
53.  Turkey  took note of the statements, and explained that it understood that  the provisional 
measure had not yet entered into force.  
54.  The EU asked Turkey to reconfirm that the provisional measure had not yet entered into 
force.  
55.  Turkey  stated that it would check with the investigating authority.  
2.14  Ukraine - Tableware and Kitchenware  of Porcelain (G/SG/N/6/UKR/10/S uppl.1–
G/SG/N/14/UKR/2)  
56.  The EU reiterated that it already had doubts about the WTO -consistency of the original 
measure. Thus, an extension was not warranted. Among other things, there was no injury caused 
by imports. Any inj ury that existed was due to factors other than imports. The EU did not see any 
reason why the measure needed to be extended and asked Ukraine to terminate the investigation.    
57.  Ukraine  stressed that the investigation was still ongoing.  
2.15  Ukraine - Flexible Porous Plates, Blocks and Sheets o f Polyurethane Foams 
(G/SG/N/8/UKR/5 -G/SG/N/10/UKR/5 -G/SG/N/11/UKR/3)  
58.  The Chair  explained that questions from the US regarding this investigation were left 
unanswered, but that Ukraine submitted its responses in document G /SG/Q2/UKR/4.  G/SG/M/51  
 
- 7 - 
 
  59.  The US thanked Ukraine for the responses also commend ed Ukraine for the tra nsparency 
provided by Ukraine's supplementary notification .11  
2.16  Zambia - Flat–Rolled Products o f Iron, Non -Alloy Steel, Trailers a nd Semi -trailers 
(G/SG/N/6/ZMB/1 -G/SG/ N/7/ZMB/1)  
60.  The Chair stated that the US questions , contained in document G/SG/Q2/ZMB/1, regarding 
this investigation were left unanswered.  
61.  Zambia  was not present at the meeting .  
62.  The Chair reminded delegations that any questions for which written response s were 
requested should be submitted to the Member concerned and to the Secretariat no later than  
15 May 2017 . Written responses to questions, including questions submitted in writing prior to this 
meeting, should be submitted to the Secre tariat no later t han 6 June 2017 . As with legislative 
notifications, any unanswered questions would be indicated in the draft annotated agenda of the 
next meeting.  
63.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
3  CREATION OF A WORKING GROUP ON IMPLEMENTATION (G/SCM/W/567 –
G/SG/W/236 AND G/SCM/W/568 –G/SG/W/237) (ITEM REQUESTED BY BRAZIL)  
64.  The Chair explained that th is item was requested by Brazil, and that this issue was discussed 
at the regular Committee meetings of spring 2016 and autumn 2016 . In addition, this issue was 
taken up in a joint informal meeting of this Committee and the Subsidies  Committee on 
20 October 2016. He  noted that at the autumn 2016 meeting, while many Members expressed 
support to the idea, the Committee was not ready to agree to this idea.   
65.  Brazil  recall ed that its proposals were contained in documents G/SCM/W/567 –G/SG/W/236 
and G/SCM/W/568 –G/SG/W/237 , and asked what the latest views of the Members were.  
66.  Japan  appreciated the efforts of Brazil, and was open to further discussing the matter.  
67.  The US genera lly supported the idea, and stated that if the working group proposed by Brazil 
were to eventually come into being, it should take over the substantive functions of the informal 
discussion group currently held after each meeting. But having said this, the US could not yet join 
a consensus to establish this working group. The US had proposed certain edits to the proposal but 
Brazil had not yet reacted to those proposals. The US asked Brazil to re -engage, including reacting 
to its proposal.  
68.  China  reiterated that its first priority was to have the Negotiating Group on Rules proceed. But 
it was also helpful to enhance the functions of regular committees. In this sense, China could 
support the creation of the working group suggested by Brazil.  
69.  India stated that  its position had not changed since the October meeting. It noted that Brazil 
wished to create a working group along the lines of what existed in the Anti -dumping Committee. 
However, India was of the view that SG was different from the other two trade reme dy 
instruments, including the facts that it was a temporary measure and that it was used more 
sparingly. Thus, India saw no utility in creating such working group in the SG area. But India was 
open to further discussion.  
70.  Australia  was generally supportive of the idea and had long supported discussion of Members’ 
safeguard practices within the Committee.  However, Australia had concerns that the proposal 
required the development of recommendations. Australia asked Brazil to clarify whether it would 
link supp ort to this proposal with its proposal for a working group in the Subsidies Committee. 
Australia asked Brazil whether it was prepared to amend the proposal taking into consideration 
Australia's comments.   
                                                
11 G/SG/N/11/UKR/3/Suppl.1 . G/SG/M/51  
 
- 8 - 
 
  71.  The Russia n Federation  generally supported the ide a. Russia did not want any obligations 
added by the creation of this working group, but to the extent it added to building confidence, it 
was a good idea. Discussing best practice may be one way to proceed. Russia wished to continue 
the discussion.  
72.  Korea  appreciated Brazil's efforts and wanted to continue the discussion.  
73.  Canada  generally supported the idea, but asked what the latest view of Brazil was regarding 
the relation with the other working group proposed in the Subsidies Committee.  
74.  The EU generally supported the idea, and wanted to continue the discussion.  
75.  Mexico  wished to seek more clarification regarding the idea.  
76.  While Thailand  generally supported the idea, it was concerned that the scope and 
responsibility of the proposed working group could overl ap with those of the Committee. It wished 
to further discuss the proposal.  
77.  Brazil  thanked the delegations for the comments and confirmed that it was happy to continue 
the discussion. Brazil was flexible, and it would not rule out the possibility of any ch anges as a 
result of the discussion. The main reason why it proposed the possibility of the working group 
making recommendations was because that possibility was currently there for the working group 
in the Anti -dumping Committee, but Brazil would not insi st on that function. As regards the 
question regarding the relation with the proposal in the Subsidies Committee, Brazil did not insist 
on having the discussion in the two forums at the same time. If necessary, the discussion in this 
Committee could procee d first.  
78.  The Chair  noted that Members could not agree to the proposal yet, and stated that the 
Committee would revert to this item in future meetings if Members so wished.  
79.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
4  ADDITION OF CERTAIN INFORMATION IN TO THE ANNUAL REPORT  (ITEM REQUESTED 
BY AUSTRALIA)  
80.  The Chair explained that this item was requested by Australia . He recall ed that this issue was 
discussed at the 2016 spring and autumn Committee meetings. In addition, it was  discussed at the 
informal  meeting of 19 September 2016. He  also noted that the US had  submitt ed questions to 
India on  this issue.  
81.  Australia  recalled that this issue had already been discussed several times. All Australia was 
proposing was the simple addition by the WTO Secretariat of t he date of the circulation of certain 
documents to the annex of the annual report. Australia’s room document RD/SG/14 contained a 
number of examples. Australia's proposal tracks closely to that of Japan, which was approved in 
the Committee in 2015.  
82.  India raised a procedural issue. This item was not proposed by India, and so India wondered 
why questions could be posed to India. India was of the view that it was not obliged to respond. 
Regarding the proposal itself, India was of the view that the Committee co uld not take any 
decisions on the basis of room documents, and so it asked Australia to submit a formal proposal.  
83.  Regarding the procedural issue, the Chair clarified that there was nothing that prevented 
delegations from circulating documents that related to the work of the Committee.   
84.  Regarding India's view that a formal proposal should be tabled, Australia  recalled that 
Members agreed to Japan's proposal tabled in a similar manner to what Australia was doing now. 
Although Australia was prepared to submit  a formal proposal, Australia wondered why India now 
required this. Australia asked that this item be on the agenda of the next meeting. It  reiterated 
that its proposal was a simple one to enhance transparency without adding any burden on 
Members. Australi a had invited India to discuss this issue bilaterally so that Australia could take G/SG/M/51  
 
- 9 - 
 
  into consideration any specific concerns India may have, but India had not taken up this invitation. 
Australia asked that this proposal be seriously considered by India in c apital.  
85.  Korea  reconfirmed its support to Australia's proposal, since it would enhance transparency.  
86.  The US noted that it was now 13 months  that India had been considering this proposal. It 
found this obstructionist. The US was very disappoint ed. This pro posal was an addition of a simple 
date in the annual report, and that was why the US posed the question to India why it objected to 
this proposal and whether it had any specific concern. The US found the current situation 
unacceptable  and regretted India's  reaction . The US urged Members to continue pursuing this 
issue.  
87.  Switzerland  and New Zealand  supported Australia's proposal, and they saw no procedural 
issue.   
88.  Chinese Taipei , Russia, Japan, Singapore and Thailand  supported Australia's proposal.   
89.  Mexico  understood that Members may have concerns regarding any proposal. But it was not 
effective if Members had to guess what a particular Member's concern was. In that vein, Mexico 
urged India to explain its concerns. If this was not done, the process would bec ome endless.  
90.  Canada  supported Australia's proposal, and it saw no procedural issue. It urged all Members 
to engage in a constructive manner.  
91.  India objected to the strong language used by the delegation of the US. India re called  that in 
another forum of t he WTO, a Member was blocking simple matters without giving any reason. 
Before naming others, Members should think about their own conduct. It also re called  that in yet 
another forum of the WTO, when India and others submitted a room document containing a 
proposal, the proponents were told that recommendations could not be made in room documents 
and that a formal pr oposal was necessary. Given that experience , India thought that submission of 
a formal proposa l was more appropriate .  
92.  China  supported Australia 's proposal. It urged Members to engage in discussions in a 
constructive manner, and stated that finger -pointing was not helpful.  
93.  Morocco  supported Australia's proposal and urged India to explain its concerns.  
94.  Australia  thanked Members for their support and for their statements. It was willing to submit 
a formal proposal if that helped the process.  
95.  The Chair noted that Members could not agree to the proposal today. The Committee would 
revert to this item in future meetings.  
96.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
5  STATUS OF SAFEGUARD INVESTIGATIONS INITI ATED BY TUNISIA (ITE M REQUESTED 
BY THE UNITED STATES ) 
97.  The US pointed out that during the years 2014 and 2015, Tunisia initiated 3 investigations: on 
medium density fiberboard, on glass bottles and o n ceramic tiles. After more than two years, to 
date, Tunisia had not provided any updates regarding these notifications. The US asked Tunisia to 
provide updates regarding these notifications, including the details of the measure, if any were 
imposed, and a lso to inform Members when it will submit the relevant information.   
98.  Tunisia  was not present at the meeting.  
99.  The Commi ttee took note  of the statement  made.  G/SG/M/51  
 
- 10 - 
 
  6  CHINA'S SAFEGUARD IN VESTIGATION ON SUGAR  (ITEM REQUEST ED BY BRAZIL)  
100.  Brazil  was following this inv estigation closely and was actively participating in the process. 
Brazil had expressed its concerns in the process of the investigation, and it hoped that the 
investigation would be terminated taking into account Brazil's concerns.  
101.  Korea  had concerns with  this investigation. It asked China to closely abide by the 
Agreement.  
102.  Australia  noted that it had significant commercial and trade interest in this investigation.  It 
understood that the Chinese authority was planning to issue the essential facts report shortly, and 
asked for an update of the situation. It also wished to know the timing of the final report and 
whether it would include a decision on whether a measure was justified . Australia was of the view 
that the facts did not warrant or justify the imp osition of a safeguard measure and any injury was 
not caused by an increase of imports.  
103.   Cuba was also following this investigation closely . 
104.  China  stated that it was well aware of the rules in the Agreement, and that it was proceeding 
cautiously. China ha d initiated only one investigation since its accession to the WTO, and had 
never imposed a measure. It had asked and it continued to ask Members to exercise restraint in 
using the SG instrument. This was a special situation. Imports rose dramatically betwe en 2009 
and 2016. There were 20 million farmers living in the areas where imports of sugar were having an 
extremely negative impact. China took note of all the concerns expressed, and urged Members to 
communicate with its investigating authority.  
105.  The Commi ttee took note  of the statement s made.  
7  DISCUSSION GROUP REG ARDING SAFEGUARD PRO CEEDINGS  
106.  The Chair explained that this item was placed on the agenda at the request of the 
delegations of Australia, Canada, the EU, Israel, Japan, Kore a, New Zealand, Norway, 
Chinese  Taipei, Singapore, Ukraine  and the US.  
107.  The US 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 bro ader perspective than the one in normal Committee 
meetings, removed from discussions of individual cases, and to focus more on each other's 
experiences and to learn from each other. The topic for today's discussion was: (1) unforeseen 
developments and (2) transparency in safeguard investigation s.   
108.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.   
8  OTHER BUSINESS  
8.1  Statement by Malaysia Regarding its Investigation s – Item Requested b y Malaysia  
109.  Malaysia  stated that it recently decided to impose final measures on  steel concrete 
reinforcing bars and on steel wire rods. The notifications were submitted very recently, and could 
not be included in the agenda.12 Malaysia explained that the precise list of developing countries 
exempted from the measure by virtue of Artic le 9.1 of the Agreement would also be notified 
shortly.13  
8.2  Statement Regarding an Investigation b y Tunisia – Item Requested by Turkey  
110.  Turkey  referred to Tunisia's investigation on ceramic tile, and noted that the US had similar 
queries as discussed under ag enda item 5. Turkey was actively participating in the investigation. It 
                                                
12 See documents G/SG/N/8/MYS/2 –G/SG/N/10/MYS/2  and G/SG/N/8/MYS/3 –G/SG/N/10/MYS/ 3.  
13 See documents G/SG/N/8/MYS/2/ Suppl.1 –G/SG/N/10/MYS/2/ Suppl.1  and G/SG/N/8/MYS/3/ Suppl.1 –
G/SG/N/10/MYS/ 3/Suppl.1 . G/SG/M/51  
 
- 11 - 
 
  asked Tunisia to confirm three things: (i) whether the production figures of the applicants 
constituted a major proportion of the domestic industry, (ii) whether Tunisia considered tha t there 
was a causal relationship between imports and the alleged injury and (iii)  whether Turkey would 
be exempted from the measure, because its share was less than 3%.  
8.3  Statement Regarding an Investigation b y Malaysia – Item Requested by the EU  
111.  EU's stat ement related to the measures that Malaysia had just explained under Other 
Business. EU regretted the imposition of the two measures. The EU understood that the import 
surge was caused by exporters of a single country. In such a situation, SG was not the a dequate 
instrument to use.  
112.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
9  DATE OF NEXT REGULAR  MEETING  
113.  The Chair tentatively suggested that the Committee meet in the week of 23 October 2017. 
Adjustments due to the Ministerial Conference could become nec essary, and so the date would be 
confirmed later . 
114.  The Committee so decided . 
10  ELECTION OF OFFICERS  
115.  The Chair stated that consultations at the level of Council for Trade in Goods (CTG) 
regarding the selection of the new C hair of this Committee as well as of o ther Committees under 
the CTG were still under way. In light of this situation, he would not deal with this issue today. A 
fax would be sent when  the CTG had agreed on the new C hair.14 The selection of the new V ice-
chair would be left up to the new C hair.15 
116.  The Chair thanked the Members and the Secretariat for their cooperation and support during 
his chairmanship.  
117.  The Committee took note  of the statement s. 
 
__________  
 
                                                
14 The fax was s ent on 22 May 2017 . There being no objection, Mr Kensuke Tsunoda was elected as the 
new C hair.    
15 The new Chair (Mr Tsunoda) sent a fax on 23 June 2017 . There being no objection, Mr Umut  Can Gök 
was elected as the new Vice -chair.