G/SG/Q1/NZL/4  
 
6 July 2015  
(15-3461)  Page: 1/3  
Committee on Safeguards  Original: English  
 
 NOTIFICATION OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS UNDER 
ARTICLE 12.6 OF THE AGREEMENT 
REPLIES TO QUESTIONS1 POSED BY AUSTRALIA REGARDING 
THE NOTIFICATION OF NEW ZEALAND2 
The following communication, dated 2 July 2015, is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of New Zealand. 
 
_______________ 
  
Australia thanks New Zealand for its notificati on of its new safeguards regime. Australia 
poses the following questions:  
Question 1: 
 Section 8 (Initiation of safeguard investigation) 
 
Australia notes that the initiation of a sa feguard measure may be through the lodgement 
of an application or at the discretion of th e responsible Minister. In the case where the 
responsible Minister exercises the discreti on to initiate an investigation, could 
New Zealand elaborate on what circumstances these would be.  
 Reply: 
 Circumstances where the responsible Minister may exercise his/her discretion to initiate a safeguard investigation could include where the industry is fragmented and doesn't have the 
capacity to submit an application, or when the industry is concerned about possible adverse 
repercussions if it submits an application.  Question 2: 
 
Section 12 (Duration of safeguard investigation)  
This Section indicates that where an applic ant seeks a provisiona l safeguard duty, the 
report to the Minister about the safeguard investigation must be within 85 days. Is there a deadline for a report on the justific ation for a provisional safeguard duty? 
 
Reply: 
 There is no deadline for the Chief Executive to re port to the Minister on the justification of 
provisional safeguard duties.  
 
                                               
1 G/SG/Q1/NZL/2. 
2 G/SG/N/1/NZL/2. G/SG/Q1/NZL/4 
 
- 2 - 
 
  Question 3: 
 Section 14 (Imposition of pr ovisional safeguard duty) 
 
Section 14(1) states that the Minister may determine the imposition of a provisional 
safeguard duty if the Minister is satisfie d that there are "reasonable grounds". Could 
New Zealand clarify whether there needs to be  "clear evidence" that increased imports 
are causing serious injury or threat of serious injury? Are critical circumstances 
considered?  Reply: 
 In order for provisional measures to be imposed, there needs to be both clear evidence 
(i.e. reasonable grounds) that increased imports are causing serious injury or threat of serious 
injury and critical circumstances (i.e. where delay in imposing provisional duties would cause 
damage that would be difficult to repair).   
Question 4: 
 Section 16 (Termination or reductio n of provisional safeguard duty) 
 
Section 16(2) indicates that the Minister may order the reduction of a provisional 
safeguard duty if there is a good reason to do so. Australia also notes that Section 17 
(Effect on provisional safeguar d duty of imposition (or not) of relevant duty). Could 
New Zealand please explain the relationship between these two provisions. For example, 
are there grounds for a reduction of a provis ional measure other than the determination 
of a definitive safeguard measure? What proc ess is conducted to reach an assessment of 
reducing the provisional duty, that  is what are the "good reasons"? 
 Reply: 
 
There is no explicit relationship between section 16(2) and section 17.  
 Section 16 (2) provides for the termination or reduction of a provisional safeguard duty under 
certain situations.  
 Section 17 is essentially a refund provision which enables importers to be refunded the difference 
between any definitive safeguard duty payable and any provisional duty paid. 
 Under section 16(2), there are grounds for a reduction in a provisional measure other than the determination of a definitive safeguard measure. For instance, a reduced duty amount may be 
sufficient to prevent serious injury to a domestic industry during the time the provisional duties 
are in place.   
In order to conclude that provisional duties shou ld be reduced, an assessment would need to be 
made of any relevant evidence that becomes available after the provisional duties were imposed which indicates that they have been set higher than is necessary to offset the serious injury. Under 
these circumstances, the assessment of this information would indicate there is "good reason" to 
reduce the provisional duty.  G/SG/Q1/NZL/4 
 
- 3 - 
 
  Question 5 
 Section 18 (Safeguard measure)  
Could New Zealand elaborate on how it woul d determine a safeguard measure which is 
in the form of a quantitative restriction, for example, the level of imports, and what 
process it would take to determine th e level of quantitative restriction. 
 
Could New Zealand advise on whether pub lic hearings are held as part of an 
investigation?  
Reply: 
 
Under section 18, the level (volume) of imports woul d likely determine the quantitative restriction. 
The quantitative restriction would likely be based on a 'non-injurious' level of imports. Once this 
'non-injurious' level of import volume has been met (over a certain time period), further imports would be prevented. The 'non-injurious' level of import volume could be based on the volume of 
imports prior to the increased import levels which resulted in the serious injury suffered by the 
industry although the basis on which the level of a quantitative restriction is set will depend on the circumstances of each case.  
Public hearings are not provided for under the Act. Importers, exporters and other interested 
persons have the ability to present evidence and their views through written submissions (section 10). These parties are also entitled to access information relevant to a safeguard 
investigation (including submissions provided by interested parties) through a public file system in 
order that they can respond to other parties' claims and to submit their own views on the investigation (section 11).  
 
 
__________