RESTRICTED  
  
G/SG/M/52  
 
3 April  2018 
(18-2009) Page: 1/11 
Committee on Safeguards    
 
MINUTES OF THE REGUL AR MEETING  
HELD ON 23 OCTOBER 2 017 
CHAIRPERSON: MR KENS UKE TSUNODA (JAPAN)  
1.  The Committee on Safeguards (the "Committe e") held a regular meeting on 23 October 2017 . 
2.  At the outset of the meeting, t he United States  wished to convey its sincere regret to the 
Committee and particularly to the delegation of India for the language used in one of its 
interventions at the previous Committee meeting in April 2017. The nature of the intervention was 
inappropriate and did not reflect t he manner in which the US expressed itself during the conduct of 
business at the WTO. It assured that such a conduct would not be repeated and reiterated its 
conviction that it could best defend its positions  when expressed with personal respect . 
3.  The Commi ttee adopted the following agenda:  
1   NATIONAL LEGISLATION ................................ ................................ .............................  3 
1.1   Contin uing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications  ................................ ....................  3 
1.1.1    Afghanistan – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications 
(G/SG/N/1/AFG/1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  3 
1.1.2    Cameroon – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications 
(G/SG/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1) ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 3 
1.1.3    El Salvador – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications 
(G/SG/N/1/SLV/3 /Suppl.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 3 
2   NOTIFICATIONS OF ACT IONS RELATED TO SAFE GUARD MEASURES  ...........................  3 
2.1   China – Sugar (G/SG/N/6/CHN/2 an d G/SG/N/8/CHN/2/Suppl.1 -G/SG/N/10/CHN/2 -
G/SG/N/11/CHN/2)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  4 
2.2   Costa Rica – Pounded Rice (G/SG/N/8/CRI/1/Suppl.2 -G/SG/N/10/CRI/ 1/Suppl.2 -
G/SG/N/11/CRI/1/Suppl.2)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 5 
2.3   Egypt – Steel Rebar (G/SG/N/8/EGY/7/Suppl.1 -G/SG/N/10/EGY/7/Suppl.1)  .......................  5 
2.4   GCC Member States – Flat-Rolled Products of Iron or Non -Alloy Steel 
(G/SG/N/10/SAU/1 - G/SG/N/11/SAU/2 and G/SG/N/10/SAU/1/Suppl.1 - 
G/SG/N/11/SAU/2/Suppl.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................  5 
2.5   GCC Member States – Ferro Silico Manganese (G/SG/N/7/ARE/1/Suppl.2 –
G/SG/N/7/BHR/1/Suppl.2 –G/SG/N/7/KWT/1/Suppl.2 - G/SG/N/7/OMN/1/Suppl.2 - 
G/SG/N/7/QAT/1/Suppl.2 - G/SG/N/7/SAU/1/Suppl.2)  ................................ .............................  5 
2.6   GCC Member States – Prepared Additives for Cements, Mortars or Concretes 
(Chemical Plasticizers) (G/SG/N/6/BHR/3 and G/SG/N/6/KWT/3)  ................................ ..............  5 
2.7   Indonesia – I and H Sections of Other Alloy Steel (G/SG/N/6/IDN/25/Suppl.2 and 
G/SG/N/6/IDN/25/Suppl.3)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 5 
2.8   Indonesia – Flat-Rolled Product of Iron or Non -Alloy Steel 
(G/SG/N/8/IDN/16/Suppl.2 - G/SG/N/10/IDN/16/Suppl.2 and G/SG/N/8/IDN/16/Suppl.3 - 
G/SG/N/10/IDN/16/ Suppl.3 - G/SG/N/11/IDN/14/Suppl.1 and G/SG/144)  ................................ .. 6 G/SG/M/52  
 
- 2 - 
 
  2.9   Jordan - Aluminium Bars, Rods and Profiles (G/SG/N/8/JOR/10/Suppl.3 -
G/SG/N/10/JOR/10/Suppl.1 –G/SG/N/11/JOR/6/Suppl.3 and G/SG/N/11/JOR/6/Suppl.4)  .............  6 
2.10   Malaysia - Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars (G/SG/N/8/MYS/2 - G/SG/N/10/MYS/2 -
G/SG/N/11/MYS/2 and G/SG/N/8/MYS/2/Suppl.1 - G/SG/N/10/MYS/2/Suppl.1 - 
G/SG/N/11/MYS/2/Suppl.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 6 
2.11   Malaysia – Steel Wire Rod and Deformed Bar -In-Coil (G/SG/N/6/MYS/5 and 
G/SG/N/7/MYS/3 -G/SG/N/11/MYS/3)  ................................ ................................ ....................  6 
2.12   South Africa – Certain Flat Hot -Rolled Steel Products (G/SG/N/8/ZAF/3/Suppl.1 –
G/SG/N/10/ZAF/3 –G/SG/N/11/ZAF/3 and G/SG/N/8/ZAF/3/Suppl.2 – 
G/SG/N/10/ZAF/3/Suppl.1 –G/SG/N/11/ZAF/3/Suppl.1 and G/SG/Q2/ZAF/4 
(South  Africa 's Answers to the US Que stions )) ................................ ................................ ........  6 
2.13   South Africa – Flat-Rolled Products of Iron or Non -Alloy Steel (G/SG/N/9/ZAF/2)  ..............  6 
2.14   Thailand – Non-Alloy Hot Rolled Steel Flat Products in Coils and Not in Coils 
(G/SG/N/8/THA/3/Suppl.1 –G/SG/N/10/THA/3/Suppl.1 and G/SG/N/8/THA/3/Suppl. 2–
G/SG/N/10/THA/3/Suppl.2 and G/SG/143 and G/L/1183 –G/SG/N/12/TUR/5)  .............................  7 
2.15   Turkey – Pneumatic Tires (G/SG/N/6/TUR/22/Corr.1 –G/SG/N/7/TUR/12/Corr.1 –
G/SG/N/11/TUR/21/Corr.1 and G/SG/N/6/TUR/22/Corr.2 –G/SG/N/7/TUR/12/Corr.2 –
G/SG/N/11/TUR/21/Corr.2)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 7 
2.16   Turkey – Polyethylene Terephthalate (G/SG/N/6/TUR/16/Suppl.1)  ................................ ... 7 
2.17   Turkey – Toothbrushes (G/SG/N/6/TUR/23)  ................................ ................................ .. 7 
2.18   Ukraine – Sulfuric Acid and Oleum (G/SG/N/6/UKR/12)  ................................ ..................  8 
2.19   Ukraine – Tableware and Kitchenware of Porcelain (G/SG/N/6/UKR/10/Suppl.1 –
G/SG/N/14/UKR/2/Suppl.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 8 
2.20   United States – Large Residential Washers (G/SG/N/6/USA/12 and 
G/SG/N/6/USA/12/Suppl.1 and G/SG/N/8/USA/10)  ................................ ................................ . 8 
2.21   United States – Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells (Whether or Not Partially or 
Fully Assembled into Other Products) (G/SG/N/6/USA/11 and G/SG/N/6/USA/11/Suppl.1 
and G/SG/N/8/USA/9)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  8 
2.22   Viet Nam – Pre-Painted Galvanized Steel Sheet and Strip (G/SG/N/8/VNM/4 –
G/SG/N/10/VNM/3 –G/SG/N/11/VNM/5)  ................................ ................................ .................  9 
2.23   Viet Nam – Diammonium Phosphate and Monoammonium Phosphate Fertilizer 
(G/SG/N/6/VNM/6 and G/SG/N/7/VNM/4 –G/SG/N/11/VNM/6)  ................................ ..................  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 and G/SG/Q2/ZMB/3 (Follow -Up Questi ons from the 
United States))  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  9 
3   ADDITION OF CERTAIN INFORMATION INTO THE  ANNUAL REPORT  ...........................  9 
3.1   RD/SG/14 (Item requested by Australia)  ................................ ................................ .......10 
3.2   Questions from the United States (G/SG/W/240) (Item requested by the 
United  States)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 10 
4   NOTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLES 9.1 AND 12 OF THE AGREEMENT ON 
SAFEGUARD (ITEM REQU ESTED BY BRAZIL)  ................................ ................................ .. 11 
5   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 11 
6   ANNUAL REPORT TO THE  COUNCIL OF TRADE IN GOODS  ................................ ..........  11 
7   DATE OF NEXT REGULAR  MEETING  ................................ ................................ ............  11 
 
 G/SG/M/52  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1  NATIONAL LEGISLATION  
1.1  Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications  
1.1.1   Afghani stan – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications 
(G/SG/N/1/AFG/ 1) 
4.  The Chair stated that written questions received from the United States ("US") in document 
G/SG/Q1/AFG/1 were left unanswered.  
5.  Afghanistan was not present at the meeting.  
1.1.2   Cameroon  – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications  
(G/SG/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl .1) 
6.  The Chair  stated that written questions received from the US in document G/S G/Q1/CMR/3 
were left unanswered . 
7.  Cameroon was not present at the meeting.  
1.1.3   El Salvador  – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications  
(G/SG/N/1/ SLV/3/Suppl .1) 
8.  The Chair stated that written 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 it was preparing the responses . 
10.  The Chair recalled that the deadline for written questions concerning any legislation reviewed 
at this meeting was 13 November 2017 . The deadli ne for written answers to all written questions, 
including questions submitted in writing  prior to this meeting, was 4 December 2017 .  
11.  The Chair informed the Committee that 21 Members had not yet made a legislative 
notification .1 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.  
12.  The US appreciated the Chair's attempts to encourage legislative notifications and noted that 
an increasing number of Members had made the legislative notifications. However, there remained 
a number of countries that ha d not made such notifications. F or nearly all of those who had not 
made the notifications, their Trade Policy Review reports indicate d whether or not they had any 
safeguard ("SG") legislation. Notification was simple if there was no legislation. The US 
encouraged Members who had not yet made their legislative notifications to review their individual 
situations and to make the applicable  notification.  
13.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
2  NOTIFICATIONS OF ACT IONS RELATED TO SAFE GUARD MEASURES  
14.  Japan  noted that there was oversupply in steel and some other major industries mainly 
among the emerging economies due to expansions of p roduction without regard to economic 
rationale. Deterioration of market balance triggered fr equent use of trade remedy measures 
globally. For example, the number of SG investigations initiated in the steel sector from 2012 until 
the end of June 2017, that is about 5 years, was more than half  of the total number since 1995, 
that is, more than 21 years . Japan expected the Committee to monitor adequately the situation , 
and asked Members to strictly abide by the relevant rules.  
                                                
1 These Members were: Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, 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, Samo a, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Tajikistan, 
Tanzania, Tonga and Yemen.   G/SG/M/52  
 
- 4 - 
 
  15.  Korea  expressed concern regardin g a sharp increase in SG activities,  having 24 SG 
investigations to be reviewed at this meeting compared to 16 safeguard investigations reviewed at 
the last meeting in April. Any SG measure should be taken with great caution as an emergency 
measure against  fair trade. Given the chilling effect on international trade, Members should 
proceed carefully in accordance with the WTO rule s.  
16.  Australia  also expressed concern that SG actions  were still at a high level.  It reminded 
Members that the Agreement imposed s trict conditions to justify safeguards, and that SG actions 
were supposed to be used as emergency actions only. Furthermore , there were frequently 
considerable delays in notifications, which made it difficult for interested parties to defend 
themselves. Au stralia asked Members to take such concerns into account.    
17.  Canada  observed that the number of SG actions taken up at the meeting increased sharply as 
compared to the last meeting. SG was a unique instrument among trade remedy measures in that 
it targeted  fairly-traded imports. Canada urged Members to diligently follow the established rules.  
18.  China  was also concerned with the recent increas e of the number of SG actions and urged 
Members to strictly adhere to the disciplines in the Agreement. On the other h and, China did not 
find it appropriate to link this question to the so -called overcapacity issue in steel and some other 
industries. China reiterated that it would use SG measures only in necessary situations and in 
accordance with WTO rules.  
19.  The Separate Customs of Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu  ("Chinese Taipei") 
also echoed concerns over the frequent use of SG actions. Chinese Taipei urged imposing Members 
to conduct investigations in accordance with the Agreement and to  be cautious in the use of SG.     
20.  The EU highlighted its concerns over the increasing number of SG actions in the past few 
years, particularly those SG actions imposed recently by some members who had rarely used SG 
measures before. The  EU encouraged Membe rs to be cautious and prudent in the use of SG.  
21.  Before moving on to the discussion on individual actions, the Chair recall ed a discussion the 
Committee had in autumn 2016. Quoting from the minutes of the October 2016 meeting2, he 
recalled that the then cha irman stated that certain notifications which have not been automatically 
placed onto the agenda be henceforth include d in the agenda by the Secretariat on a trial basis, 
but that  Members could always come back to this  issue and suggest another way. This w as the 
first meeting since the October 2016 meeting when such notifications w ere submitted. He clarified 
that any Member  that ha d comments on this matter could state its view  at the time such item was 
discussed .  
2.1  China – Sugar (G/SG/N/6/CHN/2 and G/SG/N/8/ CHN/2/Suppl.1 -
G/SG/N/10/CHN/2 -G/SG/N/11/CHN/2)  
22.  Brazil  stated that China's SG measure  did not comply with the  Agreement or Article XIX of  
GATT 1994, particularly due the fact that the Chinese investigating authority had not succeeded in 
demonstrating a surg e of imports. The data made available by the Chinese investigating authority 
showed that there had been a reduction in imports during the most recent period of investigation. 
In order to have a better assessment  of the measure , Brazil  requested that China make available 
the most recent data on sugar imports separated by countries of origin  with in - and out -of-quota 
tariff rates .  
23.  As one of the major exporters of sugar having significant commercial interest in this 
investigation, Australia  welcomed the consu ltation  with China that took place earlier in 2017. But it 
did not consider that the conditions for the imposition of the SG measure were met. In particular, 
injury, if any, was caused by factors other than the increase in imports.  
24.  The EU stated that SG was not the appropriate instrument here, as most imports came from a 
limited number of countries. Moreover, the causal link was questionable. Any injury seems to have 
been a result of factors other than increased imports. In this context, t he EU noted the abolition of 
                                                
2 G/SG/M/50 , paragraph 138.  G/SG/M/52  
 
- 5 - 
 
  fixed price policy on sugar by China in 2015, which resulted in a huge inventory. Nevertheless, the 
EU did appreciate that China was a modest user of SG measures in general . 
25.  China  recalled that it had explained the reason why i t initiated the investigation and applied 
the SG measure at the previous meeting and through bilateral communications with the relevant 
Members. Imports of sugar had increased significantly in the recent years. The annual increase 
rate of sugar imports dur ing the years 2011 to 2016 ranged from 21% to 65%, and cumulatively , 
more than 600%.  The significant increase caused serious injury to China's sugar industry and 
brought negative impacts to the sugarcane and sugar beet growers of around 14 million farmers in 
China.  China reiterated that this SG investigation was conducted in a fair and justified manner in 
accordance with China's laws and regulations as well as the international rules.  China emphasized 
that it seldom used the SG instrument because it is an e xceptional instrument that should be used 
only under strict conditions. It asked Members who had concerns on this investigation to submit 
their questions in writing.  
2.2  Costa Rica  – Pounded Rice (G/SG/N/8/CRI/1/Suppl.2 -G/SG/N/10/CRI/1/Suppl.2 -
G/SG/N/11/CRI/1/ Suppl.2)  
26.  There were no comments or questions regarding this notification .    
2.3  Egypt – Steel Rebar (G/SG/N/8/EGY/7/Suppl.1 -G/SG/N/10/EGY/7/Suppl.1 ) 
27.  Egypt  explain ed that it terminated this SG investigation.    
2.4  GCC Member States – Flat-Rolled Products of Iron or Non -Alloy Steel 
(G/SG/N/10/SAU/1 - G/SG/N/11/SAU/2 and G/SG/N/10/SAU/1/Suppl.1 - 
G/SG/N/11/SAU/2/Suppl.1)  3 
28.  The EU noted that the GCC was becoming active in using the SG instrument. The EU  called on 
the GCC to reduce the use of the SG  instrument . In order to impose SG measures,  strict 
requirements need to be satisfied . In this case, the injury analysis was incomplete and the causal 
link seemed doubtful. It urged the GCC to refrain from imposing any u nwarranted measure.  
2.5  GCC Member States  – Ferro Silico Manganese (G/SG/N/7/ARE/1 /Suppl. 2–
G/SG/N/7/BHR/1/Suppl.2 –G/SG/N/7/KWT/1/Suppl.2 - G/SG/N/7/OMN/1 /Suppl. 2- 
G/SG/N/7/QAT/1 /Suppl. 2- G/SG/N/7/SAU/1 /Suppl.2)  
29.  There were no comments or questions regarding thi s notification.  
2.6  GCC Member States – Prepared Additives for Cements, Mortars or Concretes 
(Chemical Plasticizers) (G/SG/N/6/BHR/3 and G/SG/N/6/KWT/3)  
30.  There were no comments or questions regarding t his notification.   
2.7  Indonesia – I and H Sections of Other Al loy Steel  (G/SG/N/6/I DN/25/Suppl.2 and 
G/SG/N/6/I DN/25/ Suppl.3)  
31.  There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.   
                                                
3 The full symbol of the two documents are: G/SG/N/10/ARE/1 -G/SG/N/11/ARE/2 -G/SG/N/10/BHR/1 -
G/SG/N/11/BHR/2 -G/SG/N/10/KWT/1 - G/SG/N/11/KWT/2 - G/SG/N/10/OMN/1 - G/SG/N/11/OMN/2 - 
G/SG/N/10/QAT/1 - G/SG/N/11/QAT/2 - G/SG/N/10/SAU/1 - G/SG/N/11/SAU/2 and G/SG/N/10/ARE/1/Suppl.1 -
G/SG/N/11/ARE/2/Suppl.1 -G/SG/N/10/BHR/1/Suppl.1 -G/SG/N/11/BHR/2/Suppl.1 -G/SG/N/10/KWT/1/Suppl.1 - 
G/SG/N/11/KWT/2/Suppl.1 - G/SG/ N/10/OMN/1/Suppl.1 - G/SG/N/11/OMN/2/Suppl.1 - 
G/SG/N/10/QAT/1/Suppl.1 - G/SG/N/11/QAT/2/Suppl.1 - G/SG/N/10/SAU/1/Suppl.1 - 
G/SG/N/11/SAU/2/Suppl.1 . G/SG/M/52  
 
- 6 - 
 
  2.8  Indonesia – Flat-Rolled Product of Iron or Non -Alloy Steel  
(G/SG/ N/8/ID N/16/Suppl.2 - G/SG/ N/10/ID N/16/Suppl.2 and 
G/SG/ N/8/ID N/16/Suppl.3 - G/SG/ N/10/ID N/16/Suppl.3 - 
G/SG/ N/11/ID N/14/Suppl.1 and G/SG/144 )  
32.  The EU stated that this  extensio n of SG  measure was questionable. The original measure was 
in effect until 21 July 2017 . Article 7.5 of the Agreement stipulates that no SG meas ure shall be 
applied on the same product for a period equal to that during which measure had been previously 
applied, provided that the period of non -application is at least 2 years. In this case, however, 
Indonesia re -imposed the SG measure after less tha n 3 months from its expiry. The EU requested 
that the measure be terminated.  
33.  Indonesia  explained the rationale behind th e extension of this SG measure.  
2.9  Jordan - Aluminium B ars, Rods and Profiles (G/SG/N/8/JOR/10/Suppl.3 -
G/SG/N/10/JOR/10/Suppl.1 –G/SG/N/ 11/JOR/6/Suppl.3 and 
G/SG/N/11/JOR/6/Suppl.4)  
34.  There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.   
2.10  Malaysia - Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars (G/SG/N/8/MYS/2 - 
G/SG/N/10/MYS/2 -G/SG/N/11/MYS/2 and G/SG/N/8/MYS/2/Suppl.1 - 
G/SG/N/10/MYS/2/Suppl.1 - G/SG/N/11/MYS/2/Suppl.1)  
2.11  Malaysia – Steel Wire Rod and Deformed Bar -In-Coil (G/SG/N/6/MYS/5 and 
G/SG/N/7/MYS/3 -G/SG/N/11/MYS/3)  
35.  Malaysia  asked that the two items – investigations on steel reinforcing bars and on steel wire 
rod and deformed bar -in-coil – be taken up together.   
36.  The EU regretted that Malaysia imposed the final measures in these two cases. Malaysia 
should have opted for an anti -dumping measure given that exports were mainly from one country. 
The EU reminded Members that the SG instrument was  intended for exceptional circumstances , 
and that the investigating authority, before launching an investigation, should consider whether 
the instrument would cause unnecessary damages to imports that did not cause injury.  
2.12  South Africa – Certain Flat Hot -Rolled Steel Products (G/SG/N/8/ZAF/3/Suppl.1 –
G/SG/N/10/ZAF/3 –G/SG/N/11/ZAF/3 and G/SG/N/8/ZAF/3/Suppl.2 – 
G/SG/N/10/ZAF/3/Suppl.1 –G/SG/N/11/ZAF/3/Suppl.1 and G/SG/Q2/ZAF/4 
(South  Africa 's Answers to the US Questions ))  
37.  The Chair explained that the US had p osed questions regarding this investigation, and 
South  Africa submitted responses to the questions in document G/SG/Q2/ZAF/4.  
38.  South Africa  explained its response.    
39.  The US thanked South Africa for the responses .  
40.  Japan  regretted that South Africa imposed t he SG measure. South Africa did not examine the 
logical connection between the increased imports and unforeseen developments. Japan asked 
South Africa to withdraw this SG measure immediately.  
41.  The EU recalled that SG instrument was not the adequate instrume nt in cases where the 
causes of injury were the imports from one specific country or a limited number of countries. 
Moreover, the measure imposed by South Africa would further increase tensions in the steel 
sector, which was already under pressure due to g lobal overcapacity.   
2.13  South Africa – Flat-Rolled Products of Iron or Non -Alloy Steel (G/SG/N/9/ZAF/2)  
42.  There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.   G/SG/M/52  
 
- 7 - 
 
  2.14  Thailand – Non-Alloy Hot Rolled Steel Flat Products in Coils and Not in Coils 
(G/SG/N/8/ THA/3/Suppl.1 –G/SG/N/10/THA/3/Suppl.1 and 
G/SG/N/8/THA/3/Suppl.2 –G/SG/N/10/THA/3/Suppl.2 and G/SG/143 and  G/L/1183 –
G/SG/N/12/TUR/5 ) 
43.  Thailand  reaffirmed that its exten sion of the  SG measure was consistent with the  relevant  
rules. Thailand was concerned with Turkey's proposed suspension of concessions and requested 
Turkey to take into account the challenges faced by its steel industry. It proposed to have a 
bilateral disc ussion with Turkey with a view to achieving a mutually satisfactory solution and asked 
Turkey to discontinue the suspension of concessions. However, Thailand  reserved its right to 
review Turkey' s suspension of concessions in accordance with Article 13.1(e) of the Agreement.  
44.  Turkey  recalled that the original m easure of Thailand was imposed in June 2014, and was now 
extended for three more years until 2020. Turkey had  a substantial interest as an exporter of the 
subject product in accordance with Article 12.3 of the Agreement . Consultation between Thailand 
and T urkey took place on 21 April 2017. Since the compensation was not granted, Turkey 
suspended, on 3 August 2017, the application of substantially equivalent concessions under 
GATT  1994 to the trade of Thailand, in accordance with Article 8.2 of the Agreement .    
2.15  Turkey – Pneumatic Tires (G/SG/N/6/TUR/22/Corr.1 –
G/SG/N/7/TUR/12/Corr.1 –G/SG/N/11/TUR/21/Corr.1 and 
G/SG/N/6/TUR/22/Corr.2 –G/SG/N/7/TUR/12/Corr.2 –G/SG/N/11/TUR/21/Corr.2)  
45.  Turkey  clarified that until now the provisional measure had not yet been impleme nted. With 
regard to the list of developing countries to which the measure would not be applied, two 
corrigenda were submitted. First, a corrigendum to the list of developing countries exempted from 
the SG measure was rendered because it changed the list of GSP countries in parallel with the EU. 
Second, the import shares of the countries concerned were recalculated  and as a result of the first 
change, another corrigendum was submitted.  
46.  Ecuador  explained that in the notification submitted by Turkey on 12 Apr il 2017, it was 
included in the list of developing countries exempted from the measure by virtue of under 
Article  9.1 of the Agreement. However, Turkey submitted two corrigenda amending the list of 
developing countries, resulting in the exclusion of Ecuado r from the list. There was no record of 
export of the product from Ecuador into Turkey. Therefore, exclusion of Ecuador from the list was 
inconsistent with the Agreement.   
47.  The EU wished to comment on all three investigations taken up at the meeting. The E U was 
concerned with Turkey's frequent use of the SG instrument on weak grounds. It reminded 
Members that SG measures affected imports from all sources. Commenting specifically on the two 
cases where an investigation was initiated anew – that is, the one r egarding pneumatic t ires and 
the other regarding toothbrushes – the EU was of the view that the conditions for imposing a SG 
measure were not met. Unforeseen developments did not exist and the domestic industry was not 
suffering serious injury. The EU urge d Turkey to terminate the investigation without any measure.  
48.  Japan  was of the view that Turkey's determination did not meet the requirements laid down in 
Article XIX:1(a) of GATT 1994. Japan requested Turkey to conduct the investigation in a manner 
consis tent with the Agreement and Article XIX of GATT 1994.   
2.16  Turkey – Polyethylene Terephthalate (G/SG/N/6/TUR/16/Suppl.1)  
49.  There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.  
2.17  Turkey – Toothbrushes (G/SG/N/6/TUR/23)  
50.  Ecuador  explained that according to the notification submitted by Turkey on 17 October 2017, 
it was excluded from the list of developing countries exempted from the SG measure under 
Article  9.1 of the Agreement. However, there was no record of exports of the prod uct from 
Ecuador into Turkey. Ecuador was of the view that the exclusion of Ecuador from the list of 
developing countries was inconsistent with Article 9.1 of the Agreement. It observed that the non -
inclusion of Ecuador in the list of developing countries seemed to be recurring.  G/SG/M/52  
 
- 8 - 
 
  51.  Turkey  explained  that what it previously explained  in the case of pneumatic tires was also 
relevant  in this case, and that Ecuador was not in Turkey's list of  GSP countries. It took note of 
Ecuador 's comments and  would consul t with its capital .  
2.18  Ukraine – Sulfuric Acid and Oleum (G/SG/N/6/UKR/12)  
52.  There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.  
2.19  Ukraine – Tableware and Kitchenware of Porcelain (G/SG/N/6/UKR/10 /Suppl.1 –
G/SG/N/ 14/UKR/2/Suppl.1)  
53.  There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.  
2.20  United States  – Large Residential Washers (G/SG/N/6/USA/12 and 
G/SG/N/6/USA/12/Suppl.1 and G/SG/N/8/USA/10)  
54.  The US explained that the US International Trade Commission (ITC) had made a serious 
injury determination in this investigation. The ITC would submit its report to the President by 
4 December 2017.  A copy of the report would be notified to the Committee after it  was submitted 
to the President. The President had 60 days to decide what remedy to apply. This period could be 
extended by 15 days if the President asked the ITC to provide additional information.     
55.  Korea  was concerned with this investigation and remind ed Members that a SG measure  
should be taken only to the extent necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury. Considering  the 
sound financial condition of the petitioner s, Korea was of the view that imposing 50% tariff on all 
imported items as suggested b y the petitioners was not appropriate. No SG measure should be 
applied as an unfair protection for the domestic industry. Moreover, a SG measure could be taken 
only if the imported products caused or threatened to cause serious injury to the domestic indus try 
producing like or directly competitive products. Therefore, washer parts and some types of 
washing machine s that were not produced in the US should be excluded from  the SG measure.  In 
addition, given the sharp decrease in the US imports of Korean produ cts together with the ITC's 
finding on the issue, Korea should be excluded from the  measure.  
56.  Viet Nam drew the attention of Members that the preamble of the Agreement referred to the 
need to enhance rather than limit competition in international markets, and expressed its concern 
with this investigation. It first recalled that the US had never initiated any anti -dumping 
proceeding against large residential washers produced in Viet  Nam. Viet Nam suspected that this 
SG measure was a backdoor  for a purpose si milar to anti -dumping. At any rate, Viet Nam did not 
find any unforeseen developments, recent and sharp import increase, or serious injury . In 
addition, there was no causal link between any remaining injury and imports. Viet Nam requested 
the US to strict ly abide by the rules under the Agreement and GATT 1994.  
2.21  United States  – Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells (Whether or Not Partially or 
Fully Assembled into Other Products) (G/SG/N/6/USA/11 and 
G/SG/N/6/USA/11/Suppl.1 and G/SG/N /8/USA/9)  
57.  The US explai ned that the US International Trade Commission (ITC) had made a serious 
injury determination in this investigation. The ITC would submit it s report to the President by 
13 November 2017 . A copy of the report would be notified to the Committee after it was submitted 
to the President. The President had 60 days to decide what remedy to apply. This period could be 
extended by 15 days if the President asked the ITC to provide additional informa tion.     
58.  The EU was co ncerned with this investigation. It noted that the US had been advocating 
against use of the SG instrument until very recently. The reasons that triggered the two new SG 
investigations by the US were predominantly the increased impor ts from a limited number of Asian 
countries. In the EU's view, SG measure was not an appropriate instrument in this case because it 
negatively affected imports that were not causing injury. In particular, imports of solar cells from 
the EU were much lower in volume yet higher in price than those imports from certain Asian 
countries, and were  clearly not causing injury. The EU urged the US to consider an appropriate 
form of measure with a view to limiting collateral damage.  G/SG/M/52  
 
- 9 - 
 
  59.  Korea  recalled that according to A rticle 2.1 of the Agreement, the subject of the measure 
should be confined to products that are like or directly competitive to those produced by the US 
domestic industry. Thus, imports of products from Korea that were not produced in the US should 
be excl uded from the measure. Furthermore, the US downstream industry using solar cells would 
be negatively affected. Korea reminded Members that any remedial measures should be taken only 
to the extent necessary to prevent serious injury and asked the US to carr y out its investigation in 
a fair and objective manner consistent with relevant WTO rules.  
60.  Australia  was concerned with this investigation, and observed that this was the first time in 
many years that the US had made use of this instrument. It hoped that i t was not a change in 
direction of the US policy on SG investigations and urged the US to be prudent in its approach in 
these investigations, noting the trade chilling effect of such investigations.  
61.  Japan  requested the US to carefully consider all the requ irements under the relevant WTO 
Agreements in conducting the investigation.  
62.  The US clarified in response to the EU's intervention that it had not advocated for non -use of 
SG measures. Rather, the US had urged Members to use the SG instrument cautiously and  in 
accordance with their obligations under the Agreement.    
2.22  Viet Nam  – Pre-Painted Galvanized Steel Sheet and Strip (G/SG/N/8/VNM/4 –
G/SG /N/10/VNM/3 –G/SG/N/11/VNM/5)  
63.  There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.  
2.23  Viet Nam  – Diammonium  Phosphate and Monoammonium Phosphate Fertilizer 
(G/SG/N/ 6/VNM/6 and G/SG/N/7/VNM/4 –G/SG/N/11/VNM/6)  
64.  There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.  
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 and G/SG/Q2 /ZMB/3 (Follow -Up Questions 
from the United States))  
65.  The Chair  stated that Zambia had submitted its responses to the questions from the US, and 
that the US had subsequently submitted follow -up questions.  
66.  Zambia was not present at the meeting.  
67.  The Chair reminded delegations that any questions for which written responses were 
requested should be submitted to the Member concerned and to the Secretariat no later than 
13 November 2017. Written responses to questions, includin g questions submitted in writing prior 
to this meeting, should be submitted to the Secretariat no later than 4 December 2017. As with 
legislative notifications, any unanswered questions would be indicated in the draft annotated 
agenda of the next meeting.  
68.  The Chair took this opportunity to remind Members that the format of notifi cations was 
contained in document G/SG/1/Rev.1. Another format about termination of i nvestigation without 
measure was contained in document G /SG/2.  
69.  The Committee took note  of the s tatements made.  
3  ADDITION OF CERTAIN INFORMATION INTO THE  ANNUAL REPORT  
70.  The Chair explained that this item was requested by Australia. He noted that the US had 
subsequently submitted written questions to India.  He recalled that this issue was first discuss ed 
at the autumn 2015 Committee meeting, and Members had been discussing this issue since then.  G/SG/M/52  
 
- 10 - 
 
  3.1  RD/SG/14 (Item requested by Australia)  
71.  Australia  recalled that this issue had already been discussed several times. Australia's 
proposal was the simple addition  by the WTO Secretariat of the date of the circulation of 
notifications submitted during the review period. Room document RD/SG/14 contained a number 
of examples. Its proposal tracked closely that of Japan, which was approved by the Committee in 
2015. Aust ralia stated that it had a bilateral discussion with India to explain the rationale behind 
this proposal. Australia, as a respondent in many SG investigations, found it important to follow 
the investigations and to know at which stage the investigation was . Thus, it relied heavily on the 
annual report to be capable of reflecting a diverse range of notifications.  
72.  The US reiterated that it had consistently advocated for the maintenance and improvement of 
transparency in notifications made in this Committee an d continued to support Australia's 
proposal. In addition, it submitted a set of questions to India in December 2016, asking for India's 
views on Australia's proposal. Until now, however, it had not received any written response from 
India. The US requested  that India provide a written response to its questions.  
73.  New Zealand , Korea , Canada , Russia , Switzerland , Thailand , Brazil , Chinese Taipei , Viet Nam , 
and the EU supported Australia's proposal.  
74.  India appreciated the clarification  provided by Australia in the form of a room document, but it 
was of the view that a formal document needed to be submitted. At any rate, India was unsure of 
the utility of the amendments proposed. Circulated notifications already contained the date of 
notification and that information was easily and publicly available. India was well aware that 
transparency is one of the significant pillars of international trade. However, Members had the 
right to seek information on the purpose of amendments proposed unde r the name of 
transparency. In particular, India wished to keep the Annex simple. There were two relevant dates 
specified in all notificatio ns of SG actions: the date when the Member submitted the notification 
and the date of circulation of the notificatio n. Australia 's proposal sought to incorporate the latter 
date into the report without referring to the other date. In India's view, indication of the circulated 
date would not throw meaningful light. India may be able to consider the proposal if Australia  
could change the proposal to indicate the date when the Member submitted the notification .  
75.  Australia  noted that the annual report was earlier amended after a proposal submitted by 
Japan, to which India agreed.  That proposal entailed the circulation date o f notification s submitted 
by Members. Australia understood that referring to notifications using the circulation date was a 
practice at the WTO. Having the date of submission of notifications and the date of circulation 
included in the annual report would be burden some  to the WTO Secretariat and would 
overcomplicate the annual report. Australia's proposal was consistent with the amendment already 
made to the annual report. Australia asked India to further consider  its proposal . With regard the 
need for a fo rmal document, Australia pointed out that the last amendment of the Annex was 
agreed upon without any formal  proposal.  
3.2  Question s from the United States (G/SG/W/240) (Item reque sted by the 
United  States)  
76.  India first wished to comment on a Member's statement  related to this issue made at the 
spring 2017 meeting. Every Member had equal rights to accept or reject proposals and to express 
concerns on any proposal or the process thereof. While all Members had the right to ask questions, 
Members should not use und iplomatic language. India urged Members to follow the democratic 
way and to respect other Members' rights and obligations. It wished that such incident not be 
repeated in the future. With regard to the questions from the US, India already made clear its 
views under item 3.1, and that constituted India's responses.   
77.  The Chair noted that Members could not agree to Australia's proposal today. The Committee 
would revert to this item in future meetings.  
78.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  G/SG/M/52  
 
- 11 - 
 
  4  NOTIFICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE S 9.1 AND 12 OF THE AG REEMENT ON SAFEGUARD  
(ITEM REQUESTED BY B RAZIL)  
79.  Brazil  pointed out the importance of expedited notifications under Article 9.1 of the Agreement 
and urged the Members to notify as soon as possible the list of  developing country Members to be 
excluded from SG measures.  
80.  Australia , Ecuador , Chinese Taipei  and New Zealand  were supportive of Brazil' s proposal but 
wished to hear more about the idea . 
81.  Brazil  explained that a challenge it often faced was that it was di fficult to know in a timely 
fashion whether its exports would be exempted from the SG measure in relation to Article 9.1 of 
the Agreement . Given the support from several Members, Brazil would d evelop further its 
proposal . 
82.  The Committee took note  of the sta tements made.   
5  OTHER BUSINESS  
83.  There were no issues raised under this agenda item.  
6  ANNUAL REPORT TO THE  COUNCIL OF TRADE IN GOODS  
84.  The Committee adopted its annu al report (see document G/L/1192 -G/SG/145 ). 
7  DATE OF NEXT REGULAR  MEETING  
85.  The Chair suggested that the Committee meet in the week of 23 April 2018. The exact date 
would be confirmed in due course.  
86.  The Committee so decided . 
__________