RESTRICTED
G/SG/M/46
24 March 2015
(15-1657)  Page: 1/13
Committee on Safeguards   
 
 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING 
HELD ON 27 OCTOBER 2014 
CHAIRPERSON: MS KIM KAMPEL 
1.  The Committee on Safeguards (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 27 October 2014. 
2.  The Committee adopted the following agenda: 1   NATIONAL LEGISLATION ............................................................................................ 3
 
1.1   Cameroon – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/SG/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1) .................. 3  
1.2   Congo – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/SG/N/1/COG/1) ................................... 3  
1.3   European Union – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/SG/N/1/EU/1/Suppl.1 
and G/SG/N/1/EU/ 1/Suppl.2) ............................................................................................. 3  
1.4   Mexico – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/SG/N/ 1/MEX/1/Suppl.4) ...................... 3  
1.5   Montenegro – Review of New Legislat ive Notification (G/SG/ N/1/MNE/1/Suppl.1) ............... 3  
2   NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RE LATED TO SAFEGUAR D MEASURES ........................... 4  
2.1   Colombia - Steel wire rod (G/SG/N/8/COL/1/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/10/COL/1–
G/SG/N/11/COL/1/Suppl.3 and G/SG/N/8/COL /1/Corr.1 and G/SG/N/8/COL/1/Suppl.2-
G/SG/N/10/COL/1/Suppl.1–G/S G/N/11/COL/1/S uppl.4) ......................................................... 4  
2.2   Colombia – Bars of iron or non-alloy st eel and wire rods of iron or non-alloy steel 
(G/SG/N/7/COL/2/Suppl.2–G/SG/N/11/COL/2/Suppl.2) .......................................................... 4  
2.3   Colombia - Angles, Shapes and Sections of Iron or Non-Alloy Steel 
(G/SG/N/9/CO L/4) ............................................................................................................ 4  
2.4   Colombia - Steel an gles (G/SG/N/ 9/COL/5) ................................................................... 4  
2.5   Ecuador - Wood and Bamboo Flooring and Accessories Thereof (G/SG/N/6/ECU/9 
and G/SG/N/6/ECU /9/Corr.1) ............................................................................................. 4  
2.6   Egypt – Steel Rebar (G/SG/N/6/EGY/10-G/SG/N/7/EGY/9-G/SG/N/11/EGY/8) .................... 5  
2.7   India - Seamless Pipes, Tubes and Hollow Profiles of Iron or Non-Alloy Steel 
(G/SG/N/8/IND/25–G/SG/N/10/IND/16–G/SG/N/11/IND/11 and 
G/SG/N/8/IND/25/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/10/IND/16/Suppl.1G/SG/N/11/IND/11/Suppl.1) .................. 5  
2.8   India - Saturated Fatty Alcohols (G/SG/N/8/IND/26–G/SG/N/10/IND/17–
G/SG/N/11/IN D/12) .......................................................................................................... 6  
2.9   India - Sodium Di-Chr omate (G/SG/N/ 6/IND/39) ........................................................... 6  
2.10   India - Flexible Slabstock Polyol of Molecular Weight 3000 to 4000 
(G/SG/N/6/IN D/38) .......................................................................................................... 6  
2.11   India - PX-13 (G/SG/N/8/IND/21/Suppl.2–G/SG/N/10/IND/12/Suppl.2–
G/SG/N/11/IND/ 7/Suppl.2) ................................................................................................ 6  
2.12   India - Not-Alloyed Ingots of Unwrought Aluminium (G/SG/N/6/IND/37 and 
G/SG/N/9/IND/12) ............................................................................................................ 6  
2.13   India – Bare Elastomeric Filament Yarn (G/SG/N/9/IND/11) ........................................... 6  G/SG/M/46 
 
- 2 - 
 
  2.14   India – Sodium Citrate (G/SG/N/8/IND/27–G/SG/N/10/IND/18–
G/SG/N/11/IN D/13) .......................................................................................................... 7  
2.15   Indonesia - Coated Paper and Paperboard, not Including Banknotes Paper 
(G/SG/N/6/IDN/26 AND G/SG/N /6/IDN/26/Suppl.1) .............................................................. 7  
2.16   Indonesia - Cotton Yarn Other Than Sewing Thread (G/SG/N/8/IDN/4/Suppl.4–
G/SG/N/10/IDN/ 4/Suppl.4) ................................................................................................ 7  
2.17   Indonesia – Wheat Flour (G/SG/N/8/IDN/15/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/10/IDN/15/Suppl.1–
G/SG/N/11/ID N/13) .......................................................................................................... 7  
2.18   Indonesia - Flat-Rolled Product of Iron or Non-Alloy Steel (G/SG/N/8/IDN/16–
G/SG/N/10/IDN/16 and G/SG/N/8/IDN/16/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/10/IDN/16/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/11/ID N/14) .......................................................................................................... 7
 
2.19   Indonesia – I and H Sections of Other Alloy Steel (G/SG/N/8/IDN/17-
G/SG/N/10/ID N/17) .......................................................................................................... 8  
2.20   Jordan - Writing and Printing Papers Size A4 (G /SG/N/6/JO R/17) ................................... 8  
2.21   Jordan – Bars and Rods  (G/SG/N/11/JOR/ 4/Suppl.2) .................................................... 8  
2.22   Kyrgyz Republic – Wheat Flour (G /SG/N/8/KGZ/2-G/SG/N/ 10/KGZ/2/Suppl.1) ................. 8  
2.23   Malaysia - Hot-Rolled Steel Plate (G/SG/N/6/MYS/2) ..................................................... 8  
2.24   Morocco - Cold-Rolled Sheets and Plat ed or Coated Sheets (G/SG/N/6/MA R/8) ................. 8  
2.25   Morocco - Wire Rods and Reinforc ing Bars (G/SG/N/8/MAR/3/Suppl.1/Corr.1–
G/SG/N/10/MAR/3/Corr.1–G/SG/N/11 /MAR/2/Suppl.1 /Corr.1) ................................................ 9  
2.26   Philippines – Newsprint (G/SG/N/6/PHL/9/Suppl.2) ....................................................... 9  
2.27   South Africa – Frozen Potato Chips (G/SG/N/8/ZAF/2/Suppl.1–
G/SG/N/10/ZAF/2/Suppl.1-G/S G/N/11/ZAF/2/S uppl.3) .......................................................... 9  
2.28   Chinese Taipei - High Density Polyethylene and Linear Low Density Polyethylene 
(G/SG/N/9/TP KM/1) .......................................................................................................... 9  
2.29   Thailand - Non-Alloy Hot Rolled Steel Flat Products (G/SG/N/7/THA/3–
G/SG/N/11/THA/3 and G/SG/N/7/THA/3/S uppl.1-G/SG/N/11/TH A/3/Suppl.1) ........................... 9  
2.30   Tunisia – Fibreboard of Wood (G/SG/ N/6/TUN/3) ........................................................ 10 
2.31   Tunisia – Glass Bottles (G/SG/N/6/TUN/4) .................................................................. 10 
2.32   Turkey - Polyethylene Terephthalate (G/SG/N/10/TUR/13/Suppl.1–
G/SG/N/14/TUR/10 and G/SG/N/8/TUR/13/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/10/TUR/13/Suppl.2–
G/SG/N/11/TUR/ 16/Suppl.1) ............................................................................................. 10 
2.33   Turkey - Printing, Writing an d Copying Paper (G /SG/N/6/TU R/18) ................................. 10 
2.34   TURKEY – TEREPHTHALIC ACID (G/SG/N/8/TUR/14–G/SG/N/10/TUR/14–
G/SG/N/11/TUR/19) ......................................................................................................... 10 
2.35   Ukraine - Tableware and Kitchenware of Porcelain (G/SG/N/8/UKR/4/Suppl.1–
G/SG/N/10/UKR/4/Suppl. 1–G/SG/N/11 /UKR/2) ................................................................... 10 
2.36   Ukraine - Casing and Pump-Compressor Seamless Steel Pipes 
(G/SG/N/8/UKR/1/Suppl.3-G/SG/N/14/UKR/1/Suppl.2) ......................................................... 10 
3   CONTINUED NON-NOTIFICATION OF SAFEGUARD MEASURES BY THE 
RUSSIAN FEDERATION (ITEM REQUESTED BY THE US) .................................................. 11  
4   NON-NOTIFICATION OF LEGISLATIO N BY THE KINGDOM OF BAHRAIN .................... 11  
5   OTHER BU SINESS ...................................................................................................... 12  
5.1   Statement on an investigation by India (cold rolled flat products of stainless steel) – 
Item requested by Japan .................................................................................................. 12 
5.2   Statement regarding an investigation by the Philippines (galvanized iron and pre-
painted sheets and coils) – It em requested by  Australia ........................................................ 12 G/SG/M/46 
 
- 3 - 
 
  5.3   Chair's statements .................................................................................................... 12 
6   ANNUAL REPORT TO THE CO UNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS ........................................ 13  
7   DATE OF NEXT REGULAR ME ETING ............................................................................ 13  
 
1  NATIONAL LEGISLATION 
1.1  Cameroon – Review of New Legislat ive Notification (G/S G/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1) 
3.  Written questions concerning this notification had been received from the United States in 
document G/SG/Q1/CMR/3, but Cameroon was not represented in the room. The Chair asked the 
Secretariat to request that the delegation of Cameroon provide the responses in writing. 
1.2  Congo – Review of New Legislat ive Notification (G/SG/N/1/COG/1) 
4.  There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
1.3  European Union – Review of New Legisl ative Notification (G/SG/N/1/EU/1/Suppl.1 
and G/SG/N/1/EU/1/Suppl.2) 
5.  There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
1.4  Mexico – Review of New Legislativ e Notification (G/SG/N/1/MEX/1/Suppl.4) 
6.  Written questions concerning this notification had been received from the United States in 
document G/SG/Q1/MEX/6. 
7.  The US clarified that since this was a multi-symbolled document, and the question related to 
anti-dumping, it preferred that the discussion take place in the Committee on Anti-dumping 
Practices.  
1.5  Montenegro – Review of New Legislat ive Notification (G/SG/N/1/MNE/1/Suppl.1) 
8.  The Chair stated that written questions concerni ng this notification had been received from the 
United States in document G/SG/Q1/MNE/3, and Montenegro had submitted responses to the 
questions in document G/SG/Q1/MNE/4. 
9.  Montenegro explained its responses.1 
10.  The US thanked Montenegro for the transparency and confirmed that it had no more 
questions. 11.  The Chair recalled that the deadline for written questions concerning any legislation reviewed 
at this meeting was 17 November 2014. The deadline for written answers to all written questions, 
including questions submitted in writing prior to this meeting, was 8 December 2014. 
12.  The Chair informed the Committee that 22 Members had not yet made a legislative 
notification.2 This notification was one of the importan t obligations of the Safeguards Agreement 
("Agreement"). Members that did not yet have legislation need only submit a simple "nil" 
notification. 
13.  The US thanked the Chair and the Secretariat for the efforts to facilitate legislative 
notifications and encouraged those Members who had not yet made a legislative notification to 
make the necessary notification relevant to their individual situations. 
                                               
1 See document G/SG/Q 1/MNE/4 for details. 
2 These Members were: Angola, Antigua & Barbuda, Belize, Cabo Verde, Central African Republic, 
Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti , the Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Mauritania, 
Montenegro, Mozambique, Niger, Papua New Guinea, Rw anda, Saint Kitts & Nevis, Saint Vincent & the 
Grenadines, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Solomon Is lands, Swaziland, Tanzania, Tonga and Vanuatu. G/SG/M/46 
 
- 4 - 
 
   
14.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
2  NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RELATED TO SAFEGUARD MEASURES 15.  Canada stated that it continued to be concerned with the high number of safeguard measures 
imposed, and requested imposing Members to strictly observe the relevant obligations since 
safeguard measures affected otherwise legitimate trade. 
16.  The US observed that there were 36 safeguard actions reviewed at the meeting which was the 
most numerous since 2010, and the 3rd most numerous since 1995. The US wondered whether all 
of those investigations could qualify as emergency measures, and requested Members to be careful in initiating and conducting investigations. 
17.  Australia agreed with the previous speakers. Australia noted it was often the case that the 
choice of trade remedy through the use of sa feguard measures was not appropriate in the 
circumstances. Australia highlighted the frequent delays in notifications of initiations as well as between the findings of an investigation and the decision to impose a safeguard measure. This 
called into question the justification of such actions. 
18.  The EU asked that Members explore whether a problem could be solved by the more focused 
instruments of anti-dumping and countervailing duties before initiating SG investigations. 
19.  Japan and the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu 
("Chinese Taipei") agreed with the previous speakers. 
2.1  Colombia - Steel wire rod (G /SG/N/8/COL/1/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/10/COL/1–
G/SG/N/11/COL/1/Suppl.3 and G/SG/N/8/COL/1/Corr.1 and 
G/SG/N/8/COL/1/Suppl.2-G/SG/N/10/COL/1/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/11/COL/1/Suppl.4) 
20.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 2.2  Colombia – Bars of iron or non-alloy st eel and wire rods of iron or non-alloy steel 
(G/SG/N/7/COL/2/Suppl.2–G/SG/N/11/COL/2/Suppl.2) 
21.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 2.3  Colombia - Angles, Shapes and Sections of Iron or Non-Alloy Steel 
(G/SG/N/9/COL/4) 
22.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 2.4  Colombia - Steel an gles (G/SG/N/9/COL/5) 
23.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 
2.5  Ecuador - Wood and Bamboo Flooring and Accessories Thereo f (G/SG/N/6/ECU/9 
and G/SG/N/6/ECU/9/Corr.1) 
24.  Peru raised concerns regarding this investigation. It stated that there was insufficient analysis 
made in the investigation, for example, regarding increase of imports, injury and causal 
relationship. 
25.  Ecuador explained that in relation to transparency and due process, it had made timely 
notification, had invited participation of interested parties, and would conduct necessary 
consultations and hearings. Ecuador took this opportunity to ask how the dates indicated in the circulated version of notifications were determined in general. G/SG/M/46 
 
- 5 - 
 
  26.  At the request of the Chair, the Secretariat explained that the date that appeared at the top 
right corner of the notification indicated the date when the document was posted on the WTO's 
electronic system to be made available to all the Members. The date in the introductory part of the 
notification, just below the title, was the date when the notifying Member submitted the 
notification to the Secretariat. He added that de pending on how busy the relevant Secretariat staff 
was, and on how long/complicated the notification  was, the two dates could differ by several days. 
2.6  Egypt – Steel Rebar (G/SG/N/6/EGY/10-G/SG/N/7/EGY/9-G/SG/N/11/EGY/8) 
27.  The US recalled that Egypt had earlier initiated an investigation on the same product. After 
imposing a provisional measure, Egypt notified in December 2013 that the investigation had been 
terminated since the threat of serious injury was not attributable to imports. The US first asked 
what had changed since that conclusion was made. Second, referring to Article 7.5 of the 
Agreement, the US asked how Egypt could now impose a provisional measure in light of the fact 
that a provisional measure was imposed during the last investigation. 
28.  Turkey explained that it had substantial interest in this investigation as an exporter. It 
reiterated that SG was an emergency measure and thus Members needed to abide by stringent 
requirements. In addition, Turkey recalled that Egypt initiated an anti-dumping investigation on the same product in October 2010, while terminating it in July 2011. Egypt then initiated a SG 
investigation on the same product in November 2012, subsequently imposing a provisional 
measure, and then terminating the investigation. While none of these investigations had resulted in a final measure, they had deterrent effect s. Turkey reserved all its rights under the 
WTO Agreements, and asked Egypt to terminate this investigation. 
29.  Ukraine stated that it was one of the main  exporters of this product. Ukraine saw many 
deficiencies in this investigation – for example, regarding determination of trends of imports, 
injury, causal link, unforeseen development, and level of SG duty. Ukraine asked Egypt to 
terminate this investigation. 
30.  Responding to the first query of the US, Eg ypt explained that the new investigation was based 
on new data from a new investigation period, and so was not inconsistent with the decision to 
terminate the first investigation. Regarding the se cond query of the US, Egypt reiterated that the 
measure taken in the first investigation was a 200-day provisional measure, and that more than one year had passed since the provisional measure in the first investigation was terminated. 
2.7  India - Seamless Pipes, Tubes and Ho llow Profiles of Iron or Non-Alloy Steel 
(G/SG/N/8/IND/25–G/SG/N/10/IND/16–G/SG/N/11/IND/11 and 
G/SG/N/8/IND/25/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/10/IND/16/Suppl.1-G/SG/N/11/IND/11/Suppl.1) 
31.  The Chair explained that questions from Japan, European Union and Russia regarding this 
investigation were left unanswered. 
32.  Japan noted that India was the most frequent user of the SG instrument. On this particular 
investigation, Japan had raised concerns at past Committee meetings as well as in the hearing. In 
particular, Japan had several concerns with the final report published in March 2014, such as the lack of an adequate finding on unforeseen developments, on increased imports and on serious injury. Japan was waiting for India's responses to its questions. 
33.  The Russian Federation stated that it was currently in bilateral discussions with India. 
34.  Noting that India was the largest user of the SG measure, Chinese Taipei expressed its 
concerns regarding India's procedures, including due process. 35.  The EU noted that India was the largest user of the SG instrument, and that its use of this 
instrument was increasing. The EU was of the view that the investigations were generally initiated 
on weak grounds, and the quality of the analysis made in the course of the investigations was not 
of the required standard. In addition, it asked that a country-specific instrument be used when the 
source of the problem was an increase of exports from only one country. Moving to the particular investigation at hand, the EU noted that the determination of increased imports was not proper, as G/SG/M/46 
 
- 6 - 
 
  in fact imports had declined. The injury determination was not adequate as well. The EU asked 
that this measure be repealed. 
36.  The US noted that India was by far the largest user of SG investigations. Eight investigations 
by India were included in the agenda of this m eeting. The US was alarmed at the rate at which 
investigations were brought and asked India to strictly abide by the rules. The US also regretted 
the ambiguity and untimeliness of the notification s. The US asked India to clarify these matters. 
37.  India explained that the findings of its DG Safeguards were recommendatory in nature. Its 
recommendations were tabled before an in ter-ministry board, which would send its 
recommendation to the Ministry of Finance. The Ministry of Finance would then notify the conclusion. SG measures would not become applicable until such notifications were made. India further explained that of the 8 investigations that were included in the agenda of this meeting, 3 
were terminated. India stressed that it was following relevant disciplines of the Agreement, 
including making notifications. As for the questi ons from Japan, EU and Russia, responses were 
currently being prepared. 
2.8  India - Saturated Fatty Alcohols (G/SG/N/8/IND/26–G/SG/N/10/IND/17–
G/SG/N/11/IND/12) 
38.  Indonesia noted that this notification was a recommendation to impose a provisional measure. 
Indonesia had several concerns, in particular with the injury analysis. Indonesia had already made 
this point at the hearing. Indonesia asked India not to impose a final measure. 
39.  Malaysia supported Indonesia's statement. 
2.9  India - Sodium Di-Chromate (G/SG/N/6/IND/39) 
40.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 
2.10  India - Flexible Slabstock Polyol  of Molecular Weight 3000 to 4000 
(G/SG/N/6/IND/38) 
41.  Japan raised concerns about this investigation, and asked that India strictly abide by the 
Agreement in conducting the investigation. 
2.11   India - PX-13 (G/SG/N/8/IND/21/Suppl.2–G/SG/N/10/IND/12/Suppl.2–
G/SG/N/11/IND/7/Suppl.2) 
42.  Chile asked India to clarify the status of this investigation. 
43.  India clarified that the investigation had been terminated, and no final measure was imposed. 
2.12  India - Not-Alloyed Ingots of Un wrought Aluminium (G/SG/N/6/IND/37 and 
G/SG/N/9/IND/12) 
44.  Australia was concerned with the frequency with which India was initiating SG investigations, 
particularly since the basis of many initiations was unclear and the choice of safeguards as the 
appropriate remedy was unclear. Australia was also concerned with the significant delays in 
notifications, often beyond the deadlines for exporters' views. This affected the exporters' ability to defend themselves. Concerning the particular investigation, in Australia's view, the imported 
products and the products produced by the domestic industry were not like products and there was 
no evidence of serious injury or causation. The determinations regarding unforeseen developments and critical circumstances also were not adequate. 
45.  India explained that the investigation had been terminated. 
2.13  India – Bare Elastomeric Filament Yarn (G/SG/N/9/IND/11) 46.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. G/SG/M/46 
 
- 7 - 
 
  2.14  India – Sodium Citrate (G/SG/N/8/IND/27–G/SG/N/10/IND/18–
G/SG/N/11/IND/13) 
47.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 2.15  Indonesia - Coated Paper and Paperboard, not Including Banknotes Paper 
(G/SG/N/6/IDN/26 AND G/SG/N/6/IDN/26/Suppl.1) 
48.  The EU urged Indonesia not to initiate SG investigations if the increase of imports was from 
one country only. Initiation of SG investigations would negatively affect all importers due to the 
uncertainty of the outcome. The EU also asked In donesia to closely follow the disciplines of the 
Agreement in conducting its investigations, and in particular, in conducting the investigations initiated in the course of 2014. 
49.  Noting that Indonesia often resorted to SG, Ja pan reiterated that SG was an instrument to be 
used only in exceptional circumstances. Japan as ked Indonesia to abide by the disciplines of the 
Agreement and to fully take into account the comments Japan had conveyed to Indonesia. 
50.  Chinese Taipei was also concerned with Indonesia's frequent use of the SG instrument. It 
asked Indonesia to ensure that all SG actions were based on solid evidence. 51.  Indonesia explained that it had initiated the investigation based on solid evidence. Indonesia 
was abiding by the Agreement, including by holdin g hearings. It noted that Japan, EU and Korea 
had participated in the hearing.   
2.16  Indonesia - Cotton Yarn Other Than Sewing Thread (G/SG/N/8/IDN/4/Suppl.4–
G/SG/N/10/IDN/4/Suppl.4) 
52.  India was concerned with this investigation. While India had problems with the original 
measure, it noted that the measure had now been extended to last more than three years in total. 
India had particular doubts about the determination regarding unforeseen developments. 
53.  Indonesia explained that the investigation was conducted in line with the Agreement. 
2.17  Indonesia – Wheat Flour (G/SG/N/8/IDN/15/Suppl.1–
G/SG/N/10/IDN/15/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/11/IDN/13) 
54.  Australia was of the view that this investigation should not have been initiated to begin with. 
Indonesia should have resorted to other instruments. Australia was also concerned over 
considerable delays between completion of the investigation and the decision to apply a measure. In Australia's view, this delay only showed that the situation did not warrant an emergency measure to be taken.  
55.  Indonesia confirmed that the final measure was imposed on 4 May 2014. 
2.18   Indonesia - Flat-Rolled Product of Iron or Non-Alloy Steel (G/SG/N/8/IDN/16–
G/SG/N/10/IDN/16 and G/SG/N/8/IDN/16/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/10/IDN/16/Suppl.1–
G/SG/N/11/IDN/14) 
56.  Viet Nam was concerned with the outcome of the investigation. In its view, there were 
problems regarding how Indonesia determined unforeseen developments, serious injury, and 
causal link. 
57.  Indonesia stated that the investigation had been conducted in accordance with the 
Agreement. It had held hearings, and had consulted with Viet Nam in October 2014. G/SG/M/46 
 
- 8 - 
 
  2.19  Indonesia – I and H Sections of Other Alloy Steel (G/SG/N/8/IDN/17-
G/SG/N/10/IDN/17) 
58.  China stated that its comments relate not only to this specific item, but also to Indonesia's 
investigation on bars and rods, which was ongoing, but not part of the agenda for the meeting. 
Chinese exporters had fully cooperated in these two investigations. In China's view there was no 
injury or causal relationship in these two cases. These SG measures would only go against public interest of Indonesia. In addition, Indonesia had imposed import licensing restrictions on these two 
products. An anti-dumping duty had also been imposed in the case of I and H sections of other 
alloy steel. In China's view, imposing SG duties in addition to all these measures was simply an over-protection. China asked Indonesia to strictly abide by the Agreement. 
59.  Indonesia explained with regards I and H sections of other alloy steel that it had found serious 
injury and causal relationship. Indonesia was prepared to consult with China. 2.20  Jordan - Writing and Printing Papers Size A4 (G/SG/N/6/JOR/17) 
60.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 
2.21  Jordan – Bars and Rods (G/SG/N/11/JOR/4/Suppl.2) 
61.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 2.22  Kyrgyz Republic – Wheat Flour (G/SG/N/8/KGZ/2-G/SG/N/10/KGZ/2/Suppl.1) 
62.  The US pointed out that the notification simp ly stated that the measure "shall be applied in 
the form of special customs duties", and its exact form, such as the duty rate, was not clarified. 
63.  Kyrgyz Republic stated that it would look into the matter. 
2.23  Malaysia - Hot-Rolled St eel Plate (G/SG/N/6/MYS/2) 
64.  Japan had concerns with this investigatio n. In Japan's view, there were no exceptional 
circumstances. Japan asked Malaysia to abide by the disciplines of the Agreement and to fully take 
into account the comments Japan had conveyed to Malaysia. 
65.   Malaysia explained that the investigation was ongoing, and that Malaysia would abide by the 
disciplines of the Agreement. 
66.  EU pointed out that SG measures were the most restrictive of the three trade remedy 
instruments, and should be taken only in exceptional circumstances. 2.24  Morocco - Cold-Rolled Sheets and Plat ed or Coated Sheets (G/SG/N/6/MAR/8) 
67.  The EU was concerned with Morocco's increased use of SG. SG measures were normally not 
the cure of the fundamental problem, but were transitional measures to facilitate adjustment of 
the domestic industry. More specifically, EU noted that there were two SG investigations by 
Morocco on the agenda of this meeting, and both of these investigations were in the steel sector with the same producer. EU did not find any rational basis for initiating this investigation. The EU 
was also paying close attention to how Morocco's analysis would treat imports brought into its free 
trade zone. 
68.  Morocco clarified that it had initiated only one investigation in 2012 and another in 2014. 
Morocco would take all relevant data into account when conducting this investigation. As for 
imports from the free trade zone, Morocco was currently considering the way forward. G/SG/M/46 
 
- 9 - 
 
  2.25  Morocco - Wire Rods and Reinforcing Bars (G/SG/N/8/MAR/3/Suppl.1/Corr.1–
G/SG/N/10/MAR/3/Corr.1–G/SG/N/11/MAR/2/Suppl.1/Corr.1) 
69.  Turkey stated that it was originally exempted from this measure by virtue of Article 9.1 of the 
Agreement. However, with this notified revision , Turkey was re-included in the measure. Turkey 
deemed this action to violate the Agreement, and asked Morocco to rectify the situation. 
70.   Morocco confirmed that Turkey was initially exempted from the measure but was now re-
included in the measure because imports from Turk ey had increased. Morocco was of the view that 
this action did not contradict the Agreement. 
2.26   Philippines – Newsprint (G/SG/N/6/PHL/9/Suppl.2) 71.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 2.27  South Africa – Frozen Potato Chips (G/SG/N/8/ZAF/2/Suppl.1–
G/SG/N/10/ZAF/2/Suppl.1-G/SG/N/11/ZAF/2/Suppl.3) 
72.  The EU was disappointed with this investigation since it saw several substantive and 
procedural problems. First, the domestic indust ry had a market share of 98%, and there was no 
injury. Second, the duty rate was prohibitive and unnecessary. Third, South Africa was imposing a 
safeguard measure in addition to an anti-dumping measure. Finally, South Africa imposed a final measure after the provisional measure had expired.  
73.  South Africa asked that any questions and comments be submitted in writing. 
2.28   Chinese Taipei - High Density Polyet hylene and Linear Low Density Polyethylene 
(G/SG/N/9/TPKM/1) 
74.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 
2.29  Thailand - Non-Alloy Hot Rolled Steel Flat Products (G/SG/N/7/THA/3–
G/SG/N/11/THA/3 and G/SG/N/7/THA/3/Suppl.1-G/SG/N/11/THA/3/Suppl.1) 
75.  Turkey explained that it had been consulting with Thailand regarding this investigation. In 
Turkey's view, the conditions necessary to impose a measure did not exist. In particular, the 
determination regarding unforeseen developments, injury and causal relationship were problematic. Turkey reserved all its rights under the relevant WTO Agreements. 
76.  Japan had concerns with this investigatio n. In Japan's view, there were no exceptional 
circumstances. Japan asked Thailand to abide by the disciplines of the Agreement and to fully take 
into account the comments Japan had conveyed to Thailand. 
77.  Chinese Taipei pointed out that the provisional measure came into force on 6 June 2014, 
while the notification of the decision was made in September 2014. Chinese Taipei was concerned 
with the delay. 
78.  Australia was concerned about the decision to impose a provisional measure and the delay in 
notification of that decision. Australia recalled that it had made this point at the hearing as well. 
Australia asked for an update on consideration of a final measure. 
79.  Korea, Republic of was also concerned with this investigation. In particular, Korea saw no 
causal link between the imports and the alleged injury. 80.  Thailand asked that any questions and comments be submitted in writing. G/SG/M/46 
 
- 10 - 
 
  2.30  Tunisia – Fibreboard of Wood (G/SG/N/6/TUN/3) 
2.31  Tunisia – Glass Bottles (G/SG/N/6/TUN/4) 81.  The EU commented on both investigations – regarding fibreboard of wood and glass bottles. 
The EU was concerned with the delay of both notifications. It asked Tunisia to carefully follow the 
obligations in the Agreement. The EU also asked Tunisia to provide non-confidential summaries of 
relevant documents. 
82.  Tunisia took note of The EU's comments. 
2.32  Turkey - Polyethylene Terephthalate (G/SG/N/10/TUR/13/Suppl.1–
G/SG/N/14/TUR/10 and G/SG/N/8/TUR/13/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/10/TUR/13/Suppl.2–G/SG/N/11/TUR/16/Suppl.1) 
83.  The EU observed that Turkey almost system atically extended all its safeguard measures. In 
EU's view, this was often done on a weak basis. The EU urged Turkey to reconsider this practice. 
Regarding this particular investigation, EU was of the view that extension of the measure was not warranted because the share of imports had decreased and production of the domestic industry 
had increased. The EU reminded that safeguards sh ould not be used as an industrial policy tool. 
84.  Turkey explained that its investigations whether or not to extend the measure were carried 
out in a manner consistent with the Agreement. Turkey asked that any questions and comments 
be submitted in writing. 
2.33   Turkey - Printing, Writing and Copying Paper (G/SG/N/6/TUR/18) 
85.  The EU had several concerns with this investigation. First, the increase in imports was not 
recent, sudden or sharp enough to justify a measur e, and in fact the share of imports merely went 
back to its original ratio. Second, there was no serious injury. Third, the conditions of imports such 
as price trends did not warrant a measure. The EU asked Turkey to carefully abide by the Agreement. 
86.  Turkey indicated that the investigation would be conducted in accordance with the Agreement. 
2.34  TURKEY – TEREPHTHALIC ACID (G/SG/N/8/TUR/14–G/SG/N/10/TUR/14–
G/SG/N/11/TUR/19) 
87.  The EU was disappointed that Turkey had de cided to impose the measure notwithstanding the 
weak evidence. The EU expected that Tu rkey would not extend this measure. 
88.  Turkey took note of the statement. 
2.35  Ukraine - Tableware and Kitchenwar e of Porcelain (G/SG/N/8/UKR/4/Suppl.1–
G/SG/N/10/UKR/4/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/11/UKR/2) 
89.  Egypt stated that although it did not export the subject product to Ukraine during the relevant 
period, Egypt was not included in the list of developing countries exempted from the measure by 
virtue of Article 9.1 of the Agreement. Egypt as ked that it be exempted from the measure and 
added to the list. 
90.  Ukraine took note of Egypt's statement. 
2.36  Ukraine - Casing and Pump-C ompressor Seamless Steel Pipes 
(G/SG/N/8/UKR/1/Suppl.3-G/SG/N/14/UKR/1/Suppl.2) 
91.  The Russian Federation expressed concerns regarding Ukraine's decision to extend the 
existing measure. First, Ukraine did not conduct an investigation before it decided to extend the 
measure. In particular, Ukraine did not find incr eased imports or injury. Second, Ukraine did not 
allocate the import quota adequately. Third, Ukraine did not take any action to maintain a G/SG/M/46 
 
- 11 - 
 
  substantially equivalent level of concessions. Finally, if Ukraine's position was that this was a new 
measure, it was in breach of Article 7.5 of the Agreement. 
92.  Ukraine explained that interested parties could submit comments until 14 November 2014. 
93.  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 
17 November 2014. Written responses to questions, including questions submitted in writing prior to this meeting, should be submitted to the Secr etariat no later than 8 December 2014. As with 
legislative notifications, any unanswered questions would be indicated in the draft annotated 
agenda of the next meeting. 
94.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
3  CONTINUED NON-NOTIFICATION OF SA FEGUARD MEASURES BY THE RUSSIAN 
FEDERATION (ITEM REQUESTED BY THE US) 
95.  The US recalled that it had pointed out at the October 2013 meeting that Russia had initiated 
an investigation and imposed a measure on corrosion  resistant pipe and tubes, but no notification 
had been made. After October 2013, the US learned of five more investigations and measures 
which had not been notified. The products involved were flatware of stainless steel, certain fasteners, activated carbon, caramel and graphi te electrodes. Russia acceded to the WTO in 
August 2012, and the US understood that all of these measures were in effect at the time. The US 
noted that Russia did not understand that Article 12.7 of the Agreement or paragraph 620 of the 
Working Party Report would apply to this situation.  The US provided several reasons why it did not 
agree with this understanding. The US continued to request that the Russian Federation notify 
those measures to the Committee. 
96.  Australia, the EU, Japan, Chinese Taipei , Canada and Norway shared the concerns and 
supported the views of the US. 
97.  The Russian Federation recalled that it had provided explanations on several occasions 
including in the General Council and the Council for Trade in Goods, as well as at relevant bilateral 
consultations. Russia understood that there were six measures at issue: flatware of stainless steel, 
certain fasteners, activated carbon, caramel, graphite electrodes and flatware of stainless steel. 
Russia provided several reasons why Article 12.7 of the Agreement was not applicable to those measures. Russia then provided a brief history of each of those investigations including the fact that the measure on flatware of stainless steel had expired on 26 December 2012, the measure on 
certain fasteners had expired on 17 March 2014, the measure on activated carbon had expired on 
7 September 2014, the measure on caramel had expi red on 7 July 2014, the measure on graphite 
electrodes had expired on 30 August 2012, and th e measure on flatware of stainless steel was 
expected to expire on 1 November 2014. Russia had not acted contrary to any of the obligations of 
the Agreement, and so Russia doubted whether any Member had to right to make notifications under Article 12.8 of the Agreement. 
4  NON-NOTIFICATION OF LEGISLAT ION BY THE KING DOM OF BAHRAIN 
98.  The US stated that the Trade Policy Report of Bahrain indicated that Bahrain had adopted the 
new Gulf Cooperation Council ("GCC") Common La w on Anti-dumping, Countervailing Measures 
and Safeguards. The US noted that that law ha d not yet been notified to the Committee, and 
urged Bahrain to make the relevant notification. 
99.  Bahrain, Kingdom of explained that the law the US was referring to needed to be notified 
collectively by the GCC countries. Bahrain would keep the US and the Committee updated on any 
new developments. 
100.  US stated that it understood that making SG notifications was something to be done by each 
country. G/SG/M/46 
 
- 12 - 
 
  5  OTHER BUSINESS 
5.1  Statement on an investigation by India (c old rolled flat products of stainless steel) – 
Item requested by Japan 
101.  Japan referred to a notification by India made very recently and that could not be included in 
the agenda of the meeting. It was a notification regarding initiation of an investigation on cold 
rolled flat products of stainless steel.3 Japan noted that the investigation was initiated on 
19 September 2014, but the notification was made only on 20 October 2014. 
102.  India stated that it was doing its best to make notifications in a timely manner. 
103.  Japan stressed that timely notification was very important, not only for India but for all 
investigating Members. In that context Japan asked the Secretariat to produce a compilation of the 
timelines of Members' notifications. Japan clarified that it had in mind a compilation of the timing 
when investigating Members initiated the investigation and when it was notified to the Committee. 
104.  Australia asked whether Japan had in mind a compilation indicating individual Members. 
105.  The EU stated that it saw no harm in such compilation as long as the compilation covered 
the notifying Members in a non-discriminatory manner. 106.  The Chair took note of Japan's proposal. Further clarity would be sought from Japan. 
5.2  Statement regarding an investigation by the Philippines (galvanized iron and pre-
painted sheets and coils) – It em requested by Australia 
107.  Australia referred to a notification made by the Philippines regarding an investigation on 
galvanized iron and pre-painted sheets and coils, which was discussed at the spring 2014 
meeting.4 Australia wished to know the latest situation regarding this investigation. 
108.  The Philippines responded that it would check. 
5.3  Chair's statements 
109.  First, in the interests of full transparen cy, the Chair wished to report on the informal 
consultation held on 16 July 2014 regarding two issues. She reminded Members that at the 
spring 2014 regular meeting, two proposals were tabl ed by Members, and at the suggestion of the 
outgoing chair, she had convened the open-ended informal consultations in July to allow for 
further discussion. She recalled that she had initially reported the results of this informal 
consultation to all the Members in a fax dated 28 July 2014. The first issue related to the idea put forward by the US regarding the so-called "discu ssion group regarding safeguard proceedings". As 
these discussions, which had been held afte r each Committee meeting since 2013, had now 
achieved some regularity, the US had suggested th at some of the topics could now be discussed in 
the framework of the Committee. The proponen ts had explained that they envisaged the 
identification of topics on which Members could volunteer to submit papers to form the basis of 
informal discussions. While some Members had supported the idea, others still had concerns or 
needed more clarification. The Chair recalled that, at the conclusion of the informal consultations, she had suggested that Members continue to discuss among themselves and reflect further on this 
issue. She had also emphasised that any further ac tion on this issue, would be on the basis of a 
Member-driven process and she would await further guidance from Members, should they wish the issue to be taken forward. As at the date of th e current meeting, no further feedback had been 
received from Members on this issue. The seco nd issue concerned a proposal by New Zealand 
regarding a seminar on Safeguard notifications, with  a view to improve the quality of notifications. 
Broad support had been expressed for this idea in the informal consultation. She recalled that she 
had communicated with the Members on this issue on 5 September 2014, and again on 
30 September 2014. She reminded Members that this very seminar would take place immediately 
                                               
3 See G/SG/N/6/IND/40. 
4 See G/SG/N/6/PHL/10. G/SG/M/46 
 
- 13 - 
 
  after the meeting and she invited full participation. The slides and the audio recordings of the 
seminar would subsequently be posted on the "Members' website" of the WTO. 
110.  Second, the Chair drew the attention of the Members to the importance of keeping the 
e-mail addresses of delegations updated. Delegates that were new to the Safeguards Committee 
were reminded to inform the Secretariat. 
6  ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS  111.  The Committee adopted its annual report (see document G/L/1087). 
7  DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING 112.  The Chair suggested that the Committee meet in the week of 27 April 2015. The exact date 
would be confirmed in due course. 
113.  The Committee so decided. 
__________