G/SG/Q2/IND/17  
 
30 March 2015  
(15-1765)  Page: 1/2  
Committee on Safeguards  Original: English  
 
  NOTIFICATION UNDER ARTICLE 12 .1(A) OF THE AGREEMENT ON  
SAFEGUARDS ON INITIATION OF AN INVESTIGATION AND  
THE REASONS FOR IT 
REPLIES TO QUESTIONS POSED BY JAPAN1  
REGARDING THE NOTIFICATION OF INDIA2 
(Seamless pipes, tubes and hollow profiles of iron or non – alloy steel  
(other than cast iron and stainless steel)) 
The following communication, dated 27 March 2015, is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of India.  
_______________ 
  
Question 1  
 Please clarify the factual circumstances aro und the "unforeseen development" that is 
required to be identified according to the WTO Agreement.  
 Reply  
Unforeseen developments have been analysed by the investigating authority in paragraph 35 of 
the Final Findings. It is available at http://dgsafeguards.gov.in .  
 
Question 2  
 
Please explain whether the "i ncreased import" revealed during the investigation meets 
the certain conditions required for the app lication of a safeguard measure, which the 
WTO precedents have defined as having to be "sudden enough, sharp enough, 
significant enough and recent enough".  Reply  
As mentioned in paragraph 27(a) & (b) of the final findings dated 11.3.2014, import of the product 
has increased from 307,581 MT (2009-10) to 425,194 MT (2011-12) and thereafter decreased to 373,848 MT (2012-13). The import of the product though decreased in 2013-14 but it was still 
more than the base year of the Period of Investig ation (POI). Further, share of import relative to 
production has increased from 73% in 2009-10 to 87% in 2012-13. Thus, import of the product has increased in absolute terms as well as in relation to production, which has been held as 
significant, sharp and sudden. 
 Question 3  
 
Does the steel industry in India have the capa city to manufacture the products at issue? 
As stated previously, Japan is of the view that, since the petitioners do not manufacture 
the products at issue and imported products from Japan do not compete with the 
                                               
1 G/SG/Q2/IND/14. 
2 G/SG/N/6/IND/32. G/SG/Q2/IND/17 
 
- 2 - 
 
  domestic products in India. Therefore, th e requirement of "serious injury" of the 
imposition of safeguard measure cannot be met.  Reply  
Paragraph 21 (a) of the final findings of DG (S afeguards) may be referred for the purpose of 
capacity to manufacture the products at issue. 
Question 4  
Could you provide the possible timeline for this  investigation? Can we expect that the 
final decision to apply a safeguard measur e will be made sometime soon? If so, please 
identify the specific date of such decision.  
Reply  
The Final Findings were notified by the DG (Safeguards) on 11 March 2014 and is available at 
http://dgsafeguards.gov.in . It has been notified to the WTO vide document No. G/SG/N/8/IND/25-
G/SG/N/10/IND/16-G/SG/N/11/IND/11.  
The Safeguard duty has been imposed vide Cust oms Notification No. 02/2014-Customs (SG) dated 
13 August 2014 and is available at www.cbec.gov.in . It has been notified to the WTO vide 
Document No.G/SG/N/8/IND/25/Suppl.1-G/SG/N/10/IND/16/Suppl.1-G/SG/N/11/IND/11/Suppl.1. 
 
 
__________