G/L/1066  
G/SG/124  
28 April 2014  
(14-2568)  Page: 1/3  
Council for Trade in Goods 
Committee on Safeguards  Original: Spanish  
 
  NOTIFICATION UNDER ARTICL E 12.5 OF THE AGREEMENT 
ON SAFEGUARDS ON THE RESULT OF 
PRIOR CONSULTATIONS 
COLOMBIA  
(Steel Wire Rod) 
The following communication, dated 22 April 2014, is being circulated at the request 
of the delegation of Colombia.  
_______________ 
  
1  PROVISION UNDER WHICH CO NSULTATIONS WERE HELD 
Article 12.3 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as stated in document G/SG/N/8/COL/1 
of 26 March 2014. 
 
2  WTO DOCUMENTS THAT NOTIFIED THE SAFEGUARD ACTION REGARDING WHICH 
CONSULTATIONS WERE HELD UNDER ARTICLE 12.4 
G/SG/N/8/COL/1. 
 
3  MEMBERS INVOLVED IN THE CONSULTATI ONS, AND TIME-PERIOD DURING WHICH 
CONSULTATIONS WERE HELD 
Consultations with Mexico were held on 28 March 2014 via videoconference, 
at which representatives of the Mexican and Colombian Missions in Geneva were present.  
4  RESULTS OF THE CONSULTATIONS 
During the videoconference held on 28 March 2014 Colombia exchanged views with Mexico 
regarding the exclusion of products . The Sub-Directorate of Trade Practices 
(Colombian investigating authority, hereinafte r SPC) explained that the National Customs 
and Excise Directorate had carried out in-depth st udies and, owing to problems of recognition, 
had focused exclusively on carbon content.  
As regards notification dates , the SPC indicated that Colombia had complied with the notification 
obligations under Article 12.1(a) and (b) and 12 .4 of the Agreement on Safeguards. As shown 
in the table below, the notifications were processed and made within the relevant time-frames 
via the Permanent Mission of Colombia to the WTO, as soon as administratively feasible. It should 
be noted that there is no legal basis in the text  of Article 12.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards 
to determine the exact time-frame for making noti fications. The table below shows the exact dates 
on which the relevant notifications, communications and publications were issued. 
 G/L/1066 • G/SG/124 
- 2 - 
  Product Initiation 
File 
number Publication in 
Official Journal Communicatio
n to Embassies 
–exporting 
governments Communication 
to importers Notification 
of initiation 
to WTO Prior 
 
Provisional 
notification 
to WTO Provisional measure  
 Resolution Date No. Date Decree Date 
Bars and 
rods of 
iron or 
steel 160 17 July 
2013 SA-01-51 48.856 19 July 
2013 24 July 2013 24 July 2013 26 July 
2013 12 Sep. 
2013 2213 08 Oct. 
2013 
 
For the purposes of determining likeness  and/or direct competitiveness, the Colombian 
investigating authority relied on all the information supplied in the investigation that related 
to physico-chemical characteristics, raw materials, production processes, presentation and uses. 
This was supported by input from the Domestic Goods Production Registration Group of the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Tourism, which is responsible for administering the National 
Producers Register. The input gave an idea of the likeness between the imported products 
and the domestic product at issue in the four investigations conducted.  In actual fact, even if there were differences in any respect, the characteristics of the domestic 
product are so similar to those of the imported products that, in practical terms, such differences 
would be impossible to identify at first glance.  
The SPC also carried out a random review of import declarations, and none of them concerned 
imports of products in diameters other than those under investigation.  
As regards the comments about the analysis of imports and the injury analysis , 
it should be pointed out that Colombia conducted its analyses pursuant to its domestic legislation, in conformity with Article 2.1 and 2.2 of the Ag reement on Safeguards. Firstly, for the purposes 
of evaluating the trend in imports, the period of analysis was considered to be the period covering 
the years 2010, 2011 and 2012. It is important to clarify that a safeguard action seeks to remedy 
the adverse effects of a sudden increase in imports, and that the analyses should accordingly focus on developments in the last year of evaluation which is closest to the time of the request 
for and initiation of the investigation and for which full statistics are available. Thus, the trend 
in imports during the years 2010 and 2011 was taken as the historical reference, while the year 2012 was considered as the period for which it had to be determined whether 
imports had increased in such quantities and under such conditions as to cause or threaten to 
cause injury to the domestic industry.  Using the DIAN's (Colombian customs authority)  database, the analyses reviewed the trend 
in the total volume of imports, regardless of origin. An analysis of volume by country of origin 
was also carried out in order to assess the shares of countries exporting to Colombia. This is not, by any manner of means, a discriminatory investigation. 
 
As regards representativeness , the SPC ascertained, on the basis of the verification visit 
and the analysis by product line, that the shares of Acerías Paz del Río and DIACO were 77% 
and 23%, respectively. 
 So far, no document has been adduced to rebut the figures reported by the ANDI Chamber, which is the trade association that certified the statistical data concerning the representativeness 
of the sector's enterprises, or any evidence of other producers of steel products in Colombia 
accounting for more than 50% of domestic produc tion and thus disproving representativeness. 
 
As regards the exclusion of imports from Mexico , a review of safeguard commitments 
(Article 8-06 of the FTA between Mexico and Colombia) established that Mexico's exports to Colombia did not satisfy the requirements for exclusion from the definitive safeguard measure. 
 
Lastly, as regards the issue of compensation, the SPC indicated that compensation depended on the duration of the measure, on which there was no information to share at the time that the consultations took place. 
 
The Colombian authority further specified that it could not provide any precise information on the amount, duration and entry into force of the measure, because to date there 
was only a recommendation by the Customs, Tariffs and Foreign Trade Committee, 
which had to be submitted for final assessment by the Higher Council for Foreign Trade.  G/L/1066 • G/SG/124 
- 3 - 
  Colombia informed Mexico that the Higher Council would meet on 31 March 2014 and that 
the measure had yet to be defined in the form of a quota based on average imports over the past three years or a tariff.  
__________