RESTRICTED  
  
G/SG/M/47  
 
1 September 2015  
(15-4374)  Page: 1/13  
Committee on Safeguards    
 
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING 
HELD ON 27 APRIL 2015 
CHAIRPERSON: MS KIM KAMPEL 
1.  The Committee on Safeguards (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 27 April 2015. 
2.  The Committee adopted the following agenda: 1   NATIONAL LEGISLATION ............................................................................................ 3
 
1.1   Armenia – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/SG/N/ 1/ARM/1/Suppl.1) .................... 3  
1.2   Bahrain, Kingdom of – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/SG/N/1/BHR/3 and 
G/SG/N/1/BHR/3 /Suppl.1) ................................................................................................. 3  
1.3   Brazil – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/SG/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.2) ......................... 3  
1.4   New Zealand – Review of New Legisl ative Notification (G /SG/N/1/NZL/2) .......................... 3  
1.5   Qatar – Review of New Legislat ive Notification (G /SG/N/1/QAT/2) .................................... 3  
1.6   Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of – Review of New Legislative Notification 
(G/SG/N/1/SAU/2) ............................................................................................................ 3  
1.7   Cameroon – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications 
(G/SG/N/1/CM R/1) ........................................................................................................... 4  
2   NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RE LATED TO SAFEGUAR D MEASURES ........................... 4  
2.1   Armenia - Harvesters and Modules Thereof (G/SG/N/6/ARM/1–G/SG/N/8/ARM/1–
G/SG/N/10/ARM/1–G/SG/N/11/ARM/1) ................................................................................ 5  
2.2   Armenia - Tableware and Kitchenware of Porcelain (G/SG/N/6/ARM/2–
G/SG/N/8/ARM/2–G/SG/N/10/AR M/2–G/SG/N/11/ ARM/2) ...................................................... 5  
2.3   Colombia - Bars and Rods of Low-carbon Steel (G/SG/N/6/COL/4/Suppl.1–
G/SG/N/14/CO L/1) ........................................................................................................... 5  
2.4   Costa Rica - Pounded Rice (G/SG/N/8/CRI/1–G/SG/N/10/CRI/1–G/SG/N/11/CRI/1 
and G/SG/N/8/CRI/1/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/10/CR I/1/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/11/CRI/1/Suppl.1) ................ 5  
2.5   Ecuador - Wood and Bamboo Flooring and Accessories Thereof (G/SG/N/7/ECU/3 
and G/SG/N/7/ECU /3/Suppl.1) ........................................................................................... 5  
2.6   Egypt – Automotive Batteries (G/SG/N/6/EGY/11) .......................................................... 5  
2.7   Egypt – Steel Rebar (G/SG/N/8/EGY/7-G/SG/N/10/EGY/7-
G/SG/N/11/EGY/8/Suppl.1) ................................................................................................ 6  
2.8   Egypt – White Sugar (G/SG/N/6/EGY/ 12-G/SG/N/7/EGY/10-G/ SG/N/11/EGY/9) ................. 6  
2.9   India - Slabstock Polyol of Molecu lar Weight 3000 to 4000 (G/SG/N/9/IN D/13) .................. 6  
2.10   India - Sodium Di-Chr omate (G/SG/N/ 9/IND/14) ......................................................... 6  
2.11   India - Saturated Fatty Alcohols (G/SG/N/8/IND/26/Suppl.1–
G/SG/N/10/IND/17/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/11/IND/12/Suppl.1 and G/SG/N/8/IND/26/Suppl.2–G/SG/N/10/IND/17/Suppl.2–G/S G/N/11/IND/12/ Suppl.2) ...................................................... 7
 G/SG/M/47 
 
- 2 - 
 
  2.12   India - Cold Rolled Flat Products of Stainless Steel of Chromium Type, 400 Series 
(G/SG/N/6/IND/40 and G/SG/N/9/IND/15) ........................................................................... 7  
2.13   India - Seamless Pipes, Tubes and Holl ow 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) ................ 7  
2.14   Indonesia - I and H Sections of Other Alloy Steel (G/SG/N/8/IDN/17/Suppl.1–
G/SG/N/10/IDN/17/Suppl.1–G /SG/N/11/IDN /15) .................................................................. 7  
2.15   Indonesia - Bars and Rods, Hot-Rolled, in  Irregularity Wound Coils, of Iron or Non-
Alloy Steel or of Other Alloy Steel (G /SG/N/8/IDN/18–G/SG/ N/10/IDN/18) ............................... 8  
2.16   Jordan - Bars and Rods of Iron  and Steel (G/SG/N/ 11/JOR/4/Suppl.3) ............................ 8  
2.17   Kyrgyz Republic – Wheat Flour (G/S G/N/8/KGZ/2-G/SG/N/10/ KGZ/2/Suppl.1) ................. 8  
2.18   Malaysia - Hot-Rolled Steel Plate (G/SG/N/7/MYS/1–G/SG/N/11/MYS/1) .......................... 8  
2.19   Morocco - Cold-Rolled Sheets and Plated or Coated Sheets (G/SG/N/7/MAR/3–
G/SG/N/11/MA R/3) ........................................................................................................... 8  
2.20   Philippines - Galvanized Iron and Pre-painted Sheets and Coils (G/SG/N/9/PHL/2 
and G/SG/N/9/PHL/2/Corr.1) .............................................................................................. 8  
2.21   Philippines - Steel Angle Bars (G/SG/N/6/PH L/7/Suppl.2) .............................................. 9  
2.22   Philippines – Newsprint (G/SG/N/6/PHL/9/Suppl.3) ....................................................... 9  
2.23   Russian Federation - Pipes and Tubes of Stainless Steel (G/SG/N/6/RUS/4–
G/SG/N/8/RUS/3–G/SG/N/10/RU S/3–G/SG/N/11 /RUS/3) ....................................................... 9  
2.24   Thailand - Non-Alloy Hot Rolled Steel Flat Products (G/SG/N/8/THA/3–
G/SG/N/10/THA/3–G/S G/N/11/THA/4) ................................................................................ 9  
2.25   Thailand - Hot Rolled Steel Flat Products with Certain Amounts Alloying Elements 
(G/SG/N/10/THA/2/Suppl.1–G/S G/N/11/THA/2/S uppl.3) ........................................................ 9  
2.26   Turkey - Wallpaper and Simila r Wallcoverings (G/S G/N/6/TUR/ 20) ................................. 9  
2.27   Turkey - Transmission Apparatus In corporating Reception Apparatus (Cellular) 
Portable Telephone (G/SG/N/6/ TUR/19) .............................................................................. 10 
2.28   Ukraine - Motor Cars (G/SG/N/8/UKR/3/Suppl.2–G/SG/N/10/UKR/3/Suppl.3–
G/SG/N/11/UKR/ 1/Suppl.2) .............................................................................................. 10 
2.29   Ukraine – Casing and Pump-Compressor Seamless Steel Pipes 
(G/SG/N/8/UKR/1/Suppl.4-G/SG/N/14/UKR/1 /Suppl.3 and G/SG/N/8/UKR/1/Suppl.5-
G/SG/N/14/UKR/ 1/Suppl.4) .............................................................................................. 10 
2.30   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) ................................................................... 11 
3   INFORMATION ON TIMING OF NOTIFICATIONS (ITEM REQUESTED BY 
JAPAN) ........................................................................................................................... 11  
4   CONTINUED NON-NOTIFICATION OF SAFEGUARD MEASURES BY THE 
RUSSIAN FEDERATION (ITEM REQUESTED BY THE US) .................................................. 11  
5   DISCUSSION GROUP REGARD ING SAFEGUARD PROCEEDINGS.................................. 12  
6   OTHER BU SINESS ...................................................................................................... 12  
6.1   Statement regarding an investigation by Morocco – Item requested by Turkey .................. 12 
6.2   Statement regarding an investigation by Indonesia – Item requested by Japan .................. 12 
7   DATE OF NEXT REGULAR ME ETING ............................................................................ 13  
8   ELECTION OF  OFFICERS ............................................................................................ 13  
 
 G/SG/M/47 
 
- 3 - 
 
  1  NATIONAL LEGISLATION 
1.1  Armenia – Review of New Legislativ e Notification (G/SG/N/1/ARM/1/Suppl.1) 
3.  Written questions concerning this notification had been received from the US in document 
G/SG/Q1/ARM/2. The delegation of Armenia provided its responses orally.1  
4.  The US looked forward to the written version of the responses.  
1.2  Bahrain, Kingdom of – Review of Ne w Legislative Notification (G/SG/N/1/BHR/3 
and G/SG/N/1/BHR/3/Suppl.1) 
5.  Questions from the US had been submitted in document G/SG/Q1/BHR/7, but since the 
questions dealt with anti-dumping as well, the US had asked that the review for these questions be 
conducted in the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices.  
6.  There were no other comments or questions regarding this notification. 
1.3  Brazil – Review of New Legislativ e Notification (G/SG/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.2) 
7.  There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 1.4  New Zealand – Review of New Legi slative Notification  (G/SG/N/1/NZL/2) 
8.  Written questions had been received from India in document G/SG/Q1/NZL/2. Written 
questions were also received from Australia in document G/SG/Q1/NZL/2 although it was submitted only recently. 
9.  New Zealand orally provided the responses to India.
2 It was also ready to provide the answers 
to Australia's questions and did so orally.3   
10.  India looked forward to the written version of the responses. 
11.  Australia thanked New Zealand for the prompt  responses, and looked forward to the written 
version of the responses. 
1.5  Qatar – Review of New Legislat ive Notification (G/SG/N/1/QAT/2) 
12.  Questions from the US had been submitted in document G/SG/Q1/QAT/3, but since the 
questions dealt with anti-dumping as well, the US had asked that the review for these questions be 
conducted in the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices.  
13.  There were no other comments or questions regarding this notification. 
1.6  Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of – Revi ew of New Legislat ive Notification 
(G/SG/N/1/SAU/2) 
14.  Questions from the US had been submitted in document G/SG/Q1/SAU/1, but since the 
questions dealt with anti-dumping as well, the US had asked that the review for these questions be 
conducted in the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices.  
15.  There were no other comments or questions regarding this notification. 
                                               
1 Subsequently circulated in writing in document G/SG/Q1/ARM/3.   
2 Subsequently circulated in writing in document G/SG/Q1/NZL/3. 
3 Subsequently circulated in writing in document G/SG/Q1/NZL/4. G/SG/M/47 
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.7  Cameroon – Continuing Review of  Previously Reviewed Notifications 
(G/SG/N/1/CMR/1) 
16.  The Chair stated that written questions received from the United States in document 
G/SG/Q1/CMR/3 were left unanswered.  
17.  Cameroon was not represented at the meeting. 
18.  The US stated, for the record, that the questions were submitted in September 2014, and it 
was looking forward to the responses. 
19.  The Chair recalled that the deadline for written questions concerning any legislation reviewed 
at this meeting was 18 May 2015. The deadline for written answers to all written questions, 
including questions submitted in writing prior to this meeting, was 8 June 2015. 
20.  The Chair informed the Committee that 22 Members had not yet made a legislative 
notification.4 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. 
21.  The US appreciated the fact that five Members had submitted legislative notifications in 2014. 
However, many Members still had not made a notification. For nearly all of those who had not 
made the notifications, their Trade Policy Review  reports indicated whether they did or did not 
have any safeguard legislation. The US reiterated that the notification was simple if there was no 
legislation, and encouraged Members who had not yet made their legislative notifications to review their situations and to make the applicable notification.  
22.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
2  NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RELATED TO SAFEGUARD MEASURES 23.  Canada continued to be concerned with th e large number of safeguard measures imposed, 
and requested Members to strictly observe the relevant obligations since safeguard measures were 
unique in the sense that they affected otherwise legitimate trade. 
24.  The US observed that there were 30 safeguard actions reviewed at this meeting, and that 
several Members had in the past raised concerns whether all actions reported could qualify as 
emergency measures and whether the "serious injury" threshold was met. The US requested 
Members to give due consideration to their obligations before imposing a measure.  
25.  Australia noted that the choice of safeguards as a trade remedy instrument was sometimes 
not appropriate. Australia was also concerned regarding the delay in notifications, which in turn 
limited the opportunity for exporters to consult wi th the investigating authority. There were also 
considerable delays between the findings and the decision to impose measures, which called into question the justification of emergency action. 
26.  The EU pointed out that Members needed to be particularly careful because SGs were to be 
used only in exceptional circumstances. 
27.  China was concerned about the increasing trend of the use of SG, some of which seemed to 
be abusive. China understood SG to be a tool of last resort since it affected otherwise legitimate 
trade.  
28.  Japan agreed with the previous speakers. 
                                               
4 These Members were: Angola, Antigua and Barb uda, 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, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Tajikistan, 
Tanzania, Tonga, Vanuatu and Yemen. Seychelles became a Member on 26 April 2015 that is, one day before the meeting, and is not included in the list above. G/SG/M/47 
 
- 5 - 
 
  29.  Chinese Taipei was concerned with the frequent use of this instrument, and reiterated that it 
was to be used only in exceptional circumstances. 
2.1  Armenia - Harvesters and Modules Thereof (G/SG/N/6/ARM/1–G/SG/N/8/ARM/1–
G/SG/N/10/ARM/1–G/SG/N/11/ARM/1) 
30.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 
2.2  Armenia - Tableware and Kitche nware of Porcelain (G/SG/N/6/ARM/2–
G/SG/N/8/ARM/2–G/SG/N/10/ARM/2–G/SG/N/11/ARM/2) 
31.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 
2.3  Colombia - Bars and Rods of Lo w-carbon Steel (G/SG/N/6/COL/4/Suppl.1–
G/SG/N/14/COL/1) 
32.  Mexico had a problem with how Colombia proceeded. Mexico was of the view that the 
measure had expired before the review began, and such status of the measure could not be 
changed by the review.   
33.  Colombia stated that it woul d consult with Mexico bilaterally. 
2.4  Costa Rica - Pounded Rice (G/SG/N/8/CRI/1–G/SG/N/10/CRI/1–
G/SG/N/11/CRI/1 and G/SG/N/8/CRI/1/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/10/CRI/1/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/11/CRI/1/Suppl.1) 
34.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 
2.5  Ecuador - Wood and Bamboo Flooring and Accessories Thereo f (G/SG/N/7/ECU/3 
and G/SG/N/7/ECU/3/Suppl.1) 
35.  Ecuador first recapped in detail the notifications leading up to the latest notification and then 
explained the content of the latest notification.  36.  Peru was concerned with this measure. It was of the view that the relevant rules were not 
followed, including the determination of unforeseen developments, increased imports and injury. It 
asked that the measure be removed and the investigation be terminated.   
2.6  Egypt – Automotive Batteries (G/SG/N/6/EGY/11) 37.  After recalling that it had been participating in the process as an interested party, Turkey 
explained its views that it was doubtful as to the existence of increased imports and causal link. It 
asked that the investigation be terminated. 
38.  The EU found the investigation problematic fo r reasons of transparency as well as substance. 
It noted that the actual figures were not disclosed, and pointed out that in such a case indexed 
figures needed to be provided in a non-confid ential summary. The EU had asked for such non-
confidential summary, but did not receive it. The EU also doubted whether there were increased 
imports or causal link with serious injury. It also noted that the figures cited in the notification 
were too old.   
39.  Chinese Taipei pointed out that its exports of  the product to Egypt accounted for less than 3% 
of the total imports, so exports from Chinese Taipei should be exempted from the measure.  
40.  Egypt explained that the investigation was still ongoing and that it would take into account all 
the points raised by the interested parties.  G/SG/M/47 
 
- 6 - 
 
  2.7  Egypt – Steel Rebar (G/SG/N/8/EGY/7-G/SG/N/10/EGY/7-
G/SG/N/11/EGY/8/Suppl.1) 
41.  The Chair explained that written questions had been received from Ukraine in document 
G/SG/Q2/EGY/14. 
42.  Egypt explained that it was still pr eparing responses to Ukraine's questions. 
43.  Ukraine made three points. First, it recalled that Egypt had earlier imposed a provisional 
SG measure on this product. That provisional measure expired without a final measure on 
19 June 2013. The duration of the provisional me asure was 200 days. According to Article 7.5, a 
SG measure cannot be applied to the same produc t for 2 years. Notwithstanding this provision, 
Egypt notified the imposition of a new provisional measure on 14 October 2014. Second, the notification of the provisional measure was subm itted on 15 April 2015, while it was apparently 
imposed at the same time. Ukraine asked how this could be consistent with the obligation in 
Article 12.4 that notification shall be made "befor e" taking a provisional measure. Third, referring 
to the findings in the Appellate Body report in Argentina – Footwear , Ukraine asked how Egypt 
could have made the relevant determinations when it apparently imposed the provisional measure 
on the same day as it initiated the investigation. In conclusion, Ukraine asked that Egypt remove the measure and terminate the investigation.   
44.  Turkey observed that Egypt had earlier initiated an anti-dumping investigation on the same 
product, although it was terminated. Egypt then initiated an earlier SG investigation, imposed a 
provisional duty, and then terminated it. And now Egypt initiated another SG investigation and imposed a provisional measure. In Turkey's view, that was inconsistent with the SG Agreement.  
45.  The EU noted that the main increase of imports came from Ukraine and Turkey. The EU 
doubted whether SG was the appropriate instrument to use in such circumstances. The EU made 
three more points. First, the increase of imports was not recent, sharp or significant enough. 
Second, the base year of 2011 was not appropriate, since 2011 was exceptional due to deep 
political events. Third, the determinations regarding injury and causal link were not adequate.  
2.8  Egypt – White Sugar (G/SG/N/6/EGY/12-G/SG/N/7/EGY/10-G/SG/N/11/EGY/9) 
46.  The US observed that Egypt had initiated a SG investigation on a similar product and then 
terminated the investigation citing the reason that the serious injury was caused by reasons other 
than the increased imports. Egypt then initiated the current investigation and promptly imposed a provisional measure. The US asked what change d between those two events, particularly given 
that the major indicators for the domestic industry were in fact good. It asked whether the "other 
reasons" that the first investigation referred to were not still in play.   
47.  The EU was a major exporter of this product, and registered its deep concern. Like the US, it 
wondered what the difference was, compared to the first investigation that was terminated.  
48.  Egypt explained that the product involved in the first investigation was not the same as the 
one currently under investigation. The investigation was ongoing, and Egypt welcomed comments.    
2.9  India - Slabstock Polyol of Mole cular Weight 3000 to 4000 (G/SG/N/9/IND/13) 
49.  The EU had comments on India's investigations in general. EU was concerned with the 
frequency with which India initiated SG investigations. The EU noted that of the most recent ten 
trade remedy investigations by India, seven were SG investigations. The EU was also of the view 
that determinations regarding increased imports, injury and causal relationship were not adequate. 
The EU asked India to review the way it was using the SG instrument.  
2.10  India - Sodium Di-Chromate (G/SG/N/9/IND/14) 
50.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  G/SG/M/47 
 
- 7 - 
 
  2.11  India - Saturated Fatty Alcohols (G/SG/N/8/IND/26/Suppl.1–
G/SG/N/10/IND/17/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/11/IND/12/Suppl.1 and G/SG/N/8/IND/26/Suppl.2–G/SG/N/10/IND/17/Suppl.2–G/SG/N/11/IND/12/Suppl.2) 
51.  Indonesia saw several problems with this investigation. First, it was inconsistent with 
Article 3.1 of the Agreement because the report did not contain reasoned conclusions reached on 
all pertinent issues of fact and law. Second, it  was inconsistent with Article 4.2(a) of the 
Agreement because the investigation did not analyse all relevant factors. Third, India failed to 
examine the issues that Indonesia had raised in its submissions. Fourth, in short, India simply 
relied on the data submitted by the petitioners. Fifth, the period of investigation was flawed, and thus contaminated the analysis. Sixth, the injury  determination was not accurate. Seventh, India 
did not analyse unforeseen developments. Eighth, India brought certain data into the analysis 
without letting Indonesia comment. For these reasons, Indonesia believed that there was no legal basis for the measure, and asked that it be terminated. 
52.  India explained that all pertinent information could be found in the notification, and asked that 
Indonesia submit questions in writing, since it was difficult to respond on the spot. 
2.12  India - Cold Rolled Flat Products of Stainless Steel of Chro mium Type, 400 Series 
(G/SG/N/6/IND/40 and G/SG/N/9/IND/15) 
53.  Japan welcomed the termination of the investigation without measures, but it raised concerns 
regarding the frequent use of the SG instrument by India.  2.13  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) 
54.  The Chair stated that questions regarding th is investigation had been left unanswered, but 
that responses had recently been submitted in documents G/SG/Q2/IND/17, G/SG/Q2/IND/18 and 
G/SG/Q2/IND/19.  
55.  The Russian Federation was of the view that th e analysis on injury and causal relationship in 
this investigation was not adequate.  
56.  The EU had problems with this investigation, and recalled that it had originally asked that the 
investigation be terminated without measures. The EU was of the view that this measure was 
inconsistent with the Agreement on several accounts, including inadequate determinations of 
increase of imports and injury. The EU asked that this measure be repealed. 
57.  Japan stated that it was not satisfied with the written responses. Japan was of the view that 
this measure was inconsistent with the Agreement, and asked that it be withdrawn. 
58.  India stated that if doubts still remained  after its responses, India would welcome such 
questions in writing. 
2.14  Indonesia - I and H Sections of Ot her Alloy Steel (G/SG/N/8/IDN/17/Suppl.1–
G/SG/N/10/IDN/17/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/11/IDN/15) 
59.  The EU stated that Indonesia should use country-specific trade remedy measures rather than 
SG. This observation applied not only to this specific case but also to other investigations 
conducted by Indonesia. In addition, the EU asked Indonesia to strictly abide by the disciplines of 
the Agreement.   
60.  Regarding the choice of instrument, Indonesia replied that it was simply reacting to the 
application from the industry. G/SG/M/47 
 
- 8 - 
 
  2.15  Indonesia - Bars and Rods, Hot-Rolled, in Irregularity Wound Coils, of Iron or Non-
Alloy Steel or of Other Alloy Steel  (G/SG/N/8/IDN/18–G/SG/N/10/IDN/18) 
61.  Before commenting on the specific investigation, Japan expressed concern that Indonesia was 
resorting to the SG instrument too frequently. In addition, Japan asked Indonesia to strictly abide 
by the disciplines of the Agreement. Regarding the specific investigation, Japan noted that the 
product under investigation was an essential input into Indonesia's manufacturers, and more importantly, was not competing with domestic products. Japan was disappointed that Indonesia 
did not agree to Japan's assertion that such prod uct should not be covered by the measure. This 
measure would simply hurt the domestic industry.  
2.16  Jordan - Bars and Rods of Ir on and Steel (G/SG/N/11/JOR/4/Suppl.3) 
62.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
2.17  Kyrgyz Republic – Wheat Flour (G/SG/N/8/KGZ/2-G/SG/N/10/KGZ/2/Suppl.1) 
63.  The Chair stated that follow-up questions re garding this investigation were submitted from 
the US in document G/SG/Q2/KGZ/3.  
64.  Kyrgyz Republic was not represented in the room, and the US stated that it was looking 
forward to the responses. 
2.18  Malaysia - Hot-Rolled Steel Pl ate (G/SG/N/7/MYS/1–G/SG/N/11/MYS/1) 
65.  The EU had concerns with this investigation, and asked Malaysia to strictly abide by the 
disciplines of the Agreement.   
66.  Japan had serious doubts with this measure. First, Malaysia did not analyse data for the entire 
industry. Second, its preliminary determination did not include sufficient evidence. Third, the injury 
determination was flawed. Fourth, the determination of causal link was not adequate. Japan 
therefore asked that the provisional measure be withdrawn. Japan also asked when the decision 
regarding any final measure was expected.   
67.  Ukraine had several concerns with this provisional measure. First, the determination regarding 
increase of import was inadequate. Second, the market data used in the preliminary determination 
was not recent enough. Third, there was no inju ry, and even if there was injury, there was no 
causal link with imports. Ukraine therefore asked that the provisional measure be withdrawn.  
68.  Malaysia asked that the questions be submi tted in writing. As for schedule, the decision 
regarding final measure would be taken on 1 July 2015.  
2.19  Morocco - Cold-Rolled Sheets and Pl ated or Coated Sheets (G/SG/N/7/MAR/3–
G/SG/N/11/MAR/3) 
69.  The EU was generally concerned with Morocco's increased use of SG, and asked Morocco to 
strictly abide by the disciplines of the Agreement. Regarding this investigation, the EU had made 
three submissions to Morocco. The EU was particularly concerned that Morocco was including 
imports into its free trade zone as "imports". Due to the parallelism requirement, that was inappropriate. The EU asked Morocco to terminate the investigation without imposing a final 
measure.   
70.  Morocco explained that it was not that the en tirety of the imports into its free trade zone was 
counted as "imports". Only products brought into the rest of the country from the free trade zone 
was counted as imports. Morocco reiterated that the investigation was still ongoing.  
2.20  Philippines - Galvanized Iron and Pre- painted Sheets and Coils (G/SG/N/9/PHL/2 
and G/SG/N/9/PHL/2/Corr.1)  
71.  Australia welcomed the termination of the investigation.  G/SG/M/47 
 
- 9 - 
 
  2.21  Philippines - Steel Angle Bars (G/SG/N/6/PHL/7/Suppl.2) 
72.  Chinese Taipei was concerned with the delay in the notification. It also asked that 
consultations be held adequately. 73.  The Philippines took note of the statement of  Chinese Taipei and added that the product under 
investigation was not subject to a bound rate. At any rate, the investigation was ongoing.  
2.22  Philippines – Newsprint (G/SG/N/6/PHL/9/Suppl.3) 74.  The EU believed that there were serious flaws in the investigation. In addition, the EU noted 
that the domestic users of this product opposed this investigation.    
75.  The Philippines took note of the statement and reiterated that the investigation was ongoing.  
2.23  Russian Federation - Pipes and Tu bes of Stainless St eel (G/SG/N/6/RUS/4–
G/SG/N/8/RUS/3–G/SG/N/10/RUS/3–G/SG/N/11/RUS/3) 
76.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 
2.24  Thailand - Non-Alloy Hot Rolled Steel Flat Products (G/SG/N/8/THA/3–
G/SG/N/10/THA/3–G/SG/N/11/THA/4) 
77.  Turkey had concerns with this investigation. First, Turkey should have been excluded from the 
measure by virtue of Article 9.1. Second, the peri od analysed to determine injury was artificially 
short. Third, while the petitioners cited the fa ct that exporters were circumventing an anti-
dumping measure on a similar product as the reason for asking for the imposition of a 
SG measure, that was not the purpose of a SG measure.  
78.  The Russian Federation pointed to the fact that the Thai authority determined "unforeseen 
developments" by a global economic slowdown. The global economy always has ups and downs, 
and so global economic slowdown could not be deemed as an unforeseen development. In 
addition, product coverage was not proper. Products that the Thai domestic industry did not produce and products that did not compete with domestic products were included in the measure.  
79.  Japan noted that Thailand excluded certain products from the measure due to negative impact 
on the users of the subject product. But in Japa n's view, more products needed to have been 
excluded for the same reason. In addition, Japan saw three more legal issues: first, the 
Thai authority had not properly determined the "unforeseen developments". Second, there was no 
serious injury. Nor was there causal relationship with imports. In light of this, Japan asked Thailand to withdraw the measure.  
80.  Thailand explained that they had heard th ose comments in the proceeding, and that it had 
considered those issues, including product cove rage. To Turkey, Thailand explained that the 
coverage of the anti-dumping duty was different from the coverage of this SG measure. To Japan, it explained that Thailand considered public interest very seriously.    
2.25  Thailand - Hot Rolled Steel Flat Produc ts with Certain Amounts Alloying Elements 
(G/SG/N/10/THA/2/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/11/THA/2/Suppl.3) 
81.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 
2.26  Turkey - Wallpaper and Simila r Wallcoverings (G/SG/N/6/TUR/20) 
82.  The Republic of Korea stated that there were no unforeseen developments, nor injury. 
Therefore, the investigation should be terminated without any measure.   83.  The EU saw several problems with this investigation. First, a non-confidential summary was 
not produced. In addition, there was no serious injury, nor causal link with imports. The EU was of G/SG/M/47 
 
- 10 - 
 
  the view that this investigation should not have been initiated to begin with, and thus asked that it 
be terminated.   
84.  Turkey replied that it would address th e comments of Korea and the EU in the final 
determination.  
2.27  Turkey - Transmission Apparatus Inco rporating Reception A pparatus (Cellular) 
Portable Telephone (G/SG/N/6/TUR/19) 
85.  The Republic of Korea was of the view that this investigation should not have been initiated. 
First, there was no import surge. Second, there was neither injury nor threat of injury. Third, there 
was no causal link with imports. Korea asked that the investigation be terminated.  
86.  The US agreed with Korea, urged Turkey to give due consideration to the arguments made by 
interested parties, and asked Turkey to make a final determination that is consistent with the 
Agreement. 
87.  Chinese Taipei agreed with Korea and the US.  
88.  Viet Nam was also concerned with this invest igation. There was no import surge, there was no 
serious injury, and there was no causal link with imports. Viet Nam asked that the investigation be 
terminated.  
89.  China was of the view that this investigat ion violated the SG Agreement. First, what the 
authority treated as domestic industry was wrong. These companies started production only 
in 2013. Second, there was no import surge. Third, the petitioners had a good performance, and so there could not be serious injury. Fourth, ther e were no unforeseen developments. Finally, such 
move was contrary to the spirit of the WTO Information Technology Agreement. China asked that 
this investigation be terminated without any measure.   
90.  The EU had systemic concerns with this investigation. To begin with, there was no domestic 
industry. The applicants had just started producti on. In addition, there was no import surge, and 
in fact imports had declined. In addition, there was neither injury nor causal link.  
91.  Turkey explained that the investigation was still ongoing and assured Members that it would 
conduct the investigation in accordance with the Agreement.   
2.28  Ukraine - Motor Cars (G/SG/N/8/UKR/3/Suppl.2–G/SG/N/10/UKR/3/Suppl.3–
G/SG/N/11/UKR/1/Suppl.2) 
92.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 2.29   Ukraine – Casing and Pump -Compressor Seamless Steel Pipes 
(G/SG/N/8/UKR/1/Suppl.4-G/S G/N/14/UKR/1/Suppl.3 and 
G/SG/N/8/UKR/1/Suppl.5-G/SG/N/14/UKR/1/Suppl.4) 
93.  The Russian Federation was of the view that there were several procedural deficiencies in how 
Ukraine was proceeding. It recalled that the Ukrainian authority decided on 29 September 2014 to 
extend the measure. This was just one day before  the end date of the original measure. Ukraine 
then submitted a notification on 30 March 2015 that  the measure would be extended again. This 
was one day before the end date of the existing me asure. Ukraine violated Article 21.3, since it did 
not offer consultations with Russia. In addition, Russia noted that the quota was not filled. Thus, whatever injury existed, that could not be caused  by imports. Further, the analysis regarding the 
continued injury was not adequate. Factors such as world oil prices were not relevant. Russia 
asked that the measure not be extended.  
94.  Ukraine asked that questions be submitted in writing.  G/SG/M/47 
 
- 11 - 
 
  2.30  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) 
95.  The Chair stated that Egypt had posed questions regarding this investigation in document 
G/SG/Q2/UKR/1.  
96.  Ukraine explained the responses submitted three days before the meeting.5   
97.  Egypt stated that it would consider the responses. 
98.  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 
18 May 2015. Written responses to questions, including questions submitted in writing prior to this meeting, should be submitted to the Secretariat no later than 8 June 2015. As with legislative notifications, any unanswered questions would be indicated in the draft annotated agenda of the 
next meeting. 
99.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
3  Information on Timing of Notifi cations (Item requested by Japan) 
100.  Japan reiterated the importance of timely notifications, and recalled that Article 12.1 of the 
Agreement obliged Members to "immediately notify" re levant notifications. In this context, Japan 
recalled that at the Committee meeting of Octobe r 2014, it had suggested that the Secretariat 
produce a compilation of the timelines of Member's notifications. After the meeting, Japan received 
comments from many Members regarding the idea. As a result, Japan now proposed that the date when a particular notification was submitted be indicated in the relevant annex of the annual report of the Committee.  
101.  The delegations of the US, Australia, EU, Mexico, Norway, Chinese Taipei, Korea, Singapore 
and Canada expressed support of the idea. Australia and Canada also wished to discuss other ways 
to further improve transparency regarding notifi cations. Australia suggested that the relevant 
annex should also include the date of decision and the date of imposition of a measure. No 
delegation raised concerns. 
102.  The Chair noted wide support for Japan's idea. She would consult with the Secretariat as to 
how exactly to amend the annexes of the annual report. As for other ways to improve 
transparency, she invited discussions to continue under the incoming chair. 
4  Continued Non-Notification of Safeguard Measures by the Russian Federation (Item 
requested by the US) 
103.  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. At the 
April 2014 meeting, Russia explained that it had no obligation to notify these measures given they 
did not meet the WTO "serious injury" standards. Russia repeated this view in the October 2014 meeting. The US could not agree to this position of Russia. The US raised paragraph 620 of Russia's Accession Working Party Report to suppor t its view. Article 12.7 of the Agreement also 
supported the US view. Since all of the measures referred to above were in force when the 
Agreement came into force for Russia, it was under the obligation to notify them. The US asked when Russia would make such notifications. 
104.  The EU, Norway, Australia, Japan, Canada and Chinese Taipei shared the concerns and 
supported the views of the US. 
                                               
5 Circulated in G/SG/Q2/UKR/2.  G/SG/M/47 
 
- 12 - 
 
  105.  The Russian Federation was disappointed that some Members continued to express concerns 
regarding non-notification by Russia of some investigations and measures that existed at the time 
of Russia's accession, but had been introduced prior to accession. Russia was of the view that it had acted in full conformity with its WTO obligations. Russia had already clarified its position and 
had provided facts in support of its views, at official WTO meetings and in bilateral meetings. 
Russia added that transparency should be universal. If the logic of those Members were correct, some Members should have notified their measures applied against Russia before Russia's 
accession that were in place on the date of accession. There had not been such notifications. 
Finally, Russia recalled that the Russian measures at issue had expired in 2013 and 2014.   
106.  The US stated that it could not agree with Russia's logic, referencing language 
in Articles 12.2, 12.3, and 12.7 of the Agreement, as well as paragraph 620 of the Working 
Party Report. 
107.  The Russian Federation assured Members that it took its transparency obligations seriously. 
108.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
5  DISCUSSION GROUP REGARDING SAFEGUARD PROCEEDINGS 
109.  The Chair explained that this item was placed on the agenda at the request of the 
delegations of Australia, Canada, the EU, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Norway, Chinese Taipei, 
Singapore and the US. 
110.  The US reminded Members that the inform al discussion group meeting would take place 
after the present meeting. The discussion was open  to all Members. The US recalled that this 
discussion group evolved from a paper submitted to the Committee in October 2012. The 
first discussion group was held in April 2013 and was widely attended by user as well as non-user 
Members. Since then, two more discussion groups had taken place. The idea behind this discussion group was to provide a broader perspective than the one in normal Committee meetings, removed 
from discussions of individual cases, and to focu s more on each other's experiences and to learn 
from each other. The topic for that day's discussion  was: (1) the rate and amount of the increase 
in imports of the subject merchandis e and (2) unforeseen developments.  
111.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
6  OTHER BUSINESS 
6.1  Statement regarding an investigation by Morocco – Item requested by Turkey 
112.  Turkey referred to an investigation by Morocco on wire rods and rebar. On 10 October 2012, 
Morocco notified the initiation of investigation on the product, and on May 2013 it notified the 
imposition of a provisional measure on the product. In that notification, Turkey was excluded from the measure by virtue of Article 9.1 of the Agreement. However, on 20 May 2014 Morocco notified 
a revised list of Members excluded from the meas ure. In that notification, Turkey was removed 
from the list, that is, was re-included into the meas ure. In Turkey's view, this turn of events was 
equivalent to imposing a measure without proper determination. Turkey objected to such action. 
113.   Morocco stated that Turkey was indeed exempted from the measure initially insofar as 
imports from Turkey represented less than 3% of the total imports. However, after the application 
of the measure, it was found that imports from Turkey exceeded the 3% threshold, and accordingly Turkey was included into the meas ure. Morocco noted that the Agreement did not 
specify the base period to calculate the 3% thresh old provided for in Article 9.1 of the Agreement. 
Thus, Morocco understood that its practice of continuous updating the list of exempted developing countries whenever a country exceeded the 3% threshold was not inconsistent with the 
Agreement.  
6.2  Statement regarding an investigation by Indonesia – Item requested by Japan 
114.  Japan referred to an investigation by Indonesia regarding coated paper and paperboard. 
Japan noted that Indonesia issued essential facts to the interested parties in February 2015 and G/SG/M/47 
 
- 13 - 
 
  subsequently held a hearing in March 2015. Japan had serious doubts about this investigation. 
First, there were no unforeseen developments. Se cond, there was no injury. Third, there was no 
causal link with imports. Japan also wished to be informed of the schedule of the remaining part of the investigation.  
115.  Indonesia stated that the investigation was still ongoing, and that the investigating authority 
was analysing all relevant facts in accordance with the Agreement. Japan would be informed of 
future developments.  
116.  The Committee took note of the statements made. 
7  DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING 
117.  The Chair suggested that the Committee meet  in the week of 26 October 2015. The exact 
date would be confirmed in due course. 
118.  The Committee so decided. 
8  ELECTION OF OFFICERS 
119.  The Chair stated that the chair of the Counc il for Trade in Goods had carried out informal 
consultations on the nomination of chairs for the different bodies operating under the auspices of 
the Council for Trade in Goods. The proposed nominations were taken note of by the Council for Trade in Goods. Concerning this Committee, the ch air of the Council for Trade in Goods proposed 
the nomination of Mr Victor Echevarria Ugarte. She therefore proposed that the Committee elect 
Mr Victor Echevarria Ugarte as Chair.  
120.  The Committee so decided. 
121.  Regarding the position of Vice-Chair of the Committee, the Chair stated that she had 
conducted consultations with a number of Members,  and on the basis of those consultations she 
proposed that the Committee elect Mr Navamin Chatarayamontri of Thailand as Vice-Chair of the Committee.  
122.  The outgoing Chair thanked the Members and the Secretariat for their cooperation and 
support during her chairmanship. 
123.  The Committee so decided. 
__________