RESTRICTED  
  
G/SG/M/50  
 
14 March 2017  
(17-1467) Page: 1/14 
Committee on Safeguar ds  
 
MINUTES OF THE REGUL AR MEETING  
HELD ON 24 OCTOBER 2 016 
CHAIRPERSON: MR YUSO NG CHEN  (CHINA)  
1.  The Committee on Safeguards (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 24 October 2016.  
2.  The Committee adopted the following agenda:  
1   NATIONAL LEGISLATION ................................ ................................ .............................  3 
1.1   Kazakhstan – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/SG/N/1/KAZ/Rev.1)  ......................  3 
1.2   Kuwait, the State of – Review of New Legislative Notification 
(G/SG/N/1/KWT/1/Suppl.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 3 
1.3   Qatar – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/SG/N/1/QAT/3 /Suppl.1)  .........................  3 
1.4   Russian Federation – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/SG/N/1/RUS/2)  ..................  3 
1.5   Vanuatu – Review of New Legislative Notification  (G/SG/N/1/VUT/1)  ................................ . 3 
1.6   Cameroon – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications 
(G/SG/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1) ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 3 
1.7   Dominican Republic – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications 
(G/SG/N/1/DOM/2/Suppl.2)  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 3 
1.8   Bahrain, Kingdom of; Oman; and Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of – Continuing Review of 
Previou sly Reviewed Notifications (G/SG/N/1/BHR/3/Suppl.1, G/SG/N/1/OMN/3/Suppl.1 
and G/SG/N/1/SAU/2/Suppl.1)  ................................ ................................ .............................  4 
1.9   Kyrgyz Republic – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed (G/SG/N/1/KGZ/2)  ................  4 
2   NOTIFICATIONS OF ACT IONS RELATED TO SAFE GUARD MEASURES  ...........................  4 
2.1   Chile – Steel Wire (G/SG/N/9/CHL/9)  ................................ ................................ .............  5 
2.2   Chile – Steel Nails (G/SG/N/9/CHL/10) ................................ ................................ ...........  5 
2.3   Chile – Steel Mesh (G/SG/N/9/CHL/11)  ................................ ................................ ..........  5 
2.4   Chile – Steel Wire Rod (G/SG/N/8/CHL/7/Suppl.1 -G/SG/N/10/CHL/9/Suppl.1 -
G/SG/N/11/CHL/10/Suppl.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................  5 
2.5   China – Sugar (G/SG/N/6/CHN/2)  ................................ ................................ .................  5 
2.6   Egypt – Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) (G/SG/N/9/EGY/2)  ................................ ...........  5 
2.7   Egypt – White Sugar (G/SG/N/6/EGY/12/Suppl.1 –G/SG/N/7/EGY/10/Suppl.1 –
G/SG/N/11/EGY/9/Suppl.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 5 
2.8   India - Hot-Rolled Flat Sheets and Plates of Alloy or Non -Alloy Steel Having Nominal 
Thickness Less Than or Equal to 150 mm and Nominal Width of Greater Than or Equal to 
600 mm  (G/SG/N/8/IND/3 0-G/SG/N/10/IND/21 -G/SG/N/11/IND/16 and its 
corrigendum)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  6 
2.9   India – Unwrought Aluminium (G/SG/N/6/IND/43 and its corrigendum, and 
G/SG/N/8/IND/29 -G/SG/N/10/IND/20 -G/SG/N/11/IND/15 and its  corrigendum)  ........................  6 G/SG/M/50  
 
- 2 - 
 
  2.10   Indonesia - Dextrose Monohydrate (G/SG/N/9/IDN/10)  ................................ ..................  6 
2.11   Jordan - Aluminium Bars, Rods and Profiles (G /SG/N/6/JOR/18, G/SG/N/7/JOR/2 –
G/SG/N/8/JOR/10 –G/SG/N/11/JOR/6 and G/SG/N/7/JOR/2/Suppl.1 –
G/SG/N/8/JOR/10/Suppl.1 –G/SG/N/11/JOR/6/Suppl.1)  ................................ ...........................  7 
2.12   Kyrgyz Republic – Harvesters and Modules The reof ................................ ........................  7 
2.13   Malaysia - Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars (G/SG/N/6/MYS/4 and 
G/SG/N/7/MYS/2 -G/SG/N/11/MYS/2)  ................................ ................................ ....................  7 
2.14   Malaysia – Steel Wire Rod and Deformed Bar -In-Coil (G/SG/N/6/MYS/5 and 
G/SG/N/7/MYS/3 -G/SG/N/11/MYS/3)  ................................ ................................ ....................  7 
2.15   Morocco - Paper in Rolls and Paper in Reams (G/SG/N/8/MAR/5 –
G/SG/N/10/MAR/5 –G/SG/N/11/MAR/ 5) ................................ ................................ .................  7 
2.16   Morocco – Cold Rolled Sheets in Coils or Cut, and Plated or Coated Sheets 
(G/SG/N/8/MAR/4/Suppl.2 -G/SG/N/10/MAR/4/Suppl.2 -G/SG/N/11/MAR/4/Suppl.2)  ...................  8 
2.17   Philippines – Testliner Board (G/SG/N/8/PHL/8/Suppl.4 –
G/SG/N/10/PHL/7/Suppl.3 –G/SG/N/11/PHL/9/Suppl.4)  ................................ ...........................  8 
2.18   Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of and Others – Flat-Rolled Products of Iron or Non -Alloy 
Steel (G/SG/N/6/ARE/1 –G/SG/N/6/BHR/1 –G/SG/N/6/KWT/1 –G/SG/N/6/OMN/1 –
G/SG/N/6/QAT/1 –G/SG/N/6/SAU/1)  ................................ ................................ .....................  8 
2.19   Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of and Others - Ferro S ilico Manganese (G/SG/N/6/ARE/2 –
G/SG/N/6/BHR/2 –G/SG/N/6/KWT/2 –G/SG/N/6/OMN/2 –G/SG/N/6/QAT/2 –
G/SG/N/6/SAU/2)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  8 
2.20   South Africa – Flat-Rolled Products of Iron or Non -Alloy Steel (G/SG/N/6/ZA F/5) ..............  8 
2.21   South Africa – Certain Flat -Rolled Products of Iron, Non -Alloy Steel or Other Alloy 
(Not Including Stainless Steel)(G/SG/N/8/ZAF/3) ................................ ................................ .... 8 
2.22   Ukraine - Flexible Porous Plates, Blocks and Sheets of Polyurethane Foams 
(G/SG/N/8/UKR/5 –G/SG/N/10/UKR/5 –G/SG/N/11/UKR/3, its corrigendum, and 
G/SG/N/11/UKR/3/Suppl.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 9 
2.23   Ukraine – Tableware and Kitchenware of Porcelain (G/SG/N/11/UKR/2/Suppl.1)  ................  9 
2.24   Viet Nam - Semi-Finished and Certain Finished Products of Alloy and Non -Alloy 
Steel (G/SG/N/8/V NM/3–G/SG/N/10/VNM/2 –G/SG/N/11/VNM/4)  ................................ .............  9 
2.25   Viet Nam - Pre-Painted Galvanized Steel Sheet and Strip (G/SG/N/6/VNM/5)  ....................  9 
2.26   Zambia – Flat–Rolled Products of Iron, Non –Alloy Steel, Trailers and Semi -Trailers  ............  9 
3   HOW MEMBERS HAVE NOT IFIED DEVELOPING COU NTRY MEMBERS 
EXEMPTED FROM A SG M EASURE BY VIRTUE OF ARTICLE 9 .1 ................................ ........  10 
4   CREATION OF A WORKIN G GROUP ON IMPLEMENT ATION (G/SCM/W/567 –
G/SG/W/236 AND G/SCM /W/568 –G/SG/W/237) (ITEM RE QUESTED BY 
BRAZIL)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................  10 
5   ADDITION OF CERTAIN INFORMATION INTO THE  ANNUAL REPORT (ITEM 
REQUESTED BY AUSTRAL IA) ................................ ................................ ..........................  12 
6   SAFEGUARD LEGISLATIO N OF EL SALVADOR (IT EM REQUESTED BY THE 
UNITED  STATES)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  12 
7   DISCUSSION GROUP REG ARDING SAFEGUARD PRO CEEDINGS ................................ .. 13 
8   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 13 
8.1   Statement regarding a SG measure of Turkey – Item requested by Ukraine  ....................... 13 
8.2   Statement regarding a certain measure of the EU – Item requested by the 
Russian  Federation  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 13 
8.3   Statement regarding a SG investigation by Colombia – Item requested by 
Chinese  Taipei  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 14 G/SG/M/50  
 
- 3 - 
 
  8.4   Items that automatically go onto the agenda – Statement by the Chair  ............................. 14 
8.5   Presentation of I -trade and MADRE – Statement by the Chair  ................................ .......... 14 
9   ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRAD E IN GOODS  ................................ ........  14 
10   DATE OF NEXT REGULAR  MEETING  ................................ ................................ ..........  14 
 
1  NATIONAL LEGISLATION  
1.1  Kazakhstan – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/SG/N/1/KA Z/Rev.1) 
3.  The Chair stated that while questions from the US concerning this notification had been 
submitted, the US asked that these questions be discussed in the Anti -Dumping Committee.  
4.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
1.2  Kuwait, the St ate of  – Review of New Legislative No tification 
(G/SG/N/1/KWT/1/Suppl .1) 
5.  There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.  
1.3  Qatar – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/SG/N/1/QAT/3 /Suppl .1) 
6.  There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.  
1.4  Russian Federation – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/SG/N/1/RUS/2)  
7.  The Chair stated that while questions from the US concerning this notification had been 
submitted, the US asked that these questions be discussed in the Anti -Dumping Committee.  
8.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
1.5  Vanuatu – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/SG/N/1/VUT/1)  
9.  There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.  
1.6  Cameroon – Continuing Review of Previously Revie wed Notifications 
(G/SG/N/1/CMR/1/Suppl.1)  
10.  Written questions from the US concerning this notification, contained in document 
G/SG/Q1/CMR/3, were still outstanding.  
11.  Cameroon  stated that it was contact ing the US bilaterally.  
12.  The US welcomed Cameroon's state ment.  
1.7  Dominican Republic – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Not ifications 
(G/SG/N/1/DOM/2/Suppl .2) 
13.  Written questions from the US concerning this notification had been submitted. The Dominican 
Republic submitted responses shortly after the agenda of  this meeting was closed. The Chair 
stated that the US asked that these documents be discussed in the Anti -Dumping Committee.  
14.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  G/SG/M/50  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.8  Bahrain, Kingdom of; Oman;  and Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of  – Continuing R eview of 
Previously Reviewed Notifications (G/SG/N/1/BHR/3/Suppl.1, 
G/SG/N/1/OMN/3/Suppl.1 and G/SG/N/1/SAU/2/Suppl .1) 
15.  The Chair stated that while the US had submitted follow -up questions on this notification, the 
US asked that this document be discussed i n the Anti -Dumping Committee.  
16.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
1.9   Kyrgyz Republic – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed (G/SG/N/1/KGZ/2)  
17.  Written questions from the US concerning this notification had been submitted, and the 
Kyrgyz Republic  had submitted responses. The Chair stated that the US asked that these 
documents be discussed in the Anti -Dumping Committee.  
18.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
19.  The Chair recalled that the deadline for written question s concerning any legislation reviewed 
at this meeting was 14 November 2016. The deadline for written answers to all written questions, 
including questions submitted in writing prior to this meeting, was 5 December 2016.  
20.  The Chair informed the Committee tha t 22 Members had not yet made a legislative 
notification.1 This notification was one of the important obligations of the Safeguards Agreement 
("Agreement"). Members that did not yet have legislation need only submit a simple "nil" 
notification.  
21.  The US thanked the Chair for his efforts to encourage legislative notifications and noted that 
an increasing number of Members had made the legislative notifications. At the same time, there 
remained a number of countries that had not made such notifications. The US noted that for nearly 
all of those who had not made the notifications, their Trade Policy Review reports indicated 
whether or not they had any safeguard legislation. The US reiterated that notification was simple if 
there was no legislation, and welcomed V anuatu's nil notification submitted to this meeting. The 
US 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  NOTIFIC ATIONS OF ACTIONS RE LATED TO SAFEGUARD M EASURES  
23.  Japan ; Brazil ; Canada ; Australia ; the US; Korea, Republic of ; Separate Customs Territory of 
Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu ("Chinese Taipei"); the EU; and Hong Kong, China  expressed 
concerns regarding the n umber of safeguard ("SG") actions, pointed out the special nature of SG 
instrument in the sense that it affects otherwise legitimate trade, and asked that imposing 
Members restrain their use or consider the choice of instruments, and strictly abide by the 
disciplines in the Agreement.  
24.  Japan ; Brazil ; Australia ; Korea, Republic of ; and the EU also referred to the steel sector as an 
area where many SG actions were taking place, and registered their concerns. Japan  in particular 
stated that there was oversuppl y in the steel sector, and that the deteriorated balance of supply 
and demand was leading to the frequent use of trade remedies in that sector. Australia  explained 
that its Anti -Dumping Commission had earlier publicized a report regarding the impact of tra de 
remedies on Australia's steel sector.      
                                                
1 These Members were: Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Cabo Verde, Central African Republic, 
Democratic  Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Grenada, Guinea -Bissau, Liberia, Mauritania, Mozambique, Niger, 
Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, 
Tajikistan, Tanzania, Tonga and Yemen.  G/SG/M/50  
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.1  Chile – Steel Wire (G/SG/N/9/CHL/9)  
2.2  Chile – Steel Nails (G/SG/N/9/CHL/10)  
2.3  Chile – Steel Mesh (G/SG/N/9/CHL/11)  
25.  Chile asked that the three items of steel wire, steel nails and steel mesh be taken up at the 
same time, and clarified that these were all notifications of termination of investigation without 
imposing any measure.  
26.  Brazil  thanked Chile for the transparency.  
2.4  Chile – Steel Wire Rod (G/SG/N/8/CHL /7/Suppl.1 -G/SG/N/10/CHL/9/Suppl.1 -
G/SG/N/11/CHL/10/Suppl .1) 
27.  Regarding this notification, the US had posed questions in document G/SG/Q2/CHL/11 and 
Chile had submitted response s in document G/SG/Q2/CHL/12.  
28.  The US thanked Chile for the response, but added that the US continued to have concern with 
Chile's practice o f imposing a provisional measure immediately after the initiation of the 
investigation. In the US view, such way of proceeding was inconsistent with the Agreement. The 
US asked Chile to take due care in conducting its investigations.    
2.5  China – Sugar (G/SG /N/6/CHN/2)  
29.  Before explaining about this notification, China  stated that it shared the general concern 
expressed earlier by various Members regarding the number of SG actions seen recently, in 
particular in the steel sector. Regarding this notification, Ch ina stated that it was well aware of the 
attention it drew. China had not embarked on a SG investigation for a long time, and was willing to 
learn from the good practices of various user Members. It also stressed that the notification of 
initiation was mad e on the very same day as the actual initiation.  
30.   Australia  commended China for the prompt notification. Australia explained that it was one of 
the major exporters of sugar, and asked whether a hearing would be held.  
31.  Korea  was concerned with the investiga tion, and asked China to fully abide by the rules.  
32.  Being a major exporter of sugar, Brazil  was concerned with the investigation. It reminded 
China that SG was an extraordinary instrument to be used cautiously. Brazil wondered whether 
China did not have oth er means to deal with the problem.  
33.  China  explained that the hearing would be held around 10 November 2016. China assured 
Members that it would abide by the relevant rules.  
2.6  Egypt – Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) (G/SG/N/9/EGY/2)  
34.  The EU, while welcoming t he termination of the investigation without a measure, stated that 
this investigation should not have been initiated to begin with. The EU reminded Members of the 
fact that SG was an exceptional instrument that created uncertainty in the market.  
35.  Korea  welcomed the termination of the investigation, but at the same time asked Egypt to be 
cautious in deciding whether or not to initiate an investigation.  
36.   Egypt  explained that once a petition was filed by the domestic industry, its authority had to 
initiate an investigation.  
2.7  Egypt – White Sugar (G/SG/N/6/EGY/12/Suppl.1 –G/SG/N/7/EGY/10/Suppl.1 –
G/SG/N/11/EGY/9/Suppl .1) 
37.  There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.  G/SG/M/50  
 
- 6 - 
 
  2.8  India - Hot-Rolled Flat Sheets and Plates of Alloy or Non -Alloy Steel Having Nomi nal 
Thickness Less Than or Equal to 150 mm and Nominal Width of Greater Than or Equal to 
600 mm  (G/SG/N/8/IND/30 -G/SG/N/10/IND/21 -G/SG/N/11/IND/16 and its 
corrigendum)  
38.  Regarding this notification, questions had been posed by Ukraine in document 
G/SG/Q2/IN D/23, and by the US in document G/SG/Q2/IND/24 and its corrigendum.  
39.  India stated that it would respon d to the questions2 but meanwhile details could be found in 
its final findings. Regarding question 5 of the US, asking how India identified the developing 
country Members that were exempt from the particular measure, India explained that the list of 
developing countries for the purpose of SG investigations was published in the website of the 
Central Board of Excise and Customs on 5 February 2016. It also sta ted that for further clarity and 
to address the concern of the US, India would either provide a link to that notification or attach the 
notification itself in its future notifications to the WTO.    
40.  Ukraine  had serious concern with India's practice of usin g forecasts as a basis of making 
findings. In addition, Ukraine noted that this measure was to be imposed while another SG 
measure on hot -rolled products, that is the one on coils, was still in effect. Finally, Ukraine asked 
India to clarify the exact timi ng when the measure would come into force.   
41.  The US thanked India for the explanation.  
42.  Korea  was disappointed that India continued to impose SG measures on various steel 
products. It reminded India that SG was an exceptional instrument to be used with cau tion.  
43.  Japan regretted the Indian authority's decision to propose imposition of a SG measure. In its 
view, this investigation violated GATT Article XIX:1(a) by not demonstrating that the increased 
import occurred as a result of unforeseen developments and of the effect of the obligations under 
GATT 1994, and India should not impose a final measure. Japan understood that this measure 
would not only harm the exporters but also India's domestic users of the product. Japan also 
stated that in its view, India's SG measure on another steel product, namely, hot -rolled flat 
products of non -alloy and other alloy steel in coils, was also  inconsistent with GATT 
Article  XIX:1(a) for the same reason. Japan noted that India was resorting to SG actions very 
often, and tend ed to be abusive of the instrument. Japan pointed out that SG was an exceptional 
instrument and asked India to strictly abide by the rules.     
44.  India stated that regarding details, it would respond in due course.  
2.9  India – Unwrought Aluminium (G/SG/N/6/IND/ 43 and its corrigendum, and 
G/SG/N/8/IND/29 -G/SG/N/10/IND/20 -G/SG/N/11/IND/15 and its corrigendum)  
45.  Referring to questions posed by the US in document G/SG/Q2/IND/22, India stated that it had 
explained its responses under the previous agenda item.  
46.  The US looked forward to the written responses.  
47.  The EU was concerned with this investigation. There did not seem to be any serious injury or 
surge of imports. In addition, the price of the subject product was merely following the 
international price. In EU's view,  the problem seemed to lie not in imports but in structural 
inefficiency of the industry. The EU asked India to make a careful analysis.  
48.  India stated that the investigation process was still ongoing.   
2.10  Indonesia - Dextrose Monohydrate (G/SG/N/9/IDN/10)  
49.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
                                                
2 Responses were subsequently  circulated in documents G/SG/Q2/IND/25 and G/SG/Q 2/IND/26.  G/SG/M/50  
 
- 7 - 
 
  2.11  Jordan - Aluminium Bars, Rods and Profiles (G/SG/N/6/JOR/18, 
G/SG/N/7/JOR/2 –G/SG/N/8/JOR/10 –G/SG/N/11/JOR/6 and 
G/SG/N /7/JOR/2/Suppl.1 –G/SG/N/8/JOR/10/Suppl.1 –G/SG/N/11/JOR/6/Suppl .1) 
50.  The US and Jord an had exchanged two rounds of written questions and answers on this 
notification in documents G/SG/Q2/JOR/6, G/SG/Q2/JOR/7, G/SG/Q2/JOR/8 and G/SG/Q2/JOR/9.  
51.  After thanking Jordan for its responses, the US stated that it had recently sent to Jordan one 
further question.   
2.12  Kyrgyz Republic – Harvesters and Modules Thereof  
52.  This item related to responses provided by the Kyrgyz Republic, contained in document 
G/SG/Q2/KGZ/5, responding to questions posed by the US before the spring 2016 meeting 
regarding the Kyrg yz Republic's notification G/SG/N/6/KGZ/5 -G/SG/N/8/KGZ/3 -
G/SG/N/10/KGZ/3 -G/SG/N/11/KGZ/1.  
53.  The Kyrgyz Republic  explained that the measure had already run its course and expired, but it 
nonetheless provided responses to the US questions.  
54.  The US thanked the Kyrgyz Republic for the responses.  
2.13  Malaysia - Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars (G/SG/N/6/MYS/4 and 
G/SG/N/7/MYS/2 -G/SG/N/11/MYS/2)  
55.  Japan regretted the initiation of this investigation and the imposition of a provisional measure. 
In Japan's view, Malaysia's  actions were inconsistent especially with GATT Article XIX:1(a). Japan 
asked Malaysia to abide by the rules.  
56.  Malaysia  stated that it would discuss bilaterally with Japan.  
2.14  Malaysia – Steel Wire Rod and Deformed Bar -In-Coil (G/SG/N/6/MYS/5 and 
G/SG/N/7/MYS /3-G/SG/N/11/MYS/3)  
57.  Japan regretted the initiation of this investigation and the imposition of a provisional measure. 
In Japan's view, Malaysia's actions were inconsistent especially with GATT Article XIX:1(a). Japan 
asked Malaysia to abide by the rules.  
58.  The EU saw two problems with this investigation. First, the choice of instrument was bad. 
Exports from only two countries, which accounted for 85% of Malaysia's entire import of the 
subject product, were the source of the problem. Malaysia should have opted  for an anti -dumping 
measure. Second, there was a problem with the right of defence. A non-confidential summary was 
not provided. The EU asked that the investigation and the provisional measure be terminated.  
59.  Brazil  was concerned with this investigation, p articularly because the timing for interested 
parties to identify themselves was unreasonably short. Brazil enquire d how Malaysia applied 
Article  9.1 of the Agreement. Brazil was ready to consult with Malaysia bilaterally.  
60.  Korea  saw several problems with this investigation: (i) the investigation did not identify like 
products properly (ii) there was no serious injury, and (iii) any injury that existed was self -inflicted 
since the domestic industry themselves imported the subject product.   
61.  Malaysia  stated that it preferred to discuss bilaterally.   
2.15  Morocco - Paper in Rolls and Paper in Reams (G/SG/N/8/MAR/5 –
G/SG/N/10/MAR/5 –G/SG/N/11/MAR/5)  
62.  The US had a question that related to both this notification as well as the investigation taken 
up as the next agenda i tem. The US noted that in both cases , the timing of the introduction of the 
measure was indicated as "the date of publication of the joint order imposing the measure". The G/SG/M/50  
 
- 8 - 
 
  US further noted that Morocco usually did not follow -up to identify that timing. The  US asked 
Morocco to identify the exact timing of the introduction of these two measures. In addition, the US 
asked whether Morocco's official journal was accessible electronically.  
63.  Morocco  stated that the measure had not yet been applied.  
2.16  Morocco – Cold Rolled Sheets in Coils or Cut, and Plated or Coated Sheets 
(G/SG/N/8/MAR /4/Suppl.2 -G/SG/N/10/MAR/4/Suppl.2 -G/SG/N/11/MAR/4/Suppl .2) 
64.  There were no comments or questions raised under this item.  
2.17  Philippines – Testliner Board (G/SG/N/8/PHL/8/Suppl .4–
G/SG/N/1 0/PHL /7/Suppl.3 –G/SG/N/11/PHL/9/Suppl .4) 
65.  Viet Nam  stated that it had not export ed the subject product to the Philippines between 2011 
and 2014, and asked that Viet Nam be exempted from the measure by virtue of Article 9.1 of the 
Agreement.   
66.  Korea  was disa ppointed with the extension. It recalled that a provisional mea sure was put in 
place in 2010. Now that the final measure was extended until 2020, the duration of the measure, 
counted from the provisional measure, was more than 8 years. This was the time -frame provided 
for in Article 7.3. Korea had understood that the three -year extension made in 2014 was the final 
extension. Korea asked the Philippines to terminate the measure.     
67.  The Philippines  asked that comments and questions be submitted in writing so  that it could 
respond in writing.  
2.18  Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of  and Others3 – Flat-Rolled Products of Iron or Non -Alloy 
Steel (G/SG/N/6/ARE/1 –G/SG/N/6/BHR/1 –G/SG/N/6/KWT/1 –G/SG/N/6/OMN/1 –
G/SG/N/6/QAT/1 –G/SG/N/6/SAU/1)  
68.  There were no comments or questions raise d under this item.  
2.19  Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of  and Others4 - Ferro Silico Manganese 
(G/SG/N/6/ARE/2 –G/SG/N/6/BHR/2 –G/SG/N/6/KWT/2 –G/SG/N/6/OMN/2 –
G/SG/N/6/QAT/2 –G/SG/N/6/SAU/2)  
69.  Ukraine  noted that a provisional measure was recently imposed, and asked the GCC c ountries 
to make the notification promptly.  
2.20  South Africa – Flat-Rolled Products of Iron or Non -Alloy Steel  (G/SG/N/6/ZAF/5)  
70.  Chinese Taipei  stated that its export s of the subject product to South Africa w ere very small, 
and so it expected to be excluded fr om the measure even if any measure was to be imposed.  
71.  Japan  stated that the investigation did not identify like products properly.  
72.  South Africa  took note of the comments.   
2.21  South Africa – Certain Flat -Rolled Products of Iron, Non -Alloy Steel or Other All oy 
(Not Including Stainless Steel)(G/SG/N/8/ZAF/3)  
73.  South Africa  stated that it was still working on the responses to the questions posed by the 
US in document G/SG/Q2/ZAF/3.  
74.  The US looked forward to receiving the written answers.  
                                                
3 Saudi Arabia submitted this notification on behalf of the GCC countries, which are: Bahrain, Kingdom 
of; Kuwait, t he State of; Oman; Qatar;  Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of;  and the United  Arab Emirates.    
4 Saudi Arabia submitted this notification on behalf of the GCC countri es, which are: Bahrain, Kingdom 
of; Kuwait, the State of; Oman; Qatar;  Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of;  and the United  Arab Emirates.    G/SG/M/50  
 
- 9 - 
 
  75.  Japan  regretted South Afr ica's findings. In its view, the findings were not consistent especially 
with GATT Article XIX:1(a). Japan asked South Africa not to impose the measure.  
76.  Chinese Taipei  stated that its export s of the subject product to South Africa w ere very small, 
and so i t expected to be excluded from any measure eventually imposed.  
2.22  Ukraine - Flexible Porous Plates, Blocks and Sheets of Polyurethane Foams 
(G/SG/N/8/UKR/5 –G/SG/N/10/UKR/5 –G/SG/N/11/UKR/3, its corrig endum, and 
G/SG/N/11/UKR/3/Suppl .1) 
77.  The Chair clarified tha t although the original agenda included this item twice, the two agenda 
items were in fact the same and so would be treated together.  
78.  Ukraine  stated that it was still working on the responses to the questions posed by the US in 
document G/SG/Q2/UKR/3.  
79.  The US looked forward to receiving the written answers.  
2.23  Ukraine – Tableware a nd Kitchenware of Porcelain (G/SG/N/11/UKR/2/Suppl .1) 
80.  The Chair clarified that although the original agenda included this item twice, the two agenda 
items were in fact the same and so would be treated together.  
81.  There were no comments or questions raised under this item.  
2.24  Viet Nam - Semi -Finished and Cert ain Finished Products of Alloy a nd Non -Alloy 
Steel (G/SG/N/8/VNM/3 –G/SG/N/10/VNM/2 –G/SG/N/11/VNM/4)  
82.  Japan regretted Viet Nam's meas ure. In its view, the findings were not consistent especially 
with GATT Article XIX:1(a). Japan asked Viet Nam to withdraw the measure.  
83.  The EU observed that the import surge in Viet Nam was caused mainly by other Asian 
countries, and so, in the EU's view,  other country -specific measure should have been used. The EU 
was concerned that such use of a SG measure could trigger a domino effect of SG actions in other 
countries.    
84.  Viet Nam  stated that it had already provided a detailed explanation to Japan in the  course of 
the investigation. At any rate, Viet Nam was ready to reply to any written questions from Japan or 
from the EU.  
2.25  Viet Nam - Pre-Painted Galvanized Steel Sheet and Strip (G/SG/N/6/VNM/5)  
85.  Korea  was considering the impact of this investigation care fully. Korea asked Viet Nam to 
strictly abide by the relevant rules.  
86.  Viet Nam  stated that the investigation was still ongoing, and that it would abide by the 
relevant rules.  
2.26  Zambia – Flat–Rolled Products of Iron, Non –Alloy Steel, Trailers and Semi -Trailer s  
87.  This item related to Zambia's notification in document G/SG/N/6/ZMB/1 -G/SG/N/7/ZMB/1. 
The Chair stated that in document G/SG/Q2/ZMB/2 Zambia had submitted its responses to the US 
questions, and that US had subsequently submitted follow -up questions in d ocument 
G/SG/Q2/ZMB/3. The delegation of Zambia was not represented in the room.  
88.  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 
14 November 2016. Written responses to questions, including questions submitted in writing prior 
to this meeting, should be submitted to the Secretariat no later than 5 December 2016. As with G/SG/M/50  
 
- 10 - 
 
  legislative notifications, any unanswered questions would be indi cated in the draft annotated 
agenda of the next meeting.  
89.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
3  HOW MEMBERS HAVE NOT IFIED DEVELOPING COU NTRY MEMBERS EXEMPTE D FROM A 
SG MEASURE BY VIRTUE  OF ARTICLE 9.1  
90.  The Chair recalled that the issue of notifica tions pursuant to Article 9, footnote 2 of the 
Agreement was one of the issues discussed at the regular meeting in April 2016. He also recalled 
that at the request of the then -chairman, he had held informal consultations on this issue, 
together with other issues, on 19 September 2016. Several Members had asked the Secretariat to 
produce, as background, a compilation of how various Members had made such notifications. Since 
he heard no objection, and since this was, at any rate, a purely factual compilation,  he had asked 
the Secretariat to produce the document. It was sent to all M embers as a room document on 
20 October 2016.5 He wished to hear the latest views of the Members on this issue.  
91.  The US thanked the Chair and the Secretariat for the compilation. It also noted India's earlier 
statement indicating that India would change its way of making the Article 9.1 notification, and 
expressed appreciation for that statement. The US also urged other Members whose notification 
did not identify the exempted developi ng countries to consider changing the practice.  
92.  India confirmed its earlier statement that in future notifications, it would identify, in the 
notification, the developing countries exempted from the measure.   
93.  Chile stated that , like India, it would also i dentify in its future notifications the developing 
countries exempted from the measure.   
94.  Japan ; Australia ; Korea ; Chinese Taipei ; Brazil ; New Zealand ; the EU; and Hong Kong, China  
thanked the Chair and the Secretariat for the compilation and also welcomed  the statements of 
India and Chile.  
95.  In addition, Hong Kong, China  stated that it hoped that count ries other than India and Chile 
who ha d the same problem would also change their practices. Brazil  noted that the precise manner 
in which the exempted develop ing country members were identified in notifications varied, and 
Brazil was ready to engage in such discussions in the future.  
96.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
4  CREATION OF A WORKIN G GROUP ON IMPLEMENT ATION (G/SCM/W/567 –
G/SG/W/236 AND G/SCM /W/568 –G/SG/W/237) (ITEM RE QUESTED BY BRAZIL)  
97.  The Chair stated that this agenda item was requested by Brazil. Brazil had circulated 
documents G/SCM/W/567 –G/SG/W/236 and G/SCM/W/568 –G/SG/W/237 regarding this item. The 
Chair recalled that this issue was firs t discussed at the spring 2016 Committee meeting, and there 
was a joint informal meeting of this Committee and the Subsidies Committee on 20 October 2016. 
He further recalled that at that informal joint meeting, Members had expressed divergent views on 
this idea.  
98.  Brazil  explained that its idea of creating a working group was aimed at improving the 
functioning of this Committee. Brazil was aware that many capital -based experts attended each 
meeting of the Committee. Taking advantage of the presence of these  experts, Brazil saw merit in 
having a more horizontal discussion regarding SG proceedings, apart from individual issues. That 
would also contribute to increasing transparency.   
99.  While Mexico  could generally agree with the idea, it had two concerns. First,  Mexico was not 
sure whether there was sufficient time. It noted that currently, together with the various meetings 
of the Anti -Dumping Committee and the Subsidies Committee, one week was already fully 
                                                
5 Subsequently circulated as document G/SG/W/2 39 and G/SG/W/239/Corr.1 .  G/SG/M/50  
 
- 11 - 
 
  occupied. Second, Mexico was unsure of the idea of gen erating recommendations. It saw more 
merit in having a frank discussion without worrying what the ultimate outcome may be.    
100.  The US continued to support the idea of creating a working group. The US pointed out that 
there was in fact already an informal wo rking group that met regularly, and it was US's 
expectation that once created, the working group that Brazil was proposing could take over the 
function of this current informal working group. That said, the US was not in a position to join in 
the consensus  to establish the working group now. The US had proposed to Brazil a number of 
edits to the proposal . Those edits were meant to improve the idea by taking into account lessons 
learned in the context of the Anti -Dumping Committee. US would continue working with Brazil on 
this matter. Finally, regarding Mexico's concern about time, the US stated that similar work was 
already undertaken, and so the US understood that it should be manageable time -wise. 
101.  Chile and Panama , like Mexico, had concerns with the time a vailable.   
102.  New Zealand ; the Russia n Federation ; Hong Kong, China ; Korea  and Turkey  supported the 
idea in general but wished to further discuss the details.  
103.  Argentina ; Costa Rica ; Egypt ; Morocco ; and China  could support the idea.  
104.  Canada  found Brazil's ide a useful. Canada stated that the idea should be considered 
independently on its own merits, separate from the parallel idea proposed in the Subsidies 
Committee.  
105.  Australia  found Brazil's idea important. On the other hand, it had certain concerns. First, 
Australia was not sure about aiming at producing recommendations. In its view, confidence 
building needed to come first. Second, Australia did not think that this idea should be linked with 
the parallel idea proposed in the Subsidies Committee. Third, Austra lia recalled that Brazil at one 
time proposed a decision by the General Council. Australia disagreed with that idea.       
106.  The EU welcomed the enhancement of transparency and sharing of best practice. This idea 
should be kept separate from the parallel ide a proposed in the Subsidies Committee. Ensuring a 
good participation was important, and in this regard, Brazil's proposal needed refinement. The EU 
wished to have further discussions regarding how to choose topics.    
107.  India observed that SG was different i n nature from the other two trade remed y 
instrument s, and wondered whether it was necessary to create a working group as Brazil 
suggested. India was still considering the idea.  
108.  Brazil  thanked the Members for the comments. Brazil was happy to note that the  vast 
majority of the comments were in favour of enhance d transparency. Brazil wished to respond to 
some of the points made. First, Brazil noted that some Members were concerned about the 
availability of time. Brazil was of the view that if the discussion started from relatively simple 
topics, Members could test their way. Second, regarding specific suggestions to change the text of 
the proposal, Brazil was open to discussion. Third, regarding the rules of procedures of the working 
group, since this working  group would be created under the Committee, Brazil found it necessary 
to consider how this working group would report to the Committee. Finally, regarding 
recommendations. Brazil did not wish the discussion in the working group to be simply academic. 
In the event that Members could find common ground, Brazil did not think that the possibility of 
making a recommendation should be entirely foreclosed. On the other hand, Brazil agreed that it 
should not become a negotiation. But it reminded Members that while  there was in fact a 
negotiation going on in the Anti -Dumping area, that did not preclude useful discussion in the 
working group of the Anti -Dumping Committee.       
109.  The US suggested that the way forward be separated into two tracks. On the one hand, 
Membe rs could start discussing possible topics. In a separate track, Members could discuss the 
procedures and other issues included in Brazil's proposals.   
110.  Brazil  was open to that suggestion.  
111.  Australia  wished to know the details of such process.  G/SG/M/50  
 
- 12 - 
 
  112.  India needed t o consult with its capital, and could not agree to the proposal now.    
113.  New Zealand  expressed its support for the US idea.  
114.  The Chair  stated that he would hold informal consultations on this issue.  
115.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
5  ADDITION  OF CERTAIN INFORMATI ON INTO THE ANNUAL R EPORT (ITEM REQUESTE D 
BY AUSTRALIA)  
116.  The Chair stated that this agenda item was requested by Australia. Australia had submitted a 
room document6 regarding this item. This issue had been  discussed at the spring 2016 C ommittee 
meeting, and was further discussed at the informal meeting of 19 September 2016.  
117.  Australia  reminded Members that its proposal was to add in Annex 2 of the annual report of 
the Committee the dates when certain notifications were made. More specific ally, it was referring 
to the dates of notifications that were currently included in the columns "provisional safeguard 
measures" and "definitive safeguard measures (including recommendations of imposition as well 
as decision to extend an existing measure) ". Australia stressed that this did not add any burden on 
the Members while it increased transparency. Australia pointed out that Members had earlier 
agreed on a similar proposal of adding in Annex 2 of the annual report dates when initiation 
notifications  were made.  
118.  Japan ; New Zealand ; Korea ; Chinese Taipei ; Canada ; Singapore ; the US; Mexico ; the EU; 
and Chile supported the idea.  
119.  India stated that it was still considering the proposal.  
120.  The US asked India whether  it had  specific concerns regarding the pr oposal or general 
concerns about transparency . 
121.  India stated that it supported transparency, but that it was still engaged in bilateral 
consultations with Australia.    
122.  Australia  stated that it would discuss bilaterally with India.  
123.  The Chair  stated that he would revert to this item in future meetings if Members so wished.  
124.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
6  SAFEGUARD LEGISLATIO N OF EL SALVADO R (ITEM REQUESTED BY  THE 
UNITED  STATES)  
125.  The US explained that in the recent Trade Policy Review of El Sal vador, the US and others 
noted that El Salvador had enacted in February 2016 a law regarding trade remedies. The US and 
others had posed questions regarding this law, and in that context El Salvador had explained that 
the law would be notified to the appro priate Committee, including this Committee, "as soon as 
possible". The US wished to know when such notification would be made. Prompt notification was 
particularly pressing since El Salvador had already started imposing measures.   
126.  El Salvador  stated that it had recently made the notification.7  
                                                
6 Made available as RD/SG/14.  
7 This notification was circulated on 3 November 2016 as document G/ADP/N/1/SLV/3/Suppl.1 – 
G/SCM/N/1/SLV/3/Suppl.1 –G/SG/N/1/ SLV/3/Suppl.1.  G/SG/M/50  
 
- 13 - 
 
  7  DISCUSSION GROUP REG ARDING SAFEGUARD PRO CEEDINGS  
127.  The Chair explained that this item was placed on the agenda at the request of Australia, 
Canada, the EU, Israel, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Norway, Chinese Taipei, Si ngapore, Ukraine 
and the US.  
128.  The US reminded Members that the informal 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 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 focus more on each 
other's experiences and to learn f rom each other. Departing from past meetings, there was a 
different focus for that day's meeting. Given past discussions, it appeared that there was interest 
in covering topics where the Agreement did not provide sufficient clarity. Thus, the US thought it  
was useful to explore what topics should be taken up in the future. Whether future discussions 
would continue through this informal discussion group or in some mechanism in the Committee 
was not the focus of that day's discussion. Rather, the focus was to  identify a list of topics that the 
participants wished to be discussed.    
129.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
8  OTHER BUSINESS  
8.1  Statement regarding a SG measure of Turkey – Item requested by Ukraine  
130.  Ukraine  referred to a SG measure imposed by T urkey on wallpaper and similar wallcoverings, 
notified in June 2015. Although Ukraine was exempted from the measure by virtue of Article 9.1, 
exports from Ukraine w ere limited in volume. If the volume exceeded the limit, payment of 
additional duty was requ ired. Ukraine understood this measure to be a quota, and asked Turkey to 
explain.  
131.  Turkey  clarified that the SG measure went into effect on 6 August 2015, and confirmed that 
Ukraine was included in the list of countries exempted from the measure by virtue o f Article 9.1. 
Turkey further clarified that there was an internal process regarding these exemptions, and that 
this internal process was still ongoing.  
132.  The EU recalled that it had consulted with Turkey on this investigation starting from 
July 2015. The E U understood that as a result of the consultations, a solution had been found in 
May 2016. However, the solution had not yet been implemented. The EU asked Turkey what the 
situation was.  
133.   Turkey  stated that the internal process of opening a tariff rate quo ta was ongoing, and that 
it would inform the interested parties as soon as the process was over.   
8.2  Statement regarding a certain measure of the EU – Item requested by the 
Russia n Federation  
134.  Russia  referred to EU's system of prior surveillance of imports of  certain steel products, 
introduced in April 2016. Although this measure itself was not a SG measure, Russia was 
concerned that this collection of import data through automatic import licensing may be aimed at 
facilitating a future SG investigation. Russia  had this concern since, first, the mechanism was 
legally part of EU's SG application framework; and second, the EU had in fact proceeded from this 
mechanism to a SG measure in 2002. Russia was concerned that the EU was planning to take a 
similar course of  action as it did in 2002. In this light, Russia asked the EU to clarify: first, EU's 
intention to apply SG measures in steel products and second, the role the collected data would 
play in any future SG investigations.    
135.  The EU stated that the measure was  notified to the WTO Import Licensing Committee and 
would be discussed there at the next meeting. While Russia was right in pointing out that the legal 
basis of the measure was the same as the one for SG, there was no systemic link between this 
monitoring system and SG investigations. Licensing was automatic, and so had no negative trade G/SG/M/50  
 
- 14 - 
 
  effect. Data collected under this system was never used for purposes of a SG investigation. SG 
investigations always used official import data, while data collected under t his system was 
information regarding plans to import. Regarding the analogy with 2002, the EU explained that at 
that time, there was credible concern about trade diversion triggered by the SG measure imposed 
by the US. The situation today was different. At  any rate, the SG measure imposed in 2002 was 
quickly terminated, while the monitoring system stayed longer.       
8.3  Statement regarding a SG investigation by Colom bia – Item requested by 
Chinese  Taipei  
136.  Chinese Taipei  understood that Colombia had initiated a  SG investigation on "PVC" on 
19 June 2015, and imposed a measure on 10 August 2016. However, there was no notification on 
this investigation. Chinese Taipei asked Colombia to clarify the situation.  
137.  The delegation of Colombia  was not present in the room.  
8.4  Items that automatically go onto the agenda – Statement by the Chair  
138.  The Chair recalled that the issue of what items are automatically included in the agenda was 
discussed at the spring 2016 Committee meeting , and in the informal  meeting held on 
19 Septemb er. There was wide support for the idea that the Secretariat should automatically 
include more items into the agenda of Committee meetings than as under current practice. More 
specifically, this related to four types of documents: (i) notifications regardi ng mid -term reviews, 
(ii) notifications regarding results of consultations, (iii) notifications regarding compensations and 
(iv) notifications regarding proposals to suspend a measure. He was aware that there was no 
consensus on this issue in the formal se nse. On the other hand, he noted that this was not a big 
change from the current practice. In fact, none of these types of notifications had been made since 
the spring 2016 meeting. He thus suggested that the Committee automatically include these items 
in the agenda of coming meetings on a trial basis. Members could always come back to this issue 
and suggest another way.    
8.5  Presentation of I -trade and MADRE – Statement by the Chair  
139.  On behalf of the Secretariat, the Chair announced that in the afternoon of 2 6 October 2016 
the Secretariat would launch two new computer -based products for Members. The first of the 
products, "I -trade", was a computer -based interactive training tool for anti -dumping investigators. 
The second of the new products, "MADRE", was autom ated case -management software for 
investigating authorities, with calendar and reminder functions.  
140.  The Committee took note  of all the statements made under "Other Business".  
9  ANNUAL REPORT TO THE  COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN  GOODS  
141.  The Committee adopted  its annua l report (see document G/L/1155 -G/SG/142). The Chair 
explained that the symbolling of the annual report had been improved. From now on, it would bear 
a G/SG/(number) symbol in addition to the G/L/(number) symbol, which should make it easier for 
people to f ind annual reports in the future.   
10  DATE OF NEXT REGULAR  MEETING  
142.  The Chair suggested that the Committee meet in the week of 24 April 2017. The exact date 
would be confirmed in due course.  
143.  The Committee so decided . 
__________