RESTRICTED  
  
G/SG/M/49  
 
12 August 2016  
(16-4371) Page: 1/14 
Committee on Safeguards    
 
MINUTES OF THE REGUL AR MEETING  
HELD ON 25 APRIL 201 6 
CHAIRPERSON: MR VÍCT OR ECHEVARRÍA UGARTE  (SPAIN)  
1.  The Committee on Safeguards (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 25 April 2016.  
2.  The Committee adopted the following agenda:  
1   NATIONAL LEGISLATION  ................................ ................................ ............................  3 
1.1   Review of notifications of new or amended legislation or regulations not previously 
reviewed by the Committee (including sup plemental notifications of existing provisions 
not previously reviewed)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 3 
1.1.1   Kingdom of Bahrain, Oman, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates – 
Review of new legislative notifi cation (G/SG/N/1/BHR/3/Suppl.1, G/SG/N/1/OMN/3, 
G/SG/N/1/OMN/3/Suppl.1, G/SG/N/1/SAU/2/Suppl.1 and G/SG/N/1/ARE/2)  .............................  3 
1.1.2   Dominican Republic – Review of new legislative notification 
(G/SG/N /1/DOM/2/Suppl.2)  ................................ ................................ ...............................  3 
1.1.3   Kyrgyz Republic – Review of new legislative notification (G/SG/N/1/KGZ/2)  ....................  3 
1.1.4   Pakistan – Revie w of new legislative notification (G/SG/N/1/PAK/3/Suppl.1)  ...................  3 
1.1.5   Seychelles – Review of new legislative notification (G/SG/N/1/SYC/1)  ............................  3 
1.2   Continuing review of previously reviewed notifications  ................................ ....................  3 
1.2.1   Cameroon – Continuing review of previously reviewed notifications 
(G/SG/N/1/CMR/1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  3 
1.2.2   Qatar – Continuing review of previously reviewed notifications (G/SG/N/1/QAT/3)  ...........  3 
2   NOTIFICATIONS OF ACT IONS RELATED TO SAFE GUARD MEASURES  ...........................  4 
2.1   Chile – Steel wire  (G/SG/N/6/CHL/17)  ................................ ................................ .........  5 
2.2   Chile – Steel nails  (G/SG/N/6/CHL/18)  ................................ ................................ ........  5 
2.3   Chile – Steel mesh  (G/SG/N/6/CHL/19)  ................................ ................................ ....... 5 
2.4   Chile – Steel wire rod  (G/SG/N/8/CHL/7 -G/SG/N/10/CHL/9 -G/SG/N/11/CHL/10)  ...............  5 
2.5   Ecuador – Wood and bamboo flooring and accessories thereof  ................................ .........  5 
2.6   Egypt – Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (G/SG/N/6/EGY/ 13) ................................ .........  5 
2.7   Egypt – Automotive batteries (G/SG/N/8/EGY/8 –G/SG/N/10/EGY/8 –
G/SG/N/11/EGY/10 and G/SG/N/9/EGY/1)  ................................ ................................ ...........  6 
2.8   India - Hot-rolled flat sheets and plates of alloy  or non -alloy steel 
(G/SG/N/6/IND/42 and G/SG/N/6/IND/42/Corr.1)  ................................ ................................ . 6 
2.9   India - Hot-rolled flat products of non -alloy and other alloy steel in coils of a width 
of 600 mm or more  (G/SG/N/8/IND /28-G/SG/N/10/IND/19 -G/SG/N/11/IND/14/Suppl.2 
and G/SG/N/8/IND/28/Suppl.1 -G/SG/N/10/IND/19/Suppl.1 -G/SG/N/11/IND/14/Suppl.3)  ...........  6 
2.10   Jordan – Bars and rods of iron and steel (G/SG/N/10/JOR/8/ Suppl.2)  ..............................  7 G/SG/M/49  
 
- 2 - 
 
  2.11   Jordan – Writing and printing paper (G/SG/N/8/JOR/9/Suppl.1 –
G/SG/N/10/JOR/9/Suppl.1 –G/SG/N/11/JOR/5/Suppl.1)  ................................ ..........................  7 
2.12   Kyrgyz Republic – Harvesters and modules thereof (G/SG/N/6/KGZ/5 –
G/SG/N/8/KGZ/3 –G/SG/N/10/KGZ/3 –G/SG/N/11/KGZ/1)  ................................ .......................  7 
2.13   Kyrgyz Republic – Tableware and kitchenware of porcelain (G/SG /N/6/KGZ/6 –
G/SG/N/8/KGZ/4 –G/SG/N/10/KGZ/4 –G/SG/N/11/KGZ/2)  ................................ .......................  7 
2.14   Kyrgyz Republic – Wheat flour (G/SG/N/10/KGZ/2/Suppl.2)  ................................ ...........  7 
2.15   Malaysia – Hot rolled coils (G/SG/N/9/MYS/2)  ................................ ..............................  8 
2.16   Morocco – Wire rods and reinforcing bars (G/SG/N/10/MAR/3/Suppl.3 –
G/SG/N/11/MAR/2/Suppl.3 –G/SG/N/14/MAR/1/Suppl.1)  ................................ ........................  8 
2.17   Morocco - Paper in rolls and paper in reams (item requested by the 
European  Union)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  8 
2.18   South Africa – Certain flat -rolled products o f iron, non -alloy steel or other alloy 
steel (not including stainless steel) (G/SG/N/6/ZAF/4)  ................................ ...........................  8 
2.19   Thailand - Hot rolled steel flat products with certain amounts of alloying elements 
(G/SG /N/10/THA/2/Suppl.2 –G/SG/N/11/THA/2/Suppl.4 and G/SG/N/10/THA/2/Suppl.3 –
G/SG/N/11/THA/2/Suppl.5)  ................................ ................................ ................................  9 
2.20   Thailand – Structural hot rolled H -beam with alloy (G/SG/N/6/THA/5 and 
G/SG/N/6/THA/5/ Corr.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 9 
2.21   Tunisia – Ceramic tiles (item requested by the European Union)  ................................ ..... 9 
2.22   Turkey - Transmission apparatus incorpo rating reception apparatus (cellular) 
portable telephone (G/SG/N/9/TUR/6)  ................................ ................................ .................  9 
2.23   Ukraine - Motor cars (G/SG/N/8/UKR/3/Suppl.3 –G/SG/N/10/UKR/3/Suppl.4 –
G/SG/N/11/UKR/1/Suppl.3)  ................................ ................................ ..............................  10 
2.24   Viet Nam - semi-finished and certain finished products of alloy and non -alloy steel 
(G/SG/N/6/VNM/4 and G/SG/N/7/VNM/2 –G/SG/N/11/VNM/2)  ................................ ................  10 
2.25   Viet Nam – Monosodium glutamate (G/SG/N/7/VNM/3 –G/SG/N/11/VNM/3)  ....................  10 
2.26   Zambia - Flat–rolled products of iron, non -alloy steel, trailers and semi -trailers 
(G/SG/N/6/ZMB/1 -G/SG/ N/7/ZMB/1)  ................................ ................................ .................  10 
3   NOTIFICATION PURSUAN T TO ARTICLE 9, FOOT NOTE 2 OF THE AGREEM ENT 
(ITEM REQUESTED BY T HE UNITED STATES, AU STRALIA, CHINESE TAI PEI AND 
UKRAINE)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  10 
4   IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E SAFEGUARD AGREEMEN T: CREATION OF A 
WORKING GROUP ON IMP LEMENTATION (ITEM RE QUESTED BY BRAZIL)  ......................  11 
5   ADDITION OF CERTAIN INFORMATION  INTO THE ANNUAL REPO RT (ITEM 
REQUESTED BY AUSTRAL IA) ................................ ................................ ..........................  12 
6   CONTINUATION OF THE DISCUSSION ON THE CO MMITTEE PRACTICE OF 
WHAT ITEM TO AUTOMAT ICALLY PUT ONTO THE AGENDA  ................................ .............  13 
7   DISCUSSION GROUP REG ARDING SAFEGUARD PRO CEEDINGS ................................ .. 13 
8   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 13 
8.1   Statement regarding an investigation by Tunisia – Item requested by the EU  ....................  13 
8.2   Statement regarding the legislative notification by Kazakhstan  ................................ ........  14 
8.3   Statement regarding a possible SG action by the US  ................................ ......................  14 
9   DATE OF NEXT REGULAR  MEETING  ................................ ................................ ............  14 
10   ELECTI ON OF OFFICERS  ................................ ................................ ..........................  14 
 G/SG/M/49  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1  NATIONAL LEGISLATION  
1.1  Review of notifications of new or amended legislation or regulations not previously 
reviewed by the C ommittee (including supplemental notifications of existing provisions 
not previousl y reviewed)  
1.1.1   Kingdom of Bahrain, Oman, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates – 
Review of new legislative n otification (G/SG/N/1/BHR/3/Suppl.1, G/SG/N/1/OMN/3, 
G/SG/N/1/OMN/3/Suppl.1, G/SG/N/1/SAU/2/Suppl.1 and G/SG/N/1/ARE/2)  
3.  The Chair  stated th at agenda items 1.1.1, 1.1.4, 1.1.6 and 1.1.8 were all legislative 
notifications relating to GCC -wide law and/or rules1, and so would be taken up at the same time. 
Written questions from the US had been submitted in document G/SG/Q1/BHR/11 –
G/SG/Q1/OMN/1 –G/SG/Q1/SAU/5 for Bahrain, Oman and Saudi Arabia, 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.  
4.  There were no other comments or question s regarding these notifications.  
1.1.2   Dominican Republic – Review of new l egislat ive n otification 
(G/SG/N/1/DOM/2/Suppl.2)  
5.   Written questions from the US had been submitted in document G/SG/Q1/DOM/7. The 
Dominican Republic  explained that the responses had been circulated recently.2 
1.1.3   Kyrgyz Republic – Review of new l egisl ative n otification (G/SG/N/1/KGZ/2)  
6.  Written questions had been received from the US in document G/SG/Q1/KGZ/1. The 
Kyrgyz  Republic  stated that the responses would be provided in writing.3 
1.1.4   Pakistan  – Review of new l egisl ative n otification (G/SG/N/1/PAK/3/Suppl.1)  
7.  There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.  
1.1.5   Seychelles – Review of new legislative n otification (G/SG/N/1/SYC/1)  
8.  There were no comments or questions regarding this noti fication.  
1.2  Continuing review of previously reviewed notifications  
1.2.1   Cameroon – Continuing review of previously reviewed n otifications 
(G/SG/N/1/CMR/1)  
9.  The Chair  stated that written questions received from the United States in document 
G/SG/Q1/CMR/3 were left unanswered.  
10.  Cameroon was not represented at the meeting.  
1.2.2   Qatar – Continuin g review of previously reviewed n otifications 
(G/SG/N/1/QAT/3)  
11.  Qatar  explained its responses4 to the questions from Australia.  
                                               
1 Notifications from Bahrain and Saudi Arabia related to the rules of implementation, the notification 
from the United Arab Emirates related to the GCC common law, and the notifications from Oman related to the 
GCC common law and the rules of implementation.  
2 Subsequently circulated in document G/SG/Q1/DOM/8.  
3 Subsequently circulated in document G/SG/Q1/KGZ/2.  
4 Circulated in G/SG/Q1/QAT/6.  G/SG/M/49  
 
- 4 - 
 
  12.  The Chair  recalled that the deadline for written quest ions concerning any legislation reviewed 
at this meeting was 17 May 2016. The deadline for written answers to all written questions, 
including questions submitted in writing prior to this meeting, was 6 June 2016.  
13.  The Chair informed the Committee that 22 M embers had not yet made a legislative 
notification.5 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.  
14.  The US noted that  many Members still had not made a notification. For nearly all of those who 
had not made a notification, their Trade Policy Review reports indicated whether they did or did 
not have any safeguard legislation. The US reiterated that the notification was si mple 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.  
15.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
2  NOTIFICATIONS OF ACT IONS RELA TED TO SAFEGUARD MEA SURES  
16.  Japan  was concerned with the recent increase of use of the safeguard ("SG") instrument. It 
noted that the number of initiations notified in the 5 -year period between 2011 and 2015 reached 
almost half of the number of those notifie d in the 21-year period between 1995 and 2015. Japan 
was of the view that this development was due to overcapacity in steel and certain other industrial 
sectors, which was in turn, triggered by capacity expansion in certain Members. Japan asked that 
invest igating Members take account of all the factors to ensure that investigations were fully 
consistent with the WTO rules.    
17.  Australia  was also concerned with the increased of use of the SG instrument. First, the 
decision to choose the SG instrument was not always correct. Second, the time -period between 
the relevant findings and imposition was sometimes unduly long, which cast doubt as to whether 
there was an emergency situation. Third, opportunity for exporters to defend themselves was not 
always fully prov ided. Regarding the situation in the steel industry, Australia agreed with the 
observations made by Japan.  
18.  Brazil  was concerned with investigations in the steel sector. It recalled that SG was a unique 
instrument to be used only in exceptional situations.  
19.  Chinese Taipei6, Canada and Norway  were also concerned with the increased use of the SG 
instrument. They all reminded Members that SG was a unique instrument designed to address an 
emergency situation.  
20.  The US pointed out that 26 SG investigations were be ing reviewed at the present meeting. 
This was in stark contrast to a situation some 9 years ago when a Committee meeting reviewed 
only 6 investigations. In all of the nine most recent meetings, there were 20 or  more 
investigations reviewed. The US noted th at Members have questioned in past meetings whether 
these were all emergency situations and whether the higher serious injury threshold was being 
met.   
21.  The Republic of Korea  shared the concerns raised by the previous speakers, including the 
concerns relat ed to the steel sector. Korea reiterated that SG was an emergency measure, and 
thus asked investigating Members to proceed cautiously. In particular, when economic indicators 
did not warrant an investigation, Members were requested to be prudent.     
                                               
5 These Members were: Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Cabo Verde, Central African Republic, 
Democratic  Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Grenada, Guinea -Bissau, Mauritania, Moza mbique, Niger, Rwanda, 
Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Tajikistan, 
Tanzania, Tonga, Vanuatu and Yemen.  
6 Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu.  G/SG/M/49  
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.1  Chile  – Steel w ire (G/SG/N/6/CHL/17)  
2.2  Chile – Steel n ails (G/SG/N/6/CHL/18)  
2.3  Chile – Steel m esh (G/SG/N/6/CHL/19)  
22.  Chile asked that the three investigations on steel wire, steel nails and steel mesh be discussed 
at the same time.  
23.  The EU noted that Chile initiated  4 investigations, including the three discussed here, in the 
course of several months. The EU was concerned with such an increase. It did not find a 
meaningful increase of imports in any of the three investigations, and the causal relationship 
between imp orts and serious injury was questionable.   
24.  Mexico  saw several problems with these investigations: regarding the definition of product 
under investigation, existence of critical circumstances, like products, domestic production and 
causal relationship. All egations of increased imports focused only on imports from China, and were 
also not adequate.  
25.   Chinese Taipei  agreed with the previous speakers and added that since its share of imports 
was smaller than 3%, it should be excluded from the measure even if C hile proceeded to impose a 
measure.  
26.  China  noted that a Member stated that an import from one Member was the cause of the 
problem. China was of the view that there were several causes of the problem, and called for 
caution in this regard.  
27.  Brazil  expressed  concerns, and asked that Chile undertake the investigation carefully.   
28.  Chile announced that there would be a public hearing regar ding these investigations on 
28 April 2016. Chile would continue to consult with the EU, Mexico, Chinese Taipei  and Brazil. As 
for the statement of Chinese Taipei, Chile reminded that no measure was imposed yet.  
2.4  Chile  – Steel wire rod  (G/SG/N/8/CHL/7 -G/SG/N/10/CHL/9 -
G/SG/N/11/CHL/10)  
29.  The US noted that the provisional measure was put in place one day after the initiation of the 
investigation. The US wondered , given all the requirements under Article 6, how Chile could make 
a proper determination in just one day.    
30.  Chile explained that the domestic industry was in a critical situation , as provided for in the 
notification .  
2.5  Ecuador  – Wood and bamboo flooring and accessories thereof  
31.  Ecuador  explained that it had submitted, on 28 October 2015, its responses to the questions 
posed by the US in May 2015.7  
2.6  Egypt – Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (G/SG/N/6/EGY/ 13) 
32.  The EU first stated th at it had concerns with Egypt's recent SG investigations in general. 
Pointing out that SG was an instrument to be used only in exceptional circumstances and that SG 
investigations create uncertainty in the market, the EU asked Egypt to review its use of th e SG 
instrument. On the specific investigation at issue, the EU saw several flaws: the product definition 
was problematic, there was no increase of imports, there was no serious injury, nor causal 
relationship with the imports. The EU also noted that an an ti-dumping investigation and a 
countervailing duty investigation on same product were terminated in 2015 due to lack of causal 
link. The EU asked Egypt not to proceed with this SG investigation to impose a measure.  
33.  Egypt  explained that the domestic industr y had the right to ask for a SG investigation. It also 
stated that it would consult with the interested parties.  
                                               
7 The responses are contai ned in document G/SG/Q2/ECU/15.  G/SG/M/49  
 
- 6 - 
 
  2.7  Egypt – Automotive b atteries (G/SG/N/8/EGY/8 –G/SG/N/10/EGY/8 –
G/SG/N/11/EGY/10 and G/SG/N/9/EGY/1)  
34.  The Republic of Korea  welcomed the terminati on of the investigation without a measure. But it 
regretted the fact that exports to Egypt had declined by the effect of the mere initiation of the 
investigation. Korea asked Egypt to be prudent in initiating future SG investigations.   
2.8  India  - Hot-rolled flat sheets and plates of alloy or non -alloy steel 
(G/SG/N/6/IND/ 42 and G/SG/N/6/IND/42/Corr .1) 
35.  Turkey  had earlier conveyed its comments to India's investigating authority. Among other 
things, Turkey's share of imports was less than 3%, and so it expected to be excluded from any 
final measure. Turkey also had doubts about the existence of serious injury. Furthermore, Turkey 
noted that India introduced a minimum import price for this product in February 2016. If a SG 
measure was also imposed, it w ould be a d ouble -protection.  
36.  Ukraine  saw several problems with this investigation. First, while India used forecasts in its 
investigation, Ukraine was of the view that using forecasts was not consistent with Article 2.1 of 
the Agreement. Second, Ukraine had doubts as  to whether serious injury existed. Ukraine asked 
that the investigation be terminated without any measure.  
37.  Japan  had raised its concerns to the investigating authority in the course of the hearing. 
Japan requested India to conduct the investigation  by fu lly taking into account the relevant 
requirements , especially those under Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994 .  
38.  The EU noted that most of the imports of the subject product originated in one or a few 
countries, and so doubted whether resorting to the SG inst rument was adequate. The EU was also 
of the view that the analysis on injury and causal relationship needed to be conducted over the 
same period as that when imports increased. There were several other problems as well: for 
example, there was no causal rel ation between decline in production and increase in imports, 
domestic sales were increasing rather than decreasing, and import prices were simply following the 
international market price. The EU also saw problems with the causal analysis.   
39.  Brazil  recalled  its earlier statement expressing concern on the increase in SG investigations in 
the steel sector, and stated that this was one such investigation. Brazil was analysing the 
information pertaining to this investigation.     
40.  India took note of the comments,  and stated that the comments could be made directly to the 
investigating authority.  
2.9  India  - Hot-rolled flat products of non -alloy and other alloy steel in coils of a width 
of 600 mm or more  (G/SG/N/8/IND/28 -G/SG/N/10/IND/19 -
G/SG/N/11/IND/14/Suppl.2 and G /SG/N/8/IND/28/Suppl .1-
G/SG/N/10/IND/19/Suppl.1 -G/SG/N/11/IND/14/Suppl.3)  
41.  Japan  was disappointed that India decided to impose a measure. It was Japan's view that the 
measure was inconsistent with the Agreement. For example, there were no unforeseen 
develo pments. Japan asked India to withdraw the measure.    
42.  Ukraine  was also of the view that the measure was inconsistent with the Agreement. There 
were no unforeseen developments, there was no surge of imports, use of forecast figures was 
inadequate, and there  was insufficient opportunity for consultations. Ukraine underlined the rights 
of the exporting countries stipulated in Article 8 of the Agreement, and asked India to respond to 
its queries.8 
43.  The Republic of Korea  was also of the view that the measure was not consistent with the 
Agreement. There were no unforeseen development, there was no serious injury, any indicator 
showing the difficulty of the Indian industry was not unique to India but was a general global 
                                               
8 The questions were subsequently circulated in G/SG/Q2/IND/23.  G/SG/M/49  
 
- 7 - 
 
  trend, and finally, no meaningful opportunity  to consult was provided since a provisional measure 
was imposed 2 days after the initiation. Korea asked India to withdraw the measure.  
44.  The US voiced serious systemic concern regarding the way India conducted its investigations 
in general. In the US view , it cast doubts about India's intention to abide by its obligations in the 
Agreement. In particular, the US questioned the manner in which India made its notifications 
relating to footnote 2 of the Agreement. Since 2009, India had never provided a list of  developing 
countries to which its measures would not apply by virtue of footnote 2 , despite having done so 
before 2009 . This was particularly worrying to the US since the information was important for the 
exporting developing countries and since India was  the largest user of the SG instrument. With 
regards to this particular investigation, the US noted that India had earlier stated in the Council for 
Trade in Goods that it wished to have the discussion in the SG Committee, and so the US was 
submitting its comments now. First, the provisional measure was imposed only 2 days after the 
initiation of the investigation. This raised , in the US view, consistency issues with the Agreement, 
including with Article 6. Second, there was no causation analysis in the not ification. Third, the data 
included in the notification did not, in the US view, show serious injury or threat thereof. The US 
asked India to immediately revoke the measure  if it could not meet the requirements under the 
Agreement .  
45.  The EU had submitted it s comments directly to the investigating authority, and so it limited its 
intervention to the major issues.  In the EU's view, there was no serious injury. Citing relevant 
figures, the EU stated that major injury indicators were stable, and any alleged inj ury was self -
inflicted. The EU asked India to reconsider its conclusions.  
46.  Regarding the question of how it makes the notifications corresponding to footnote 2, India 
stated that its notification made in 2009 included the names of all the developing countr ies. As for 
the comments regarding serious injury, the responses to all the queries could be found in section 3 
of the notification. More information, including on issues other than injury, could be found if one 
followed the web link indicated in one of th e notifications. If there were still questions that 
remained, India asked that those questions be submitted in writing.  
47.  The US stated that, in its view, providing a web link did not satisfy the obligation provided in 
footnote 2 , as indicated by how other Members were meeting this obligation under the Agreement .    
2.10  Jordan  – Bars and rods of iron and steel (G/SG/N/10/JOR/8/Suppl.2)  
48.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
2.11  Jordan  – Writing and printing paper (G/SG/N/8/JOR/9/Suppl.1 –
G/SG/N/1 0/JOR/9/ Suppl.1–G/SG/N/11/JOR/5/Suppl.1)  
49.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
2.12  Kyrgyz Republic – Harvesters and modules thereof (G/SG/N/6/KGZ/5 –
G/SG/N/8/KGZ/3 –G/SG/N/10/KGZ/3 –G/SG/N/11/KGZ/1)  
50.  Kyrgyz Republic  stated that it was still d rafting the responses to the US questions on this 
notification.9 
2.13  Kyrgyz Republic – Tableware and kitchenware of porcelain (G/SG/N/6/KGZ/6 –
G/SG/N/8/KGZ/4 –G/SG/N/10/KGZ/4 –G/SG/N/11/KGZ/2)  
51.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
2.14  Kyrgyz Rep ublic – Wheat f lour (G/SG/N/10/KGZ/2/Suppl.2)  
52.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
                                               
9 The responses were subsequently circulated in G/SG/Q2/KGZ/5.  G/SG/M/49  
 
- 8 - 
 
  2.15  Malaysia – Hot rolled coils (G/SG/N/9/MYS/2)  
53.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
2.16  Morocco – Wire rods and reinforcing bars (G/S G/N/10/MAR/3/Suppl.3 –
G/SG/N/11/MAR/2/Suppl.3 –G/SG/N/14/MAR/1/Suppl.1)  
54.  Morocco  stated that it was still drafting the responses to the US questions10, and offered oral 
responses.  
55.  The EU regretted that Morocco had extended the measure. Although Morocco explain ed in the 
notification about increase of imports, that factor was, in the EU view, irrelevant since the current 
measure was a tariff rate quota. The EU urged Morocco to review its use of the SG instrument in 
general.  
56.  Morocco  explained that it had consulte d all the interested parties, including the EU, before it 
took the decision.  
2.17  Morocco - Paper in rolls and paper i n reams (item requested by the 
European  Union)  
57.  The EU recalled that this investigation had been taken up at the autumn 2015 meeting.11 
Since th en, a public hearing had been held, and the EU wished to reiterate its views at this 
meeting. In the EU's view, it had become clear that the difficulties experienced by Morocco's 
domestic industry were not related to imports. Quality of the products of the  domestic industry, for 
example, seemed to be one of the sources of the difficulties. In addition, there was no price 
undercutting. These all pointed to the fact that there was no causal link with the imports. The EU 
further noted that an anti -dumping meas ure had been in place on a similar paper product since 
2014.   
58.  Morocco  explained that no measure had been imposed yet and the investigation was ongoing.  
2.18  South Africa – Certain flat -rolled products of iron, non -alloy steel or other alloy 
steel (not includi ng stainless steel) (G/SG/N/6/ZAF/4)  
59.  The US noted that South Africa notified the initiation of this investigation on 4 April 2016, 
while the investigation was initiated on 24 March 2016, that is, 15 days before the notification was 
made. On the other hand,  the notification asked that interested parties make any written 
submission and any request for a hearing within 20 days of initiation. The US had three 
questions12: First, it asked how this was consistent with Article 12.1 . Second, whether the 
competent au thorities issued questionnaires to interested parties to gather the relevant 
information . If so, the US asked whether the deadline to provide that information was separate 
from the 20 -day deadline in the notification. Third, if the investigating authority was not gathering 
the relevant information from interested parties, could South Africa identify what sources of 
information it would use in making the determination?  
60.  Turkey  stated that its share of imports was less than 3%, and thus Turkey needed to be 
excluded from the measure even if South Africa decided to impose a measure.  
61.  Japan  had concerns with this investigation. Japan reiterated that SG was an instrument to be 
used only in exceptional circumstances. Japan asked South Africa to strictly abide by the 
obligations in the Agreement.  
62.  Brazil  reiterated its concerns with SG measures taken in the steel sector. Brazil would raise 
technical matters in bilateral discussions, but for now, it wished to emphasize once again that SG 
was an instrument to be used only  in exceptional circumstances.  
                                               
10 Circulated in G/SG/Q2/MAR/1.  
11 See G/SG/N/6/MAR/9.  
12 The questions were subsequently circulat ed in G/SG/Q2/ZAF/3.  G/SG/M/49  
 
- 9 - 
 
  63.  The EU regretted that South Africa initiated this investigation because while the source of the 
problem seemed to lie with particular exporting countries, a SG investigation affected all exporting 
countries. The EU wished to make three specific comments. First, the EU asked South Africa to 
submit a meaningful non -confidential summary of information. Second, the EU noted that while 
the notification referred to overcapacity, the source of such overcapacity was not identified. If  the 
source of the overcapacity was known, a more targeted instrument, namely an anti -dumping 
measure, needed to be used. Third, it was the EU's view that information regarding serious  injury 
was not sufficient.  
64.  The Republic of Korea  had concerns with this  investigation, and asked South Africa to strictly 
abide by the obligations in the Agreement.  
65.  South Africa  asked that questions be submitted in writing.  
2.19  Thailand - Hot rolled steel flat products with certain amounts of alloying elements 
(G/SG/N/10/THA/2/S uppl.2–G/SG/N/11/THA/2/Suppl.4 and 
G/SG/N/10/THA/2/Suppl.3 –G/SG/N/11/THA/2/Suppl.5)  
66.  India regretted that Thailand was extending the measure. SG was a temporary measure, and 
should not be prolonged unnecessarily. India asked Thailand to reconsider its concl usion.   
2.20  Thailand – Structural hot rolled H -beam with alloy (G/SG/N/6/THA/5 and 
G/SG/N/6/THA/5/Corr.1)  
67.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
2.21  Tunisia – Ceramic tiles (item requested by t he European Union)  
68.  The EU recalled that this inve stigation had been taken up at the autumn 2015 meeting.13 
Since this was an important industry for the EU, the EU wished to make several comments. The EU 
was of the view that this investigation was initiated on weak grounds. There was neither increase 
in im ports, nor serious injury. In addition, there were various products included in the 
investigation, including products that the domestic industry did not produce and products that the 
domestic industry themselves imported. Nor was there causal link. Therefo re, the EU asked Tunisia 
not to impose a measure.  
69.  Turkey  had concerns with this investigation. Among others, the definition of the domestic 
industry was unclear, and there was no causal link. At any rate, Turkey's share of imports was 
smaller than 3%. The refore, even if Tunisia decided to impose a measure, Turkey needed to be 
excluded from the measure.    
70.  Tunisia  asked that questions be submitted in writing. In addition, Tunisia reiterated that it was 
not a frequent user of the SG instrument.   
2.22  Turkey - Transmission apparatus incorporating reception a pparatus (c ellular)  
portable t elephone (G/SG/N/9/TUR/6)  
71.  While it welcomed the termination of the investigation, Korea  asked Turkey to be prudent in 
initiating investigations.  
72.  The EU also welcomed the terminatio n of the investigation. On the other hand, the EU 
understood that the investigation period regarding another product, namely, tableware, had 
expired in January 2016. A termination notice as was made in the case at hand had not been 
submitted for the invest igation on tableware. The EU asked Turkey to clarify the situation in that 
investigation.  
73.  Chinese Taipei  welcomed the termination of the investigation.  
                                               
13 See G/SG/N/6/TUN/5.  G/SG/M/49  
 
- 10 - 
 
  2.23  Ukraine - Motor c ars (G/SG/N/8/UKR/3/Suppl.3 –G/SG/N/10/UKR/3/Suppl.4 –
G/SG/N/11/UKR/1/Suppl.3)  
74.  There w ere no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
2.24  Viet N am - semi -finished and certain finished products of alloy and non -alloy steel 
(G/SG/N/6/VNM/4 and G/SG/N/7/VNM/2 –G/SG/N/11/VNM/2)  
75.  Japan  stated that in its view, the provisional measure imposed was i nconsistent with the 
Agreement. For example, there was no meaningful increase in imports, nor were there unforeseen 
developments. Japan asked Viet Nam to fully comply with the Agreement in conducting the 
investigation.  
76.  The EU noted that the problem lay in imports from one country. In the EU view, in such a 
situation, a trade remedies instrument that was country -specific needed to be used.  
77.  China  had concerns with the investigation and the provisional measure. Viet Nam had not 
followed the transparency requir ements of the Agreement, such as those stipulated in Article 12. 
In addition, China had not provided a meaningful opportunity for consultations. China asked 
Viet Nam to fully comply with the Agreement in conducting the investigation.  
78.  Viet Nam  stated that i t understood that a consultation was held with China.  
79.  China  was not sure wh ether a consultation had been  held.  
2.25  Viet Nam – Monosodium g lutamate (G/SG/N/7/VNM/3 –G/SG/N/11/VNM/3)  
80.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
2.26  Zambia - Flat–rolled  products of iron, non -alloy steel, trailers and semi -trailers 
(G/SG/N/6/ZMB/1 -G/SG/N/7/ZMB/1)  
81.  The Chair  stated that the US questions14 regarding this investigation were left unanswered.  
82.  Zambia was not represented in the room.  
83.  The Chair  reminded delegation s that any questions for which written responses were 
requested should be submitted to the Member concerned and to the Secretariat no later than 
17 May 2016. Written responses to questions, including questions submitted in writing prior to this 
meeting, sh ould be submitted to the Secretariat no later than 6 June 2016. As with legislative 
notifications, any unanswered questions would be indicated in the draft annotated agenda of the 
next meeting.  
84.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
3  NOTIFICATION P URSUANT TO ARTICLE 9, FOOTNOTE 2 OF THE AGREEMENT (ITEM 
REQUESTED BY THE UNITED STATES, AUSTRALIA,  CHINESE TAIPEI AND UKRAINE)  
85.  The Chair  clarified that subsequent to the closing of the agenda, he was informed by Canada 
and the EU that they wished to be ad ded to the names of co -sponsors of  this item.  
86.  The US stated that most Members complied with footnote 2 of the Agreement by notifying a 
list of developing countries that were excluded from the measure. This was a good way to ensure 
transparency, and was als o consistent with the notification format approved by the Committee in 
2009 (G/SG/1/Rev.1). Specifically, the format instructed Members to "specify the developing 
countries to which the measure is not applied". The US noted that not all Members submitted s uch 
notifications. The US noted that since 2009, only 7 Members had not made the notifications in this 
manner, and six of the seven were developing countries themselves. These 7 Members constituted 
33% of all the relevant notifications made. The US asked w hy those 7 Members did not make the 
                                               
14 See G/SG/Q2/ZMB/1.  G/SG/M/49  
 
- 11 - 
 
  footnote 2 notifications in the form of a list; why the 6 developing country Members did not find 
such list necessary for their fellow developing countries; and whether there was anything that the 
Committee could do to h elp the 7 Members .  
87.  Japan, Ukraine, Australia, the EU, Chinese Taipei, Canada, Mexico, Norway, Korea and 
Indonesia  supported the US statement. Australia agreed on the systemic importance of 
transparency and emphasised that this notification obligation prov ided predictability for developing 
countries to know whether or not their exports are excluded.  Australia also emphasised that this 
footnote required immediate notification . 
88.  China  reiterated the importance of transparency and stated that it was willing to  consider the 
idea.  
89.  Brazil , in addition to supporting the idea, stated that the share of imports of each developing 
country should be indicated from the beginning of the investigation.   
90.  Peru, while supporting the US idea, stated that it wished to know th e idea better.   
91.  India stated that it heard the idea only then. India needed to see a paper to know exactly 
what the required specifications were so that the officials in its capital could consider.  
92.  The Chair  stated he would leave this matter in the hands  of the incoming chair.  
4  IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E SAFEGUARD AGREEMEN T: CREATION OF A WOR KING 
GROUP ON IMPLEMENTAT ION (ITEM REQUESTED BY BRAZIL)  
93.  The Chair  clarified that this item was included at the request of Brazil.  
94.  Brazil  wished to invite Members to reflect  on a topic that could contribute to the work of the 
Committee, and also to improve the functioning of the multilateral trading system. Brazil 
suggested creating a forum where experts could engage in horizontal technical discussions on SG 
investigations wi thout reference to specific investigations. Such a forum would allow Members to 
learn from each other and could also allow Members to find common approaches to the various 
problems that all Members generally face.  This forum could operate in a similar man ner as the 
existing Working Group on Implementation under the Anti -dumping Committee. Brazil 
foreshadowed that it would make a comparable proposal in the Subsidies Committee.  
95.  Russia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Canada and Turkey  supported the idea.  
96.  While suppor ting the idea  of a discussion of safeguard practices , South Africa, China, Chinese 
Taipei, Egypt, Korea, Australia, Morocco, Norway, Chile, the EU, the Philippines and Japan  wished 
to know the details.  Australia noted the unique nature of the safeguard ins trument and sought 
clarification on whether Brazil was seeking the development of recommendations . 
97.  The US stated that while its first reaction was supportive, it was sceptical whether this was an 
appropriate time to establish such a group. The US noted tha t a new working group process was 
currently being tested in the Anti -dumping Committee, and thus, a possible alternative in the SG 
Committee was to likewise purse something on a trial basis. Specifically, the SG Committee could 
have trial discussions in th e Committee on the possible topics while at the same time continue with 
the informal discussion group that currently existed.      
98.  India needed to consult its capital, and receiving a paper would be helpful in this regard. 
India's preliminary comments were  as follows: First, while it noted that Brazil's idea was modelled 
on the working group in the Anti -dumping Committee, India was of the view that the SG 
instrument was different from the anti -dumping instrument. SG was a temporary measure, and 
was used mor e sparingly compared to anti -dumping. Second, the working group in the Anti -
dumping Committee had its own history. India was unsure whether imitating the model in the 
Anti-dumping Committee was a good idea. India noted that even without a working group, 
Members had been engaged in good discussions in the SG Committee.  G/SG/M/49  
 
- 12 - 
 
  99.  Brazil  first clarified that what it made today was not a formal proposal, but a statement. While 
Brazil noted that some Members had views regarding the differences between the situation here 
and in the Anti -dumping Committee, Brazil understood that implementation was not something 
limited to the anti -dumping area. Brazil was well aware that one of the functions of the 
Implementation Working Group was to make recommendations to the Committee. B ut for now, 
Brazil wished to focus on the stage preceding that; that is, Members discussing technical matters 
without reference to specific investigations. Brazil asked the Chair to hold informal consultations in 
order to deepen the discussion. Brazil wish ed to see some kind of conclusion before the autumn 
2016 meeting of the Committee.      
100.  The US and Indonesia  agreed to the idea of holding informal consultations.  
101.  India asked that a paper be circulated before such consultations.  
102.  Brazil  stated that it would  prepare some form of paper.   
103.  The Chair  stated that he would ask the incoming chair to hold informal consultations.  
5  ADDITION OF CERTAIN INFORMATION INTO THE  ANNUAL REPORT (ITEM REQUESTED 
BY AUSTRALIA)  
104.  The Chair  recalled that at the October 2015 Committee meeting he was asked to hold 
informal consultations on two issues: (i) Australia's proposal to include in the relevant annex of the 
Annual Report the timing of key actions taken under Article 12.1 of the Agreement, and (ii) a US 
suggestion that the Committ ee reconsider its practice regarding what notifications should be 
automatically included in the agenda of Committee meetings. This item dealt with Australia's 
proposal. The Chair  further recalled that in the informal consultations held on 11 April 2016, so me 
Members stated that they needed more time, and that Australia wished to have this item placed 
on today's agenda.     
105.  Referring to a room document15, Australia  recapped its proposal.  Australia highlighted that it 
was seeking the addition of the date of no tifications to be expanded to the range of safeguard 
actions covered under Article 12.1 of the Agreement which were currently included in Annex 2 of 
the Annual Report. This was intended to better track the status of safeguard actions and therefore 
better d ischarge the Committee’s critical monitoring function. Australia emphasised that the 
proposal did not impose any burden on Members as it would merely involve the compilation of 
already available notification information by the WTO Secretariat . 
106.  The US, Arge ntina, Chinese Taipei, Mexico, Norway, Switzerland, Japan, Korea, China, 
Canada, Brazil, the EU and Singapore  supported Australia's proposal.  
107.  India stated that the Annual Report was a general document with a broad perspective, and 
was not intended to go i nto detailed analysis of the notifications. Readers should refer to the 
notifications themselves if they needed details, and the Annual Report should not be overloaded 
with details. In India's view, as it currently stood, the Annual Report of the SG Commit tee was 
already more detailed than the Annual Report of the Anti -dumping Committee. India also pointed 
out that it usually notified a recommendation to impose a measure. India was unsure how such 
practice would be treated.  
108.  The Chair  stated that he would l eave this matter  in the hands of the incoming C hair. 
109.  Australia  was disappointed that India had not changed its position. Australia was not 
suggesting that all the details in the notifications be replicated in the Annual Report. Australia 
wondered why India  could agree last year to Japan's proposal to amend certain aspects of the 
format of the Annual Report while it could not agree to Australia's similar proposal.    
110.  India stated that, unlike the proposal by Japan, to which India had agreed, there were 
certain things that were not clear in Australia's proposal. India wished to consult bilaterally with 
Australia.  
                                               
15 RD/SG/14.  G/SG/M/49  
 
- 13 - 
 
  111.  The Chair  encouraged India and Australia to consult with each other.  
6  CONTINUATION OF THE DISCUSSION ON THE CO MMITTEE PRACTICE OF WHAT ITEM 
TO AUTOM ATICALLY PUT ONTO TH E AGENDA  
112.  The Chair  stated that, as with the previous item, this item dealt with one of the issues on 
which he held informal consultations on 11 April. Some Members needed more time, and so this 
item was placed in today's agenda.  
113.  Referri ng to the background m emo prepared by the Secretariat16, the US recapped its 
proposal. Concretely, the US proposed that the following four types of notifications be placed 
automatically on the agenda of each Committee meetings: (i) notifications on mid -term review, (ii) 
notifications on the results of the consultations, (iii) notifications regarding compensation referred 
to in Article 8.1, and (iv) notifications regarding proposal to suspend concessions. The US 
understood that addition of these notifications  would result in 3 -5 more notifications taken up in 
the two Committee meetings per year, which was not a big burden. The US hoped that Members 
could agree to automatically include these notifications as from the autumn 2016 meeting of the 
Committee.  
114.  Argen tina, Australia, the EU, Norway, Chinese Taipei, Korea, Japan, China, Canada, Turkey, 
Brazil and Singapore  expressed support to the US idea.  
115.  India stated that it was still considering the idea, and would come back with its views in due 
course.  
116.  The Chair  stated that he would leave this matter in the hands of the  incoming C hair. 
7  DISCUSSION GROUP REG ARDING SAFEGUARD PRO CEEDINGS  
117.  The Chair explained that this item was placed on the agenda at the request of the 
delegations of Australia, Canada, the EU, Israel, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Norway, Chinese 
Taipei, Singapore and the US.  
118.  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 
discus sion 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 mor e on each 
other's experiences and to learn from each other. The US noted that the last discussion group held 
in October 2015 was the most widely attended of the previous five meetings. The topic for today's 
discussion was: (1) the duration of a measure and  mid-term reviews and (2) structure and staffing 
of investigating authorities.   
119.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
8  OTHER BUSINESS  
8.1  Statement regarding an investigation by Tunisia  – Item requested by the EU  
120.  The EU made a statement on two invest igations by Tunisia: one on glass bottles and another 
on MDF fibre boards. The EU understood that both of these investigations were ongoing. Regarding 
glass bottles, the EU did not think there was serious injury or causal link. Regarding MDF fibre 
boards, the EU did not find any causal link, and the injury was self -inflicted by the domestic 
industry.     
                                               
16 RD/SG/15.  G/SG/M/49  
 
- 14 - 
 
  8.2  Statement regarding the legislative notification by Kazakhstan  
121.  The US noted that Kazakhstan had already submitted its legislative notification. The US 
commended Kazakhstan for making the legislative notification quickly after its accession to the 
WTO in November 2015.   
8.3  Statement regarding a possible SG action by the US  
122.  The Russia n Federation  asked the United States to clarify the news that SG action may be  
taken on imports of aluminium.  
123.  The US explained that the petition was withdrawn, and the investigation would  therefore  not 
be initiated .  
124.  The Committee took note  of the statements made.  
9  DATE OF NEXT REGULAR  MEETING  
125.  The Chair  suggested that the Committee m eet in the week of 24 October 2016. The exact 
date would be confirmed in due course.  
126.  The Committee so decided . 
10  ELECTION OF OFFICERS  
127.  The Chair  stated that consultations at the level of Council for Trade in Goods (CTG) 
regarding the selection of the new C hair of this Committee as well as of other Committees under 
the CTG were still under way. In light of this situation, he would not deal with this issue today. A 
fax would be sent when  the CTG had agreed on the new C hair.17  
128.  The Chair thanked the Members and th e Secretariat for their cooperation and support during 
his chairmanship.  
129.  The selection of the new V ice-chair would be left up to the new C hair.18 
130.  The Committee took note  of the statement.  
__________  
 
                                               
17 The fax was sent on 11 May 2016. There being no objection, Mr Yuso ng Chen was elected as the new 
Chair.    
18 The new Chair (Mr Chen) sent a fax on 21 July 2016. There being no objection, Ms Kate Swan was 
elected as the new Vice -chair.