WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
G/SG/M/41 
16 July 2012 
 (12-3820) 
Committee on Safeguards  
 
  
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING 
HELD ON 27 APRIL 2012 
 
Acting Chairperson:  Ms Tomoko Ota 
 
 
1. The Committee on Safeguards (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 27 April 2012. 
2. Ms Tomoko Ota, the Vice-Chair of the Committ ee, chaired the meeting in the absence of 
Ms Lillian Bwalya, the Chair of the Committee.    
3. India requested that item D of the agenda ("Request under Article 13.1(b) of the Agreement 
on Safeguards (Request from India)"), which was orig inally placed in the agenda at the request of 
India, be removed from the agenda.   4. The Committee adopted the following agenda: 
A. 
NATIONAL LEGISLATION  ............................................................................................................. 3  
1.  India – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/SG/N/1/IND/3) ...................................... 3  
2.  Indonesia – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/SG/N/1/IDN/3) .............................. 3  
3.  Ecuador – Review of Previously Review ed Notification (G/SG/N/1/ECU/5) ....................... 3  
B.  NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RELATED TO SAFEGUARD MEASURES  ............................................ 3  
1.  Brazil - Fine or Table Wi ne (G/SG/N/6/BRA/5) ..................................................................... 3  
2.  Dominican Republic - Certain Sports and Other Socks 
(G/SG/N/10/DOM/2/Suppl.1) ................................................................................................... 4  
3.  Egypt - Cotton Textile and Mixed Cotton Textile (G/SG/N/6/EGY/6–
G/SG/N/7/EGY/5–G/SG/N/11/EGY/3) .................................................................................... 4  
4.  Egypt - Cotton Yarn (G/SG/N/6/EGY/5 AND G/SG/N/7/EGY/4–
G/SG/N/11/EGY/2) .............................................................................................................. ...... 4 
5.  India - Phthalic Anhydride (G/SG/N/7/IND/9/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/8/IND/22/Suppl.1 
and G/SG/N/8/IND/22/Suppl.2-G/SG/N/ 10/IND/13-G/SG/N/11/IND/8) ............................... 5  
6.  Indonesia - Tarpaulins, Awnings and Sunblinds of Synthetic Fibre 
(G/SG/N/8/IDN/10/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/10/IDN/10–G/SG/N/11/IDN/10 and G/SG/N/8/IDN/10/Suppl.1/Corr.1–G/SG/N/10/IDN/10/Corr.1–
G/SG/N/11/IDN/10/Corr.1) ......................................................................................................  5 
7.  Indonesia – Mackerel (G/SG/N/6/IDN/18 and G/SG/N/8/IDN/13–
G/SG/N/10/IDN/13) ............................................................................................................. ...... 5 
8.  Indonesia - Conveyor Belts or Beltin g (G/SG/N/6/IDN/16, G/SG/N/8/IDN/12–
G/SG/N/10/IDN/12 and G/SG/N/8/IDN/ 12/Corr.1–G/SG/N/10/IDN/12/Corr.1 ................... 5  G/SG/M/41 
Page 2  
 
  9.  Indonesia - Articles of Finished Casing and Tubing (G/SG/N/6/IDN/17) ............................ 5  
10.  Indonesia - Articles of Iron or Steel Wire (G/SG/N/8/IDN/11– 
G/SG/N/10/IDN/11) ............................................................................................................. ...... 5 
11.  Israel - Glass Wool and Wool Rock (G/SG/N/8/ISR/1–G/SG/N/11/ISR/2) .......................... 5  
12.  Jordan - Ceramic Tiles (G/SG/N/10/JOR/7/Suppl.3) ............................................................. 6  
13.  Jordan - Bars and Rods of Iron or Steel (G/SG/N/6/JOR/16) ............................................... 6  
14.  Mexico - Steel Tubes (G/SG/N/9/MEX/1) ............................................................................... 6  
15.  Philippines - Float Glass (G/SG/N/11/PHL/8/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/14/PHL/6/Suppl.1) ........... 6  
16.  Philippines - Steel Angle Bar (G/SG/N/8/PHL/7/Suppl.3–
G/SG/N/10/PHL/6/Suppl.2–G/SG/N/11/PHL/7/Suppl.3) ....................................................... 6  
17.  Philippines - Ceramic Floor and Wall Tiles (G/SG/N/11/PHL/1/Suppl.5–
G/SG/N/14/PHL/1/Suppl.5) ......................................................................................................  7 
18.  Turkey - Spectacle Frames (G/SG/N/8/TUR/8/Suppl.1–
G/SG/N/10/TUR/8/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/11/TUR/8/Suppl.1) ...................................................... 7  
19.  Turkey - Cotton Yarn (G/SG/N/11/TUR/17/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/14/TUR/7 and 
G/SG/N/11/TUR/17/Suppl.1/Corr.1–G/SG/N/14/TUR/7/Corr.1) .......................................... 7  
20.  Turkey - Travel Goods, Handbags and Similar Containers 
(G/SG/N/8/TUR/9/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/10/TUR/9/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/11/TUR/9/Suppl.1) ......................................................................................................  7 
21.  Turkey - Certain Electrical Appliances (G/SG/N/6/TUR/13/Suppl.1–
G/SG/N/7/TUR/11–G/SG/N/11/TUR/11/Suppl.1) ................................................................... 7  
22.  Turkey - Polyethylene Terephthalate (G/S G/Q2/TUR/4 (Questions from India)) .............. 7  
23.  Turkey – Matches (G/SG/N/14/TUR/8)................................................................................... 8  
24.  Turkey - Motorcycles (G/SG/N/14/TUR/4/Suppl.1) ............................................................... 8  
25.  Ukraine - Certain Products of Crude Oil Processing (G/S G/N/9/UKR/6) ........................... 8  
26.  Ukraine - Casing and Pump-Compressor Seamless Steel Pipes 
(G/SG/N/8/UKR/1/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/14/UKR/1) .................................................................... 8  
C. 
REQUEST UNDER ARTICLE 13.1( B) OF THE AGREEMENT ON SAFEGUARDS (REQUEST 
FROM COLOMBIA ) ....................................................................................................................... 8  
D.  IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SURVEILLANC E FUNCTION ENVISAGED IN ARTICLE 13.1( B) 
OF THE AGREEMENT ON SAFEGUARDS  ........................................................................................ 9  
E.  OTHER BUSINESS  ....................................................................................................................... 10  
1.  Ukraine's investigation regarding motor cars ...................................................................... 10  
2.  Various investigations by India ............................................................................................. 1 0 
3.  Statement by the Chair ........................................................................................................ ... 11 
F.  DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING ............................................................................................ 11  
G.  ELECTION OF OFFICERS  ............................................................................................................. 11  
 
  G/SG/M/41 
 Page 3 
 
 
  A. NATIONAL LEGISLATION  
1. India – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/SG/N/1/IND/3) 
5. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
2. Indonesia – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/SG/N/1/IDN/3) 
6. The Chair noted that written questions concer ning this notification had been received from 
Chinese Taipei1, Malaysia and the US in documents  G/SG/Q1/IDN/5, G/SG/Q1/IDN/6 and 
G/SG/Q1/IDN/7.  
7. Indonesia explained that responses to all the questions had been submitted2, but since those 
responses were submitted very recently, it would make some additional remarks now.  The new 
Regulation was based on four main principles: First, to provide interested parties with a simpler and 
more accessible regulatory framework by consolida ting the previously scattered legislations into a 
single legislation.  Second, the new Regulation an d the multilateral rules were supplementary to each 
other. Third, the new Regulation was designed to be  a platform for a more efficient investigatory 
process in light of increasing complexities.  Fourth, the Regulation implemented rules derived from the relevant multilateral rules, and at the same time made further elaboration as necessary.   
3. Ecuador – Review of Previously Reviewed Notification (G/SG/N/1/ECU/5) 
8. The Chair noted that questions regarding this notification had been submitted by the US in 
document G/SG/Q1/ECU/7, and that Ecuador had responded in document G/SG/Q1/ECU/8. 
 9. There were no further comments or questions raised at the meeting. 
 
10. The Chair reminded Members that the dead line for written questions concerning any 
legislation reviewed at this meeting was 21 May 20 12.  The deadline for writt en answers to all written 
questions, including questions s ubmitted in writing prior to this meeting, was 11 June 2012.  
11. The Chair informed the Committee that 26 Members had not yet made a legislative 
notification.3  This notification was one of the import ant obligations of the Safeguards Agreement 
("Agreement").  Members that did not yet have  legislation need only submit a simple "nil" 
notification.   
B. NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RELATED TO SAFEGUARD MEASURES  
1. Brazil - Fine or Table Wine (G/SG/N/6/BRA/5) 
12. Brazil stated that on 26 April 2012 it held  meetings with Australia, Chile, the EU, 
New Zealand, South Africa and the US concerning this  investigation.  Due to unforeseeable logistical 
problems, the heads of the Brazilian investigating authorities were unable to attend.  The questions 
and comments raised during the meetings had been  duly noted, and Brazil would seek to provide 
replies to the unanswered questions  in an expedited manner.   
                                                      
1 The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu. 
2 See documents G/SG/Q1/IDN/8, G/SG/Q1/IDN/9 and G/SG/Q1/IDN/10. 
3 These Members were: Angola, Antigua & Barbuda, Belize, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African 
Republic, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo,  Djibouti, the Gambia, Grenada, Guinea Bissau, Mali, 
Mauritania, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Papua New Guin ea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts & Nevis, Saint Vincent & 
Grenadines, Sierra Leone, Solomon Is lands, Swaziland, Tanzania, and Tonga. G/SG/M/41 
Page 4  
 
  13. Chile considered that it had not been clearly est ablished that fine and table wine was the only 
kind of wine that could be considered to be dir ectly competitive with the Br azilian product; that there 
did not seem to have been unforeseen developments; and that other factors not considered by the 
authority could explain the situation of the dome stic industry.  Due to the exclusion from the 
investigation of imports from MERCOSUR c ountries and from Israel, which represented 
approximately 25 per cent of Brazilian wine imports , the application of the safeguard measure will 
principally affect imports of Chilean wine.     
14. The EU outlined the following concerns: First,  there was no convincing reason for limiting 
the investigation to one type of wine which re presented only approximately 10-15 per cent of wine 
production in Brazil.  Second, there was no evidence of sudden, sharp and recent increase in imports.  
Third the EU was concerned about the exclusi on of imports from MERCOSUR countries from the 
investigation.  Fourth, there was not any serious in jury.  Finally, the EU had doubts concerning causal 
link.  
15. Australia appreciated the fact that, although th e deadline for submissions was 24 April 2012, 
Brazil had indicated that it would accept further subm issions after that date.  Australia was consulting 
with its industry and was considering whether to lodge a submission.   
16. New Zealand stated that any safeguard action taken by Brazil should be soundly based; i.e. 
there was clear and objective evidence that any serio us injury was attributable to increased imports, 
and that the investigation was undertaken in accord ance with the Agreement.  New Zealand expressed 
doubt as to what the unforeseen circumstances were in this case.  In New Zealand's view, other factors 
were affecting the domestic producers, including th e effects of annual clima tic variations and the 
impact of bilateral trade agreements.  New Ze aland would make a submission to the Brazilian 
authorities shortly.  
17. The US shared the concerns raised, and urged Br azil to carefully consider all the factors and 
criteria under the Agreement before deciding whether to impose any safeguard measures. 
18. South Africa had registered its interest in this matter and looked forward to receiving 
responses to the questions it posed during the meetings with Brazil.  
2. Dominican Republic - Certain Sports a nd Other Socks (G/SG/N/10/DOM/2/Suppl.1) 
19. There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 
3. Egypt - Cotton Textile and Mixed Cotton Textile (G/SG/N/6/EGY/6–G/SG/N/7/EGY/5–
G/SG/N/11/EGY/3) 
20. Turkey considered that the criteria for impos ing provisional measure were not met in this 
case, and requested that the case be terminated.  
21. Egypt stated that there had been significant increase of imports, a nd without a provisional 
measure, there would be damage difficult to repa ir.  Egypt asked that questions be submitted in 
writing.     
4. Egypt - Cotton Yarn (G/SG/N/6/EGY/5 AND G/SG/N/7/EGY/4–G/SG/N/11/EGY/2) 
22. Turkey had attended a hearing in this inv estigation on 24 November 2011, and had already 
requested consultations based on Artic le 12 of the Agreement.  In its view, the criteria for imposing a 
provisional measure were not met, and the case should be terminated.   G/SG/M/41 
 Page 5 
 
 
  23. Egypt asked that questions be submitted in writing.     
5. India - Phthalic Anhydride (G/SG/N/7/IND/9/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/8/IND/22/Suppl.1 and 
G/SG/N/8/IND/22/Suppl.2-G/SG/N/10/IND/13-G/SG/N/11/IND/8) 
24. There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 
6. Indonesia - Tarpaulins, Awnings and Sunblinds of Synthetic Fibre 
(G/SG/N/8/IDN/10/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/10/IDN/10–G/SG/N/11/IDN/10 and 
G/SG/N/8/IDN/10/Suppl.1/Corr.1–G/SG/N/10/IDN/10/Corr.1–G/SG/N/11/IDN/10/Corr.1) 
25. The EU was concerned with the number of SG i nvestigations Indonesia had initiated in recent 
years.  This concern applied to all notifications made by Indonesia for the present meeting.  The EU 
insisted that the high standards established by the Agreement, as interpreted by the WTO 
jurisprudence, are met in any proceeding, in partic ular concerning serious injury and causal link.  The 
US shared the EU's concerns.   
26. Indonesia noted that the number of SG investiga tions did not reflect protectionist tendencies, 
but rather the increased awareness of its citizens of  the availability of this instrument.  Indonesia's 
investigations were conducted in conf ormity with the relevant rules.  
7. Indonesia – Mackerel (G/SG/N/6/IDN/18 and G/SG/N/8/IDN/13–G/SG/N/10/IDN/13) 
27. Indonesia was currently holding discussions with Malaysia regarding this investigation.  
8. Indonesia - Conveyor Belts or Beltin g (G/SG/N/6/IDN/16, G/SG/N/8/IDN/12–
G/SG/N/10/IDN/12 and G/SG/N/8/IDN/12/Corr.1–G/SG/N/10/IDN/12/Corr.1 
28. Indonesia explained that although the notification was submitted too late to  be taken up at this 
meeting, this investigation was terminated without a measure.  This was proof that Indonesia was 
carrying out investigations properly.  
29. Japan welcomed the termination.  It added that  the time between the notification to the WTO 
and the date of the hearing was too short, and agr eed with the EU and the US that investigations 
should be carried out in compliance with the Agreement.   
9. Indonesia - Articles of Finished Casing and Tubing (G/SG/N/6/IDN/17) 
30. There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 
10. Indonesia - Articles of Iron or Steel  Wire (G/SG/N/8/IDN/11– G/SG/N/10/IDN/11) 
31. There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 
11. Israel - Glass Wool and Wool Rock (G/SG/N/8/ISR/1–G/SG/N/11/ISR/2) 
32. Turkey considered it clear from the new fo rmat adopted in 2009 that timeliness and 
completeness of information were  crucial in order for exporters and producers to defend their 
interests.  In Turkey's view, Israel's notificati on did not meet those requirements.  In terms of 
increased imports in paragraph (a) of the notifi cation, no information was provided as to whether 
there was an increase in imports relative to domestic production.  In terms of unforeseen developments in paragraph (b) of the notification, the statement that growth in imports in 2010 was G/SG/M/41 
Page 6  
 
  unexpected after changing ownership of the local  manufacturer could not be considered an 
"unforeseen development".  Moreover, paragraph (d ) of the notification stated that the global 
economic crisis had not affected the local market and therefore could not explain the decline in imports in 2009 and the increase in imports in 2010.   This contradicted the assumption cited in 
relation to unforeseen developments.  In terms of injury in paragraph (c) of the notification, no 
information or data was provided to support the st atement that the domestic industry suffered serious 
injury.  In terms of causal link between increased imports and serious injury, no evidence had been 
provided to support Israel's contention that the globa l economic crisis could not  be a relevant factor. 
Finally, Turkey could not find the information on the findings of this investigation, in English or in 
Hebrew, on the website address cited in paragraph 10 of the notification.  
33. The US noted that in its notification, Israel appeared to be imposing duties based on a four-
digit HS code, while in its original notification Isra el used a six-digit HS code.  As the trade values 
varied significantly between the two, the United Stat es requested Israel to clarify the level at which 
imports would be examined for collection of duties.   Additionally, the United States requested Israel 
to provide an update of the status of the investigation. 
34. The EU shared the concerns expressed by Turk ey, and would therefore limit its comments to 
one issue of a systemic nature – namely, transparency  and the rights of defence of other parties versus 
the need to respect confidentiality.  In the definitive determinations in four of the five tables, figures 
had been completely blanked out, without any summa ry or index, and it was therefore impossible for 
parties to understand the substance of the allegations  and to properly exercise their rights of defence. 
While the EU recognized the need to respect conf identiality, particularly where there was only one 
domestic producer, a minimum degree of transparency was nevertheless needed and at the very least, 
meaningful ranges should be provided.  
35. Israel requested that questions be submitted in writing.  Israel noted that the decision of the 
Ministry of Finance in this case had been challenge d in court, and the Ministry of Finance was asked 
to reconsider its decision. 
12. Jordan - Ceramic Tiles (G/SG/N/10/JOR/7/Suppl.3) 
36. There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 
13. Jordan - Bars and Rods of Iron or Steel (G/SG/N/6/JOR/16) 
37. Jordan explained that although the notification was submitted after the closing of the agenda 
of this meeting, the deadline for the identificati on of the interested parties had been extended.  
14. Mexico - Steel Tubes (G/SG/N/9/MEX/1) 
38. Japan welcomed the termination of the investigation. 
15. Philippines - Float Glass (G/SG/N/11/PHL/8/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/14/PHL/6/Suppl.1) 
39. There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 
16. Philippines - Steel Angle Bar (G/SG/N/8/PHL/7/Suppl.3–G/SG/N/10/PHL/6/Suppl.2–
G/SG/N/11/PHL/7/Suppl.3) 
40. The Philippines explained that although the notifi cation was submitted too late to be taken up 
at this meeting, the measure had been extended.   G/SG/M/41 
 Page 7 
 
 
  17. Philippines - Ceramic Floor and Wall Tiles (G/SG/N/11/PHL/1/Suppl.5–
G/SG/N/14/PHL/1/Suppl.5) 
41. There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 
18. Turkey - Spectacle Frames (G/SG/N/8/TUR/8/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/10/TUR/8/Suppl.1–
G/SG/N/11/TUR/8/Suppl.1) 
42. There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 
19. Turkey - Cotton Yarn (G/SG/N/11/TUR/17/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/14/TUR/7 and 
G/SG/N/11/TUR/17/Suppl.1/Corr.1–G/SG/N/14/TUR/7/Corr.1) 
43. There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 
20. Turkey - Travel Goods, Handbags and Similar Containers (G/SG/N/8/TUR/9/Suppl.1–
G/SG/N/10/TUR/9/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/11/TUR/9/Suppl.1) 
44. There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 
21. Turkey - Certain Electrical Appliances (G/SG/N/6/TUR/13/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/7/TUR/11–
G/SG/N/11/TUR/11/Suppl.1) 
45. The EU saw considerable legal problems in th e approach followed by Turkey in extending 
existing safeguard measures via the introduction of provisional measures after the expiration of the 
original measures.  This practice amounted to a de facto  prolongation of existing measures without a 
prior determination as to whether such prolongation was warranted.  The EU noted that it could have 
intervened to express the same concer ns in respect of the three previous  notifications.  In addition, in 
the present case, the situation of the domestic i ndustry had significantly improved and there could not 
be any serious injury; an observation that applied e qually in respect of Turkey's safeguard measure on 
matches (G/SG/N/14/TUR/8).  Also, only a short adva nce public notice was given for a hearing in this 
proceeding.  Individually registered parties to th e hearing were not sufficiently informed as well.  
Moreover, the EU delegation in An kara advised that they did not receive such notification and 
consequently were unable to participate in the hear ing.  Such practices affected the transparency and 
procedural fairness of the investigation. 
46. Turkey considered that in all of the safegua rds proceedings, the provisions of the Agreement 
were fully taken into account.  These safeguard inv estigations were initiated following an application 
by the relevant domestic producers, and provided such applications were proper, the relevant 
authorities must act upon them.  The same procedures applied to the extension of investigations when 
a proper and qualified extension appli cation was made.  Turkey stated that all extension investigations 
were in full conformity with Article XIX of the GATT 1994 and the Agreement. 
22. Turkey - Polyethylene Terephthalate (G /SG/Q2/TUR/4 (Questions from India))  
47. Turkey stated that it would respond to India's questions in writing. 
48. The EU was surprised that Turkey had conclude d the investigation in three months.  The EU 
had doubts about the standard of the investigation regarding, for example, increase of imports and 
injury. The increase in imports of PET into Tu rkey was neither sudden nor sharp, and injury 
indicators showed positive development in the last  three years. The latter aspect could not be 
disregarded on grounds that the investigati on was based on threat of serious injury. G/SG/M/41 
Page 8  
 
  49. Turkey requested that the questions be submitted in writing.   
23. Turkey – Matches (G/SG/N/14/TUR/8) 
50. There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 
24. Turkey - Motorcycles (G/SG/N/14/TUR/4/Suppl.1) 
51. There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 
25. Ukraine - Certain Products of Crude  Oil Processing (G/SG/N/9/UKR/6) 
52. There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 
26. Ukraine - Casing and Pump-Co mpressor Seamless Steel Pipes 
(G/SG/N/8/UKR/1/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/14/UKR/1) 
53. There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting. 
54. The Chair reminded delegations that any questions for which written responses were 
requested should be submitted to the Member c oncerned and to the Secretariat no later than 
21 May 2012.  Written responses to questions, includ ing questions submitted in writing prior to this 
meeting, should be submitted to the Secretariat no later than 11 June 2012.  As with legislative 
notifications, any unanswered questions would be indi cated in the draft annotated agenda of the next 
meeting. 
55. The Committee took note of the statements made. 
C. REQUEST UNDER ARTICLE 13.1( B) OF THE AGREEMENT ON SAFEGUARDS (REQUEST FROM 
COLOMBIA ) 
56. The Chair recalled that the Committee met info rmally on 16 April 2012 concerning this 
matter.  Taking into account Members' views at that meeting, the Chair (Ms Bwalya) had sent a 
factual report on her own responsibility to the CTG (document G/SG/100).  
57. Colombia stated that the Chair's report did not make a finding as such, and so did not 
completely respond to the request by Colombia.  In  Colombia's view, there was sufficient evidence 
indicating that Ecuador acted inconsistently with the SG Agreement.  Colombia reiterated its view 
that what Resolution 587 indicated and what Ec uador's notification to the WTO indicated were 
inconsistent.  The following points emerged from th e Committee's informal consultations:  (i) WTO 
notifications should faithfully reflect the original le gal source of the action, (ii) Ecuador admitted that 
its Customs collected SG duties on 19 October whic h was before the consultation with Colombia was 
held, (iii) certain Members stated that the measure seems to have come into force on 11 October, (iv) 
the procedure for the implementation of a measure ne eds to be clear, and (v) lacking indication to the 
contrary, the date of the publication should be deem ed to be the date when the measure came into 
force.  The measure needed to be withdrawn.4      
58. Ecuador stated that that the process followed ha d been fair to both parties, and that the 
process was not rushed, and was sufficiently flexible.  That was particularly important given that no 
rule existed yet regarding this process.  Ecuador re iterated its view that agreeing on a general rule was 
imperative in pursuing issues raised under Article 13.1( b) of the Agreement.  It referred Members to a 
                                                      
4 The statement of Colombia is reproduced in full in document G/SG/W/225.  G/SG/M/41 
 Page 9 
 
 
  joint proposal made in document G/SG/W/222.  Ecuador also stated that the notion of an adoption of 
a decision was different from the notion of making that decision come into effect.  While Resolution 587 was adopted on 11 October 2011, that Resolution did not indicate when it would become effective.  In Ecuador's view, the consu ltation with Colombia was held before the imposition 
of the measure.  In light of the assertion of  Colombia, Ecuador had conducted a documentary 
verification and found that there were certain inc onsistent steps taken by its Customs.  But the 
majority of the imports were not subject to any SG duty.      
59. Turkey agreed with Ecuador that a general rule was necessary to handle issues raised under 
Article 13.1(b) of the Agreement. 
60. The Committee took note of the statements made. 
D. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SURVEILLANCE FUNCTION ENVISAGED IN ARTICLE 13.1( B) OF THE 
AGREEMENT ON SAFEGUARDS  
61. The Chair stated that this item was on the ag enda at the request of Ecuador and its co-
sponsors of the proposal contained in document G/SG/W/222.  
62. Cuba stated that the SG Agreement was less el aborate than the AD or Subsidies Agreement, 
and thus it was important that a procedure be de veloped to ensure predictability of the process. 
63. Ecuador stated that it was imperative that a ge neral procedure applicable to all requests be 
developed in order for the Committee to fulfil its mandate under Article 13.1(b).  Article 3.1 provided 
that "a Member may apply a safeguard measure on ly following an investig ation by the competent 
authorities of that Member pursuant to procedures previously established and made public …" In the 
same spirit, Committee findings under Article 13.1( b) should be made pursuant to procedures 
previously established.  Ecuador also stated tha t: (i) the Article 13.1(b) process and the DSU process 
were different, (ii) a procedure for impartial eval uation was necessary, and (iii) the Committee needed 
to determine what the words "procedural requirement s" as used in Article 13.1(b) meant.      
64. Turkey thanked the Chair for the fair and objec tive process followed in this matter.  However, 
an ad hoc basis was not the right way, and an established procedure was necessary.  It was 
particularly important to define th e term "procedural requirements".  
65. Australia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, the EU , Japan, Mexico, and the US generally considered 
that the Committee had functioned well in its handling of a recent Article 13.1(b) request.  They noted 
that Committee had decided in 1996 to address Article 13.1(b) requests on an ad hoc  basis and 
considered that this remained an  appropriate way to proceed.   
66. Australia noted that because the Agreement cont ains no criteria for distinguishing substantive 
and procedural requirements, Members should be  careful to avoid changing the scope of 
Article 13.1(b).  Australia also questioned whether th e items raised in page 6 onwards of the proposal 
were exhaustive.   
67. Japan stated that, while Article 13.1(b) mandate s the Committee to "find" certain things, the 
proposal did not encourage such action.  Japan wanted to consider the proposal carefully. 
68. Chile, India and Morocco stated that they  were still considering the proposal.   
69. Hong Kong, China did not think that an ad hoc  handling of each Article 13.1(b) request was 
necessarily an unfair way to proceed.  While it was not against seeking a general guideline, it 
cautioned against an excessively narrow and strict procedure.     G/SG/M/41 
Page 10  
 
  70. Turkey agreed that the Agreement did not cl arify the distinction between substantive and 
procedural requirements.  That was indeed the issu e.  Article 13.1(b) did not apply to substantive 
requirements, and thus it needed to be clarifie d.  The proposal would help the functioning of 
Article 13.1(b) by enhancing transparency and predictability. 
71. Cuba requested that this item be placed on the agenda of the next regular meeting.  
72. The Chair stated that she woul d ask the incoming Chair, to be  elected later, to inform 
Members of the way forward.     
73. The Committee took note of the statements made. 
E. OTHER BUSINESS  
1. Ukraine's investigation regarding motor cars 
74. In regard to an investigation by Ukraine on motor cars, which was initiated in July 2011, 
Korea explained that Ukraine decided on 12 April 2012 to impose a measure in the near future.  Korea 
saw problems with this investigation.  For exampl e, the investigation did not establish increase in 
imports, causal relationship, or unforeseen developments.  Korea requested that Ukraine take appropriate steps.    
75. The EU also understood that Ukraine had made  a proposal to impose a measure.  The EU 
requested that the case be terminated, as there w as no increase in imports and no causal relationship 
with serious injury.  The EU reminded Ukraine that compensation was necessary if Ukraine went 
ahead with the measure.  Under Article 8.2 of th e Agreement, Members could suspend concessions if 
Ukraine did not offer compensation.   
76. Japan also understood that Ukraine had recomm ended imposition of a measure.  Japan had 
serious concerns with this inv estigation and had doubts whether it conformed to Article 2 of the 
Agreement as, in particular, there was no increas e in imports.  Japan asked that Ukraine take 
appropriate steps.5   
77. Turkey was monitoring the situation closely, and shared the concerns expressed by other 
Members.   
78. Ukraine stated that it would inform Members of the result of the investigation in due course, 
and asked that any questions be  submitted in writing.     
2. Various investigations by India  
79. The US referred to investigations of India in  general, and stated that the US had on-going 
concerns with the procedure, transparency and due process of the investigations.  The US had raised 
these concerns before, and was planning to submit sp ecific questions in due course.  The EU shared 
the US' concerns. 
80. India stated that it was fully aware of the ob ligations under the Agreement, and all of its 
investigations were conducted consis tently with the Agreement.  India asked that any questions be 
submitted in writing. 
                                                      
5 The statement of Japan is reproduced in full in document G/SG/W/224.  G/SG/M/41 
 Page 11 
 
 
  3. Statement by the Chair 
81. The Chair noted that notifications were some times circulated following the issuance of the 
airgram of a meeting.  With a new system in place – where documents for a specific Committee 
meeting were conveyed electronically and not by pa per – the Committee needed a rule regarding how 
to treat such last-minute documents.  From the autumn 2012 meeting onwards, documents circulated 
after issuance of the airgram would not be the included in the "documents for meetings" website 
(http://docsonline.wto.org/gen_meetings.asp).  Ther e could be exceptions, but this would be the 
general rule.  However, this did not preclude Memb ers from explaining the latest situation regarding 
an investigation orally at the meeting.  At any rate, all documents would be  available on "Documents 
Online".  A Member with technical questions on this matter should contact the Secretariat.  
82. The Committee took note of all the statements made under Other Business. 
F. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING  
83. The Chair suggested that the Committee meet in  the week of 22 October 2012.  The exact 
date would be confirmed in due course.  
84. The Committee so decided. 
G. ELECTION OF OFFICERS  
85. The Chair stated that the Chair of the Council for Trade in Goods had carried out informal 
consultations on the nomination of chairs for the different bodies operating under its auspices.  The 
proposed nominations were taken note of by the Council.  For this Committee, the Chair of the 
Council proposed the nomination of Ms Lillian Saili Bwalya of Zambia, the incumbent, as Chair for 
2012.  She therefore proposed that the Committee re-elect Ms Saili Bwalya as Chairperson.   
86. The Committee so decided. 
87. Regarding the position of Vice-Chair, the Chair conveyed the following message from 
Ms Bwalya: "Since the Council for Trade in Goods agreed on the slate of chairpersons of its 
subsidiary bodies only very recently, I did not have sufficient time to hold consultations regarding the 
Vice-Chair.  I will touch base with  interested Members, and inform you of my suggestion as soon as 
practical."  
88. The Committee took note of the statement. 
 
__________