. /.   WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SG/Q2/PHL/10 
19 May 2010 
 (10-2797) 
Committee on Safeguards Original:   English 
  
 
NOTIFICATION UNDER ARTICLE 12.1(C) OF THE  
AGREEMENT ON SAFEGUARDS 
(EXTENSION OF THE EXISTING MEASURE) 
 
Questions Posed by THAILAND Regarding the 
 
Notification of the PHILIPPINES1 
 
(Figured Glass ) 
  
 The following communication, dated 12 May 2010, is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of Thailand.    
_______________ 
 
 
 Thailand would like to pose the below questi ons and comments to the Philippines regarding 
its notification under Article 12.1(c) of the Ag reement on Safeguards on extension of safeguard 
measures and the reasons for it (Figured Glass) in documents G/SG/N/14/PHL/5  dated 26 February 
2010.  These questions and comments were addressed  to the Philippines during the 26 April 2010 
Committee on Safeguards meeting under agenda items  2B: Notifications of Actions Related to 
Safeguard Measures: (xxix) Philippines – Figured Glass. 
  Before turning into our ques tions, we would like to note our perplexity at the Philippines' 
notification which is in effect an extension of a  suspension  of a measure which the Safeguards 
Agreement does not seem to provide a basis for this t ype of measure.  Furthermore, as mentioned in 
several previous meetings, the suspension of a meas ure indicates that the domestic industry is not 
seriously injured by imports, rendering the measur e unnecessary.  That the domestic industry appears 
to have independently decided to produce a different product further supports the lack of injury in this 
case.  We therefore do not understand why the measure was extended at all, and would like to ask the 
Philippines to provide justification on the WTO-co nsistency of this measure.  Although suspension 
might have the effect of providing some tempor ary relief to exporters, its uncertainty still poses 
possible disruption to trade.  We therefore continue  to urge the Philippines to terminate this measure 
immediately.   With regard to our specific questions re garding the Philippines' notification dated 
26 February 2010: 
 
• First, the Philippines states in its notification that it would conduct a monitoring 
review of the measure after the first quart er of 2010 to consider terminating the 
measure if the domestic industry has not resumed production.  Could the Philippines please indicate if this review has been undertaken, including any results of such 
review? 
                                                     
 
1 G/SG/N/14/PHL/5. G/SG/Q2/PHL/10 
Page 2  
 
  • Second, the notification states that if the suspension is lifted, the applicable duty 
"shall be equal to the amount which DT I would have applied according to the 
schedule of progressive liberalization each y ear ... ."  Could the Philippines please 
provide an example calculation of what  the applicable duty would be if the 
suspension were lifted for 2011? 
 
• We note that Article 7.4 of the Safeguard s Agreement prohibits an extended measure 
from being more restrictive than it is at th e end of its initial period, and that it should 
continue to liberalized.  While the Philippines provided some vies on this issue today, we continue to wonder how the Philippines would be able to further liberalize a measure which is currently suspended, apar t from terminating the measure altogether. 
 
__________