RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SG/M/31 
19 September 2007 
 (07-3932) 
Committee on Safeguards  
  
 
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING 
HELD ON 23 APRIL 2007   
 
Chairperson (Acting):  Miss Jo McKeagg (New Zealand) 
 
 
1. The Committee on Safeguards (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 23 April 2007. 
2. The representative of India
 stated that it wished to make a statement, under "Other Business", 
on a notification from Argentina concerning CD-Rs, and  the following agenda was adopted. 
A. NATIONAL LEGISLATION .............................................................................................................2  
1. European Communities – Review of New Legislative Notification ......................................2  
2. Mexico – Review of New Legislative Notification ..................................................................2  
3. Panama – Review of New Legislative Notification.................................................................2  
B. NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RELATED TO SAFEGUARD MEASURES ..........................................3  
1. Chile – Powdered Milk, Liquid Milk and Gouda Cheese .....................................................3  
2. Jordan – Ceramic Tiles ......................................................................................................... ...3 
3. Jordan – Footwear .............................................................................................................. ......3  
4. Moldova – White Sugar.......................................................................................................... ..4 
5. Panama – Printed Film in Rolls...............................................................................................4  
6. Philippines – Ceramic Floor and Wall Tiles...........................................................................5  
7. Philippines – Float Glass ...................................................................................................... ....5 
8. Philippines – Figured Glass.................................................................................................... ..7 
9. Philippines – Gl ass Mirrors .................................................................................................... .7 
10. Philippines – Sodium Tripolyphosphates ...............................................................................7  
11. Turkey – Frames and Mount ings for Spectacles....................................................................8  
12. Turkey – Motorcycles........................................................................................................... ....8 
C. BRAZIL TOYS – DEVELOPMENTS SINCE EXPIRATION OF SAFEGUARD MEASURE ......................9  
D. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 9.1 ..................................................................................................10  
E. OTHER BUSINESS ......................................................................................................................13  
F. DATE OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING ..................................................................................14  
G. ELECTION OF OFFICERS .............................................................................................................14  
 G/SG/M/31 
Page 2  
 
  A. N
ATIONAL LEGISLATION  
3. The Chairperson  stated that the first item on the Co mmittee's agenda was the review of 
notifications of national safeguard legislations and/or regulations, in accordance with the procedures 
adopted by the Committee at its special meeting in  April 1996.  The Chairperson mentioned that, as 
had been indicated in the airgram convening th e meeting, the Committee had received legislative 
notifications from three Members.  As indicated in  the annotated draft agenda dated 19 March 2007, 
questions regarding these legislative notifications  were to have been submitted to the Member 
concerned and to the Secretariat no later than 2 April 2007. 
4. Concerning the procedure for this meeting, the Chairperson stated that she would first give 
the floor to the Member whose legislation was be ing reviewed to make any introductory statement 
that it wished.  She would then i nvite that Member to present its answers to any written questions.  
The Chairperson reminded Members of the Comm ittee that in accordance with the procedures 
adopted by the Committee, a written version of th ose answers also had to be provided after the 
meeting.  The Chairperson also reminded Members that follow-up questions could be asked at this 
meeting.  Other delegations would also be given an opportunity to present questions orally at this 
meeting.  After the meeting there would be a period for the submission of written questions 
concerning any of the legislati ons reviewed in the meeting. 
5. The Chairperson mentioned that if Members wi shed to have written answers to questions, 
they had to ensure that all questions were presen ted in writing to the Member whose legislation was 
concerned, and to the Secretariat, no later than th ree weeks after the meeting, i.e., no later than 
14 May 2007.  Written answers to all questions su bmitted in writing by that deadline had to be 
submitted to the Secretariat no later than three weeks later, i.e., no later than 4 June 2007. 
1. European Communities – Review of New Legislative Notification  
6. The Chairperson  noted that the legislative notifica tion from the European Communities was 
contained in document G/SG/N/1/EEC/1/Suppl.3.   
7. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.   
2. Mexico – Review of New Legislative Notification 
8. The Chairperson  noted that the legislative notification from Mexico was contained in 
document G/SG/N/1/MEX/1/Suppl.3.   
9. The representative of the United States  stated that questions concerning this notification had 
been submitted to the Anti-Dumping Committee, as this notification had been notified to the Anti-
Dumping Committee as well.  
3. Panama – Review of New Legislative Notification  
10. The Chairperson  noted that the legislative notification from Panama was contained in 
document G/SG/N/1/PAN/1/Suppl.2.   
11. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.   
12. The Committee took note  of the statements made.  G/SG/M/31 
 Page 3 
 
 
  B. NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RELATED TO SAFEGUARD MEASURES  
13. The Chairperson  noted that various notifications had been received since the last meeting.  In 
order to ensure that all of these could be review ed in the limited time available, the Chairperson 
suggested that the Committee address the relevant safeguard investigations as separate agenda items, 
and review all of the notifications pertaining to each separate investigation at the same time.   
1. Chile – Powdered Milk, Liquid Milk and Gouda Cheese 
14. The Chairperson  noted that Chile had made several notifications regarding powdered milk, 
liquid milk and Gouda cheese in documents  G/SG/N/7/CHL/8 and G/SG/N/8/CHL/4 – 
G/SG/N/10/CHL/7. 
15. The representative of Argentina  expressed its concern over th e imposition of two safeguard 
measures, provisional and definitive, on the relevant  products from Argentina. He stated that both 
safeguard measures had been imposed after a single i nvestigation, which, in Argentina's view, was a 
clear infringement of the substantial provisions gove rning international trade. Argentina was of the 
view that such course of actions would provide r oom for countries to impose safeguard measures on 
the basis of scanty reasons and very scarce data.  Among other things, the representative of Argentina 
pointed to the following inconsistencies in the measures taken by Chile. First, both safeguards had 
been established exclusively against Argentina. S econd, Chile failed to explain how both safeguards 
were an appropriate instrument to prevent and reme dy the alleged serious injury. The representative of 
Argentina stated that liquid milk, powdered milk a nd Gouda cheese exported fr om Argentina to Chile 
were different products than those intended by  the measures. Third, the Chilean Commission on 
Distortions did not refer to some of the relevant factors.  As to the question of the extent of injury, the 
representative of Argentina observed that the effort s of the investigating authority of Chile were 
focused on data relating to the existence of injury, no t serious injury. In this regard, he emphasized the 
difference between injury and serious injury.  In  Argentina's opinion, those numerous infringements 
of international trade provisions made the impositi on of the safeguard measures inappropriate.  He 
further stated that the measures contradicted the pr inciple that safeguard measures had to be applied 
only in exceptional circumstances.   
16. The representative of Chile  requested that the statement be submitted in writing particularly in 
light of the fact that Chile and Argentina were meeting the next day in the context of a dispute 
settlement proceeding.  
17. The representative of Argentina  confirmed that the two countries would meet in the context of 
a dispute settlement proceeding, and stated that  Argentina was ready to submit in writing the 
statement read out.  
2. Jordan – Ceramic Tiles 
18. The Chairperson  noted that Jordan had made a notif ication regarding the initiation of an 
investigation on ceramic tiles in document G/SG/N/6/JOR/12. 
19. The representative of Egypt  stated that this safeguard inv estigation was initiated immediately 
after the termination of an anti-dumping inves tigation on which Egypt had previously voiced 
concerns.  He stated that Egypt expected to be treat ed as an interested party in this investigation.   
3. Jordan – Footwear 
20. The Chairperson  noted that Jordan had made several notifications regarding footwear in 
documents G/SG/N/8/JOR/6–G/SG/N/10/JOR/6- G/SG/N/11/JOR/2, G/SG/N/8/JOR/6/Corr.1–G/SG/M/31 
Page 4  
 
  G/SG/N/10/JOR/6/Corr.1-G/SG/N/11/JOR/ 2/Corr.1 and G/SG/N/8/JOR/6/Suppl.1–
G/SG/N/10/JOR/6/Suppl.1-G/SG/N/11/JOR/2/Ssuppl.1. 
21. There were no comments or questions regarding these notifications.  
4. Moldova – White Sugar 
22. The Chairperson
 noted that Moldova had made a notif ication regarding sugar in document 
G/SG/N/13/MDA/1/Rev.1. 
23. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.   
5. Panama – Printed Film in Rolls 
24. The Chairperson  noted that Panama had made a notification regarding printed films in 
document G/SG/N/7/PAN/1–G/SG/N/11/PAN/1. 
25. The representative of Peru  expressed his deep concern over the irregularities in the 
investigation notified.  He observed that the analys is of serious injury was based solely on statistics 
submitted by the company requesting the investig ation, which represented 16 per cent of total 
Panamanian domestic production.  Peru found it ve ry worrying that a company which represented 
only 16 per cent of domestic industry was cons idered to have met the requirement of 
representativeness under the Safeguards Agreement.  Due to the irregularities of the measure, Peru 
invited Panama to fill in a questionnaire intended to cl arify certain issues.  He stated that Peru would 
carefully consider the possibility of having recourse to all legal instruments available in the WTO in order to have the Government of Pana ma correct the inconsistencies.   
26. The representative of Colombia
 stated that Colombia found a large number of anomalies in 
the process of adopting the measure, and thus the measure was inconsistent with the Safeguards 
Agreement.  Firstly, he noted that the investigati ng authority of Panama had recognised the applicant 
on the basis of its share of plastic bags, while the i nvestigated products were films, sheets and rolls of 
polypropylene and printed PVC.  Colombia wished to stress that the product under investigation was 
film in rolls which producers of sweets and other f oods used for the production of packaging – that is, 
as part of the packaging operation.  In that re gard, Colombia requested that the Panamanian 
authorities explain in greater detail what criteri a they had applied in the determination of 
representativeness of the specific firm as an applican t in that investigation.  The second anomaly the 
representative of Columbia pointed out concerne d unforeseen developments. In particular, he 
explained that the investigating authority in Pana ma had based its finding of unforeseen development 
on the termination of an exclusive supply contract wh ich the applicant had held for some time. In this 
regard he explained that the contract was bindi ng only until 2005. When this supply relationship 
ended, companies turned to outside suppliers in view  of the better offers provided in terms of price 
quality, reliability and deliveries.  In light of those facts, Colombia asked Panama to provide a detailed explanation why Panama considered that  the increase in imports was due to unforeseen 
development.  The third anomaly he mentioned concerned factors Panama assessed in determining 
serious injury to Panama's producers. In particular , he stated that Colombia believed that purchases of 
PVC film from Colombia were not in such conditions  that could cause or thre aten to cause serious 
injury to Panama's producers, because the export prices of PVC to Panama increased between 2004 
and 2006.  Therefore, Colombia believed that the an alysis by Panama's authority was not consistent 
with the provisions of Articles 2.1 and 4.2(a) of the Safeguards Agreement.  The fourth anomaly he 
cited was the lack of guarantee of the right to defence. The Colombian in dustry affected by the 
process had submitted an appeal against the ruling. However, the resolution adopting the measures did 
not reflect the arguments contained in the appeal. He stated that this gave rise to doubts regarding due 
process.  The fifth anomaly related to the admiss ion by the applicant that its production technology  G/SG/M/31 
 Page 5 
 
 
  was outdated, dating back to the 60s, 70s and 80s. Th e representative of Columbia stated that absence 
of access to the latest and most efficient production technologies affected the applicant's competitiveness as compared to products origin ating in other countries. Colombia sought an 
explanation from Panama as to how  an update of production technol ogies could be achieved by means 
of a safeguard measure.   
27. The representative of Panama
 stated that it was unfortunate that the statements and questions 
from Peru and Colombia had reached them only on the morning of the meeting. Having said that, he 
underlined that the Republic of Panama had from the very beginning been open to discussions with all 
affected countries.  He stated that, as was also i ndicated in the notification, Panama was willing to 
resume consultations at any time once the measures entered into force. The representative of Panama 
also stated that as Peru and Colombia raised speci fic and technical issues, he invited the Director-
General for Trade Defence of Panama to  speak on the matter in greater detail. 
28. The Director-General for Trade Defence of Pana ma stated that the Government of Panama 
had complied with the requirements of the Safeguard s Agreement.  He explained that Panama offered 
to hold consultations with various Members affected by the imposition of provisional duties, and that 
Panama was still willing to hold or continue consulta tions.  After summarising the procedural steps in 
the investigation, he stated that all the interested parties in the process were invited to participate in 
the hearings announced earlier. He reiterated that Panama provided opportunities to be heard not only 
to governments of the countries concerned but also to businesses and business associations.  He stated 
that the process was to be held around 24 May.  
29. The representative of Peru  stated that once the written rep lies to the questions posed to 
Panama had been received, Peru would initiate a process of consultations as proposed. He also 
requested that the notification recently submitted by Panama on the same product be part of the 
agenda of the next Committee meeting.  
30. The Chairperson  confirmed that the said notification woul d be part of the agenda of the next 
Committee meeting.  
31. The representative of Colombia  stated that he looked forward to receiving written replies to 
the questions he posed at this meeting to Panama.   
6. Philippines – Ceramic Floor and Wall Tiles  
32. The Chairperson  noted that the Philippines had made a notification regarding the extension of 
a safeguard measure concerning cer amic floor and wall tiles in document G/SG/N/14/PHL/1/Suppl.1. 
33. The representative of Indonesia  stated that pursuant to Article 12 of the Safeguards 
Agreement, Indonesia had earlier requested consultati ons with the Philippines, and had also requested 
compensation on 19 May. He stated that the Phili ppine Government had not responded, and instead, 
decided to extend the safeguard measure for the third time.  
34. The representative of the Philippines  noted that consultations between the Philippines and 
Indonesia were ongoing. He stated that the compen sation requested by Indonesia remained to be a 
difficult request, but also stated that the Philippine s had not closed the door on any resolution to the 
matter.   
7. Philippines – Float Glass 
35. The Chairperson  noted that the next item was the Philippines' notification regarding the 
extension of a safeguard measure concer ning float glass contained in documents G/SG/M/31 
Page 6  
 
  G/SG/N/11/PHL/5/Suppl.3-G/SG/N/14/PHL/ 2 and G/SG/N/11/PHL/5/Suppl.3/Corr.1-
G/SG/N/14/PHL/2/Corr.1. 
36. The representative of Thailand
 stated that Thailand remained  concerned about the lack of 
conditions causing or threatening to cause serious  injury to the Philippines' domestic float glass 
industry.  First, she noted that there was no overa ll impairment to the Philippines' sole manufacturer 
of clear float glass and that, in fact, in 2005 th at sole manufacturer supplied over 90 per cent of 
Philippines' float glass consumption. Thailand fa iled to understand how imports could cause or 
threaten to cause serious injury.  Second, she poi nted out that the amount of imported float glass 
products into the Philippines continuously decreased .  Imports of clear float glass, for example, 
decreased from approximately 27,000 metric tonnes in 2002 to 7,400 metric tonnes in 2005.  The 
representative of Thailand also observed that th e Philippines' notification contained in document 
G/SG/N/11/PHL/5/Suppl. 3 stated that the volume of imports had decreased below the pre-surge level.  Thailand considered that the extension of measures despite the significant decrease in imports 
was inconsistent with the Safeguards Agreement.  Third, Thailand understood that float glass exports 
from the Philippines had increased indicating that its glass industry was in fact internationally 
competitive.  For example, the representative of Th ailand observed that float glass exports to Thailand 
from the Philippines increased exponentially from bei ng non-existent in 2004 to nearly 2,500 metric 
tonnes in 2006. She stated that th e marked decrease in imports of float glass into the Philippines and 
the increase in its float glass exports indicated a lack of overall impairment in the position of the domestic industry.  Thaila nd believed that the extension of the saf eguard measure was not justifiable. 
Thailand further sought clarification from the Philippi nes regarding the period of investigation used 
by its authorities. In this regard, she noted that  the period used by the Philippines to determine the 
amount of imports was different from the one used to determine de minimis .  She stated that Thailand 
requested an explanation from the Philippines on that  matter.  She also sought clarification from the 
Philippines regarding the evidentiary standard require d by its safeguard legislation in examining the 
threat of serious injury.  Thailand was of the view that  the standard for threat of serious injury used by 
the Philippines in the investigation resembled that required to determine threat of material injury 
under the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement.  However, gi ven that safeguards were to be used only as 
an extraordinary remedy, Thailand insisted that the lenient standard of material injury employed by 
the Philippines was inconsistent with WTO require ments.  In addition, Thailand raised certain 
procedural concerns about the Philippines' notifica tion of its extended safeguard measure in document 
G/SG/N/11/PHL/5/Suppl.3.  Thailand recalled that Article 12.2 of the Safeguards Agreement required 
a Member extending the measure to provide the Committee with all pertinent information.  She 
recalled that such information had to include, among ot her things, evidence of serious injury or threat 
thereof caused by increased imports, and evidence th at the industry concerned was adjusting. She 
stated that while the Philippines' notification stated that there was evidence of some of the mentioned 
factors, it did not actually provide evidence thereof. For example, she pointed out that although the 
first page of the notification stated that ther e was evidence that the industry was making positive 
adjustments to import competition, no specific evid ence seemed to be provide d.  She stated that 
Thailand looked forward to receiving respon ses from the Philippines on those issues.   
37. The representative of China
 stated that the extension of th e safeguard measure was not viable 
given a marked decrease in imports of float glass in the Philippines. He also made a number of 
comments on the time-limit specified by the Phili ppines' safeguard legislation relating to the 
responding parties' response to the questionnaires.  First, he stated that section 7 of the safeguards 
legislation of the Philippines provided that in the process of conducting a preliminary determination, 
the secretary shall notify the interested parties and shall require them to submit their answers within 
five working days from receipt of such a notice, a nd that the notice shall be deemed to have been 
received five working days after the date of transmittal.   He stated that in t hose five working days, the 
respondent was required to collect and submit releva nt data relating to production and export of the 
product for the preceding six years.  He stated that  the time-limit for answering the questionnaire was 
unreasonably short for the respondent, that it substa ntially impeded the responding parties from fully  G/SG/M/31 
 Page 7 
 
 
  cooperating with the investigation, and that such a provision was not in conformity with Article 3 of 
the Safeguards Agreement. He stat ed that China was of the view that such time-limits should be 
reasonably extended.   
38. The representative of Pakistan  stated that Pakistan was initially excluded from the 
investigation by virtue of Article 9 of the Safe guards Agreement, but in light of the increase in 
imports from the negotiated volume, Pakistan had s ubsequently been included under the order.  He 
further stated that in Pakistan's view, the Safegua rds Measures Act of the Ph ilippines was inconsistent 
with Article XIX of the GATT, in relation to the condition of unforeseen developments.  Noting that 
the product in question was "unbound", he explained Pakistan's understanding that it was when the 
conditions of Article XIX of the GATT were met that safeguard measures could be applied.   
39. The representative of Indonesia  stated that according to statistics, different glass products 
exported from the Philippines increased between 2003 and 2004.  He stated that these figures 
indicated that the domestic industry did not suffer inju ry during that period.  He stated, in addition, 
that the Philippines had imposed safeguard measu res and anti-dumping duties simultaneously, and 
thus there was no export from Indonesia.  He furthe r stated that the Philippines had subsequently 
extended anti-dumping duty on 2 Octobe r 2006 and the safeguard measures on 12 October 2006.   
40. The representative of  the Philippines  stated that he would convey the comments of Thailand, 
China, Pakistan and Indonesia to his capital. Addressing comments of Thailand and Indonesia, he 
noted that there had been ongoing discussions with those governments.   Furthermore, he noted that in the case of Thailand there had been four bilateral me etings on the issue of float glass, and two of them 
at ministerial level.  As regards Indonesia, he confirmed that a minister of Indonesia had written on 
that matter to the relevant minister in the Phili ppines, and that the government of the Philippines was 
seriously looking into the issues raised in that comm unication.  He stated that it was his understanding 
that his capital had submitted a written reply to Th ailand in the framework of the bilateral dialogue 
addressing precisely the matters Thailand raised in its oral statement.     
8. Philippines – Figured Glass  
41. The Chairperson
 noted that the next item was a notification from the Philippines regarding the 
extension of the safeguard measure on figured glass contained in documents G/SG/N/11/PHL/4/Suppl.2-G/SG/N/14/PHL/3 and G/SG/N/11/PHL/4/Suppl.2/Corr.1–G/SG/N/14/PHL/3/Corr.1. 
42. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.  
9. Philippines – Glass Mirrors 
43. The Chairperson
 noted that the next item was another notification from the Philippines, 
contained in document G/SG/N/11/PHL/3/Suppl.2-G/ SG/N/14/PHL/4, regarding an extension of the 
measure on glass mirrors.  
44. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.  
10. Philippines – Sodium Tripolyphosphates  
45. The Chairperson  noted that the next item was another notification from the Philippines 
regarding termination, for public interest reasons , of the measure on sodium tripolyphosphates, 
contained in document G/SG/N/7/PHL/6/Rev.1 – G/SG/N/8/PHL/6/Rev.1. G/SG/M/31 
Page 8  
 
  46. The representative of the United States
 expressed its appreciation to the Philippines for their 
notification.  Explaining that the United States held a systemic interest in that particular notification, 
he noted that the investigation was terminated for public interest reasons in February 2007. He 
recalled that the product had been subject to a provisional safeguard measure.  In light of that, he asked whether, following the preliminary determinat ion, the Philippine authorities completed their 
investigation as to whether increased imports caused or  threaten to cause serious injury to a domestic 
industry.  If so, he inquired whether the Philippin es made an affirmative final determination that 
increased imports had caused or threat ened to cause serious injury to a domestic industry.  If not, he 
recalled that Article 6 of the Safeguards Agreemen t provided that a provisional duty should be 
refunded to Members if there was no such determination.  
47. The representative of the Philippines
 stated that there was no final determination in that 
investigation because shortly after the provisiona l measure was imposed, the Philippine authorities 
noticed the growing impact on prices and took the decision to revoke the order.  Concerning the issue of a refund, he stated that he would consult with the capital.    
11. Turkey – Frames and Mountings for Spectacles  
48. The Chairperson
 noted that the next item was a notification from Turkey regarding the 
initiation of an investigation on frames and mo untings for spectacles contained in document 
G/SG/N/6/TUR/11. 
49. The representative of China  stated that China was very c oncerned with the ongoing case.  He 
stated that Chinese companies should be treated fairly and equally, and should an affirmative 
conclusion be reached, the investigating authorities should elaborate what was the extent necessary to 
prevent or remedy the serious injury and to facilitate adjustment.  
50. The representative of Turkey  stated that Turkey would provide a detailed reply if the 
questions were submitted in writing.  
12. Turkey – Motorcycles  
51. The Chairperson  noted that the next item was a notification from Turkey regarding its 
investigation on motorcycles contained in  document G/SG/N/8/TUR/7–G/SG/N/10/TUR/7-
G/SG/N/11/TUR/7/Suppl.1. 
52. The representative of China  stated that Article 5 of the Safeguards Agreement provided that 
safeguard measures could be applied only to the extent necessary to prevent or remedy the serious 
injuries and to facilitate adjustment.  He pointed out that in the case at hand, Turkey did not indicate at 
all what was the extent necessary to  prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitate adjustment, nor 
did it indicate the methodology for calculating the provisional safeguard duties imposed. He further 
stated that, in fact, export of the product under in vestigation from China to Turkey had been almost 
completely blocked since the provisional safe guard measure had been imposed, going beyond the 
necessary extent, in China's view.  
53. The representative of Turkey  stated that Turkey had imposed  the duties as it was determined 
that increased imports of motorcycles into Turkey, rather than low prices thereof, had caused serious 
injury to the domestic producers. He further stated that prices of the imported products were also found to be one of the factors that affected comp etitiveness of that product on the market.  In light of 
those facts and bearing in mind that there w as no methodology prescribed by the Agreement on 
Safeguards for calculating the necessary measure, apart from a quantitative restriction, Turkey's 
investigation authority chose to use fixed duties as th e form of the safeguard measure. He stated that  G/SG/M/31 
 Page 9 
 
 
  Turkey was of the view that the measure was cons istent with the Safeguards Agreement. He stated 
that Turkey would provide more detailed respon ses if the questions were submitted in writing.   
54. Finally, the Chairperson  recalled that any questions concerning the notifications made under 
the current agenda item for which written responses were requested had to be sent to the Member 
concerned and to the Secretariat no later than 14 Ma y 2007.  Written answers must be submitted to the 
Secretariat no later than 4 June 2007. 
55. The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
C. BRAZIL TOYS – DEVELOPMENTS SINCE EXPIRATION OF SAFEGUARD MEASURE  
56. The Chairperson  recalled that this item had been placed  on the agenda at the request of the 
United States.  
57. The representative of the United States  explained that the United States had requested this 
item to be placed on the agenda because of certain specific concerns it had with the measure.  He 
recalled that Brazil had applied a safeguard measure from July of 1996 until June 2006 on the 
importation of toys.  He noted that the measure had thus been applied for the full ten years which was 
the maximum period that a developing country Me mber could apply a measure under Article 7.3 and 
9.2 of the Safeguards Agreement.  The United States  understood that Article 9.2 provided that Brazil 
could not apply another global safeguard measure on the same product for another five years.  In this 
context, the United States learned that there had been an industry-to-industr y agreement between the 
Brazilian and Chinese toy industry associations to rest rict the exports of toys from China to Brazil 
through monitoring and annual negotiations of an amount  of exportation through the year 2010. It also 
came to the attention of the United States that the Brazilian Government formally homologized the 
decision in a document issued in December 2006. He stated that these developments raised questions 
as to the nature of the Brazilian Government's role  in the initial negotiation and in the implementation 
of the agreement. As an example, he referred to the annual amount which could be exported, and 
stated that to the extent that such restricti on transformed itself into an action by the Brazilian 
Government, concerns would be raised in relation to Article 11 of the Safeguards Agreement.  He 
explained that Article 11.1(b) provided that a Memb er shall not take, seek or maintain any voluntary 
export restraints or marketing arrangements or any other similar measures on the export or import 
side, and that included actions taken by a singl e Member as well as arrangements entered into 
between two or more Members.  The representative of the United States stated that Article 11.3 
further provided that Members shall not encourage or support the adoption or maintenance of public 
or private enterprises of non-governmental measures e quivalent to those referred to in paragraph 1.  
He invited Brazil to describe the Brazilian Governme nt's role in the negotiation and implementation 
of the agreement. 
58. The representative of Brazil  stated that the safeguard measures applied to imports of toys 
expired on 30 June 2006, and that from that date ther e were no restraints applicable to trade in toys, 
other than the common external tariff of MERCOSUR.   Speaking about the nature of the Agreement 
in question, he explained that in August 2006 the Brazilian association of toy producers informed the 
Brazilian Government that it had entered into an understanding with its Chinese counterpart, resulting 
in a mutual agreement between the private sectors of  both countries. As such, he stated, the Brazilian 
Government was not party to that agreement. Th e representative of Brazil further recalled that in 
December 2006, upon request from the private sector, the Brazilian Ministry of Development, Industry and Foreign Trade published the unders tanding aimed at providing transparency and 
publicity to the document.  He explained that the on ly article of that administrative act said that it 
made the agreement public and the act did not contain any obligations concerning public agencies of 
the Brazilian Government. He stated that the Br azilian Government considered that the private G/SG/M/31 
Page 10  
 
  sectors' understanding would contribute to the ha rmonization of trade statistics on toys.  The 
representative of Brazil stated that Brazil would provi de further information bilaterally, if necessary.   
59. The Committee took note
 of the statements made. 
D. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 9.1 
60. The Chairperson  stated that the next agenda item had been placed on the agenda at the request 
of Malaysia, and explained that Malaysia had submitted a document in  relation to this agenda item 
which was faxed to Members on 17 April. 1  
61. The representative of Malaysia  stated that Malaysia had s ubmitted a revised paper which was 
based on the document previously circulated at  the Safeguards Committee meeting held on 
23 October 2006.  She recalled that in the discussions at the previous meetings, more time had been 
spent on the issue of time-period for the calculati on of the negligible volumes under Article 9.1 and 
on the issue of discriminatory application of Article 9. 1.  On the first issue, Malaysia reiterated that a 
separate investigation had to be conducted for the purpose of making a re-determination of the 
exemption using the post-imposition time-period.  She st ated that Malaysia considered that it was the 
duty of the competent authority to demonstrate conformity with the pr ocedures laid out in Articles 2,  
3, 4 and 5 of the WTO Safeguards Agreement. Thus, sh e explained, it had to be demonstrated that the 
imports from developing countries exempted from th e original investigation had surged after the 
imposition of the measure, resulting in injury. If there was a determination without such justification, 
including when there was no separate investigation,  the duty of the competent authority would be 
called into question and at the same time the interest ed parties would be denied the right to defend 
their interests.  She stated that with a view to  achieving a common approach to the issue of the 
application of Article 9.1, Malaysia proposed two options as a starting point for the discussion:  the 
first option would be to discuss the applications of  Article 9.1 based on the notifications made by 
Members, and the second option would be to di scuss the specific issues of the time-period in 
determining de minimis  and re-determination in greater detail.  Malaysia proposed that the discussion 
be focused on the application of Article 9.1 be ginning with the safeguards notifications, once the 
compilation of notifications was prepared by the Secretariat.    
62. On the second issue – the issue of discriminatory application of Article 9.1 – the 
representative of Malaysia stated that the notificati ons compiled by the Secretariat indicated lack of 
consistency in Members' practices pertaining to  the non-application of safeguards measures under 
Article 9.1.  She stated that the period of data collection or investigation generally varied between 
three to six years. Malaysia also found that info rmation on trade volume was inadequate. Malaysia 
proposed that additional information be included in the notification form at to ensure a more consistent 
approach.  She proposed that the additional informat ion cover (i) trade data of developing countries 
on which the measure was imposed, (ii) a list of developing countries exempted under Article 9.1 and 
the duration of the exemption, (iii) the period of da ta collection and (iv) a declaration by the country 
imposing the safeguard measure that it did not inte nd to undertake post-imposition re-determination. 
In that regard, the representative of Malaysia expl ained that in order to avoid recalculation of the 
import volume, the notification had to indicate the countries exempted under Article 9.1 and the years 
exempted.  Information on import volume was to be provided in order to assist the determination of 
whether the inclusion/exclusion of a developing country from a safeguard measure was based on the 
volume of imports and not on price.  Malaysia we lcomed Members' views on its proposals.     
63. The representative of the Separate Customs Te rritory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu  
("Chinese Taipei") stated that Ch inese Taipei supported Malaysia, but as the paper was circulated 
only recently, it was still considering the details.  On  Malaysia's proposed two approaches, he stated 
                                                      
1 Also circulated as document JOB(07)/48.  G/SG/M/31 
 Page 11 
 
 
  that the two approaches were not necessarily altern atives, but could complement each other.  Chinese 
Taipei considered that both approaches would contri bute to the goal of preventing discrimination and 
inconsistencies among Members' practices.  Noting th at Malaysia proposed to start the discussion on 
the basis of the notifications made, he stated that  Chinese Taipei was unsure whether that implied that 
the results of the discussions would become applicab le only to future cases. He noted that Malaysia 
raised several concerns relating to the re-determi nation issue, and suggested that there be more 
organized discussions, with the Chairperson possi bly holding organized informal consultations. 
64. The representative of Pakistan  stated that Pakistan was usually exempted from measures on 
the basis of Article 9.1 and thus Pakistan a ppreciated Malaysia's initiative to devise a common 
practice/procedure to be followed in the application of  that Article.  He requested Malaysia to provide 
more detail on how to analyse the notifications made by Members and on how to proceed with the 
issue of time-period of determining de minimis  and re-determination.  
65. The representative of Colombia  stated that it shared Malaysia's concern regarding the 
application of Article 9.1. He stated that he not ed that Malaysia had explained that some importing 
Members recalculated the level of import volume following the application of the measure.  He stated 
that suppliers which had recorded only insignifican t export share before the imposition of the measure 
would in all likelihood record a higher share after the imposition of the measure. He stated that in 
Colombia's view, extending the safeguard measure to those countries was inconsistent with the 
Safeguards Agreement. Colombia agreed with Ma laysia's proposal that modifications of the 
notification format be made, but asked Malaysia to  explain why in the proposed modification of the 
notification there was a requirement to indicate the duration of the exemption. In Colombia's views, 
the exemption should apply throughout the period of the safeguard measure, and not be left to the 
discretion of the importing country.  
66. The representative of Cuba  stated that Cuba fully agreed w ith Malaysia that there was a need 
to make Members' practices regarding the exempti on of developing countries  more consistent. He 
stated that the proposed modifications of the notification format seemed reasonable and would 
contribute to improving Members' practice.  Cuba therefore supported the proposal and urged other 
Members to give it a constructive consideration with  a view to adopting a decision on a matter which 
should be of interest to all developing countries.   
67. The representative of China  stated that this issue was important especially for developing 
country Members, and stated that China expected that the discussion would improve the transparency 
and efficiency of the application of the Safeguards Agreement.   
68. The representative of Australia , having made the point that his comments were very much 
preliminary given the short time to consider the pape r, stated that Australia had certain queries about 
the definitive list of developing countries in the notification requirements and about the duration of 
the exemption.  On the issue of the time period fo r determining negligible import volumes, he stated 
that the WTO case law did not give enough guidance on the issue, and Australia understood that what 
Malaysia was suggesting was in fact  that developing countries found to be at negligible levels during 
the injury phase would not have safeguard measures imposed on their imports. In this relation, the 
words in Article 9.1 "as long as" ra ised certain issues for Australia, as the use of those words might 
suggest that there was an inherent requirement or ju stification for a re-determination of the application 
of the safeguard measure. In Australia's views,  there was a logical relationship between the de 
minimis  provisions of Article 9.1 and th e determination of injury during the investigation period.  He 
further stated that Australia was interested in a clarification from Malaysia on whether the proposal 
related to only safeguard actions by developed countries or whethe r it was intended to capture all 
safeguard actions including those by developing countries.   G/SG/M/31 
Page 12  
 
  69. The representative of Thailand
 stated that Malaysia's proposal raised very relevant issues and 
stated that Thailand would comment on it after consulting her capital.  
70. The representative the Philippines  stated that the Philippines supported having further 
discussion on Malaysia's proposal.   
71. The representative of the United States  stated that he wondered why Malaysia had submitted 
the document as a "job" document, and encouraged Ma laysia to submit it as an official document so 
that it would be available on the public website of  the WTO.  Commenting on the statement made by 
Colombia, he pointed out that Colombia did not refe r to the terms "as long as" found in Article 9, and 
stated that he wondered how the static reading of Co lombia comported with that provision.  He further 
stated that some of the notification elements cont ained in Malaysia's proposal  were already reflected 
in current notifications, and stated that he was not  sure to what extent additional information was 
really of additional value.  Lastly, the representativ e of the United States raised a question related to 
the underlying fairness of the Article 9.1 provision  with respect to the co untries that were not 
excluded from the measure.  He inquired what was Malaysia's position in a situation where its own 
exporters were locked out of a country due to a safeguard measure while allowing other exempted 
exporting developing countries to sub sequently gain market share, at their expense, in that market.  
More specifically, he queried whether Malaysia, in such  a situation, did not consider that such type of 
a fixed exemption could jeopardize the ability of its expor ters to ultimately get back into that market if 
supplier relationships were set up w ith other developing countries during the period of the measure.   
72. The representative of Japan  stated that he welcomed in general the proposal to enhance 
transparency in the notifications, and stated that Jap an was prepared to continue discussing this issue, 
although further clarifications were necessary.  He st ated that in Japan's view the paper had, however, 
gone beyond the transparency issue, as Malaysia raised the issue of time periods to calculate de 
minimis  and the issue of whether there could be a re-determination of de minimis . He stated that Japan 
believed that it was premature to discuss those aspec ts, and stated that Japan would advise discussing 
first the issue of how transparency in notifications could be enhanced. 
73. The representative of Canada  stated that Canada had concer ns with Malaysia's views on re-
determinations of negligible volumes. He stated  that the terms "as long as" which appeared in 
Article 9.1 of the Agreement needed to be taken in to account, and asked Malaysia for clarification on 
that issue. He also enquired whether Malaysia's c oncern was with respect to the recalculation of the 
denominator of de minimis  or with the overall calculation.  As to the transparency element of the 
proposal, he stated that Canada welcomed some of the points made by Malaysia.  
74. The representative of India  stated that he would provide comments on Malaysia's proposal at 
the next meeting. 
75. The representative of Chile  stated, referring to the question raised by the United States in 
relation to the statement by Colombia, that he saw a discrepancy between the Spanish and the English 
version of Article 9.1. He stated that the Spanish vers ion of Article 9.1 read, if translated into English, 
as:  "on the condition that its share of imports do es not exceed 3 per cent". In his view, that did not 
involve a recalculation.  He suggested that this el ement be taken into consideration in the discussion. 
76. The representative of Indonesia  stated that the issue raised by Malaysia was related to the 
enforcement or effectiveness of safeguard measures. He stated that the matter would be even more 
complicated if there was circumvention.   
77. The representative of the European Communities  stated that the European Communities was 
ready to improve transparency in the implementa tion of Article 9.1 and stated that it remained 
committed to further discussions on this issue.    G/SG/M/31 
 Page 13 
 
 
  78. The representative of Egypt  stated that there were several  issues addressed in Malaysia's 
paper, and he requested that these issues be address ed and considered separately.  He also noted that 
the proposal under paragraph 16 of Malaysia's pape r went beyond transparency requirements.  He 
stated that Egypt was, at any rate, committed to having further discussions on this matter.  
79. The Chairperson  thanked Members for the comments and asked whether there were any 
comments on the way forward.  
80. The representative of Malaysia  stated that it would be very helpful if the Chairperson could 
hold informal consultations on this issue. 
81. The representative of the United States  stated that Malaysia's proposal had been submitted 
only in the form of an informal "job" document, and the United States needed something more formal 
before it could embark on any further work.   
82. The Chairperson  stated that having heard no other comment, she would informally consult 
Malaysia on the possibility of formalising the propo sal and see whether it would be appropriate to 
have informal consultations prior to the next meeting.   
83. The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
E. OTHER BUSINESS  
84. The Chairperson  recalled that India had asked to make a statement relating to Argentina's 
investigation on CD-Rs under "Other Business".   
85. The representative of India  stated that Argentina had notified the initiation of an investigation 
on CD-Rs in document G/SG/N/6/ARG/6 on 7 July 200 6, and that Argentina had then notified its 
decision concerning the imposition of a safeguard measure on this product on 18 April 2007.  He 
stated that the English version of that last notifi cation was still not available, and requested that the 
English version be provided without  delay after which adequate tim e be allowed for analysing the 
notification. He stated that India would subsequent ly request consultations w ith Argentina to resolve 
the issue.  He also stated that India sought the following information from Argentina:  (1) whether 
Argentina provided a timetable for the initiation and application of the safeguard measure; (2) what 
was the nature of the safeguard measure being prop osed and (3) whether the safeguard measure would 
apply on an MFN basis, or would MERCOSUR member s be exempted from it.  He requested that 
until such additional information was provided a nd the consultations ran their full course, the 
safeguard measure be held in abeyance.  
86. The representative of Chinese Taipei  stated that their delegation had only recently learned that 
Argentina concluded its safeguard investigati on on CD-Rs and was intending to implement the 
safeguard measure in early May 2007.  Due to the urgency of the matter and insufficient information 
available, he asked Argentina to provide further in formation. He also requested Argentina to indicate 
all relevant timelines of the proposed measure.  
87. The representative of Malaysia  explained that Malaysia was identified in the notification as 
one of the principal countries of origin of the produc t, and stated that Malaysia echoed the concerns 
raised by India and Chinese Taipei.  She stated that Malaysia wanted to see whether it would be 
accorded the exemption as provided by Article 9.1. 
88. The representative of Argentina  stated that he would transmit to his capital the concerns and 
questions raised, and would circulate the r esponses as soon as he received a reply.   G/SG/M/31 
Page 14  
 
  89. The representative of Chinese Taipei
 stated that the matter was very urgent, and stated that 
Chinese Taipei found many procedural flaws in the handling of this matter. He had strong 
reservations whether procedural fairness was granted to the exporters.  He stated that Chinese Taipei 
reserved its right to seek consultations on this matte r once sufficient information and a proper time to 
examine such information had been provided from Ar gentina. He asked what was the time period for 
holding consultations, and requested that Argen tina commit not to impose this measure until it has 
provided other Members with adequate opportunity for prior consultations.   
90. The representative of India  stated that he did not sense any commitment on the part of the 
representative of Argentina concerning India's request that the safeguard measure be held in abeyance 
until the additional information was provided and the consultations ran their full course. He requested 
the representative of Argentina to convey this re quest to his capital and also requested that the 
additional information be provided soon.  
91. The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
F. DATE OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING  
92. The Chairperson  recalled that regular meetings would nor mally be held in April and October, 
in conjunction with the regular meetings of th e Committees on Anti-Dumping Practices and Subsidies 
and Countervailing Measures.  Accordingly, she sugg ested that the Safeguards Committee meet in the 
week of 22 October 2007.  She stated that the exact date would be confirmed later. 
93. The Committee so agreed .  
G. ELECTION OF OFFICERS  
94. The Chairperson  stated that the Chairman of the Coun cil for Trade in Goods had carried out 
informal consultations on the nomination of Chai rpersons for the different bodies operating under the 
auspices of the Council for Trade in Goods.  The proposed nominations were taken note of by the 
Council for Trade in Goods.  She stated that con cerning this Committee, the Chairman of the Council 
for Trade in Goods proposed the nomination of Miss Jo McKeagg of New Zealand.  She therefore proposed that the Committee elect Mi ss Jo McKeagg as Chairperson.   
95. The Committee so agreed
. 
96. Regarding the position of Vice-Chairman of the Committee, the Chairper son stated that she 
had conducted consultations with a number of Members, and on the basis of those consultations she 
proposed that the Committee elect Mr. Faisal Ab del Rashid of Egypt as Vice-Chairman of the 
Committee.  
97. The Committee so agreed . 
__________