RESTRICTED  
  
G/SG/M/61  
1 February 2023 
(23-0721) Page: 1/17 
Committee on Safeguards   
 
  
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING  
HELD ON 2 4 OCTOBER  2022 
CHAIRPERSON : MS MARY AM ABDULAZIZ  ALDOSERI  
(KINGDOM  OF BAHRAIN ) 
1.  The Committee  on Safeguards (the "Committee")  held a regular meeting on 24 October  2022. 
2.  As the meeting was held in person as well as virtually via Interprefy, the Chair reminded Members 
of the different technical arrangements for participating remotely as reflected in the "Technical 
Guide", a link to which had also been included in the airgra m convening the meeting.  
3.  The Chair reiterated her request to delegations to provide their up -to-date contact details by 
email to the Secretariat, so that it could update the contact details list, currently contained in 
document RD/SG/3/Rev.1 8.  
4.  The draft a genda was contained in document WTO/AIR/SG/1 5.  
5.  Türkiye  stated that it  wishe d to make a statement under Other Business  regarding Morocco's 
safeguard investigation on imports of inner tubes for bicycles, velocipedes, motorcycles and 
scooters.  
6.  The Chair stated that she wished to make three announcements under Other Business: 
(i) regarding the latest status of the Article 13.1 requests, (ii) regarding the selection of the vice 
chair, and (iii) regarding the ongoing General Council and CTG consultations on WTO reform.   
7.  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 Supplemental Notifications of Existing Provisions 
Not Previously Reviewed)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 3 
1.1.1 Brazil – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.19 - 
G/SCM/N/1/BRA/2/Suppl.21 - G/SG/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.12; and 
G/SG/N/1/BRA/3/Suppl.13)  ................................ ................................ ................................  3 
1.1.2 Canada – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/ADP/N/1/CAN/4/Suppl.5 - 
G/SCM/N/1/CAN/4/Suppl.4 - G/SG/N/1/CAN/3/Suppl.3)  ................................ .........................  3 
1.1.3 Djibouti – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/SG/N/1/DJI/1)  ................................ . 3 
1.1.4 Myanmar - Review of New Legislative Notification (G/SG/N/1/MMR/2)  ..............................  4 
1.1.5 United Kingdom - Review of New Legislative Notification 
(G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.13 - G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.12  - G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.12, 
G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/ Suppl.14 - G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.13 - G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.13, 
AND G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.15 - G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.14 - 
G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/Suppl.14)  ................................ ................................ ...............................  4 
1.2 Review of Notifications of New or Amended Legislation or Regulations with 
Outstanding Written Questions  ................................ ................................ ...........................  4 G/SG/M/61  
 
- 2 - 
 
  1.2.1 Liberia – Review of New Legislative Notification (G/SG/N/1/LBR/1 and 
G/SG/N/1/LBR/1/Corr.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 4 
2 CONTINUING REVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATIONS PREVIOUSLY 
REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE  ................................ ................................ .......................  5 
2.1 Cameroon – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifica tions 
(G/ADP/N/1/CMR/2 - G/SCM/N/1/CMR/2 – G/SG/N/1/CMR/2)  ................................ .................  5 
2.2 Ghana –Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications (G/ADP/N/1/GHA/2 ‒ 
G/SCM/N/1/GHA/2 ‒ G/SG/N/1/GHA/2)  ................................ ................................ ...............  5 
2.3 Zimbabwe – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications 
(G/SG/N/1/ZWE/3)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  5 
3 NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RELATED TO SAFEGUARD MEASURES  .............................  6 
3.1 European Union ‒ Certain Steel Products ( G/SG/N/10/EU/1/Suppl.15 - 
G/SG/N/11/EU/1/Suppl.10, G/SG/269)  ................................ ................................ ................  6 
3.2 India – PVC Suspension Resins with Residual VCM above 2 PPM  (G/SG/N/6/IND/48)  .............  8 
3.3 Indonesia – Fabrics ( G/SG/N/8/IDN/23/Suppl.1 - G/SG/N/10/IDN/23/Suppl.2, 
G/SG/N/6/IDN/31/Suppl.1 - G/SG/N/14/IDN/3)  ................................ ................................ .... 8 
3.4 Indonesia – Curtains (Including Drapes), Interior Blinds, Bed Valances, and Other 
Furnishing Articles (G/SG/N/8/IDN/24/ Suppl .1 - G/SG/N/10/IDN/24/ Suppl .2, 
G/SG/N/6/IDN/33/ Suppl .1 - G/SG/N/14/IDN/4)  ................................ ................................ .... 9 
3.5 Indonesia – Yarn (Other Than Sewing Thread) of Synthetic and Artificial Staple Fibre 
(G/SG/N/8/IDN/25/ Suppl.1 - G/SG/N/10/IDN/25/ Suppl .2, G/SG/N/6/IDN/32/ Suppl .1 - 
G/SG/N/14/IDN/5)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  9 
3.6 Indonesia – Evaporators (G/SG/N/6/IDN/30/Suppl.1 ) ................................ .......................  9 
3.7 Indonesia – I and H Sections of Other Alloy Steel (G/SG/N/8/IDN/17/Suppl.4 - 
G/SG/N/10/IDN/17/Suppl.4 ) ................................ ................................ ..............................  9 
3.8 Madagascar – Paints ( G/SG/N/6/MDG/8 and G/SG/N/6/MDG/8/C orr.1) ...............................  9 
3.9 Morocco – Hot-Rolled Sheets ( G/SG/N/11/MAR/7/suppl.5)  ................................ ................  9 
3.10 Morocco – Coated wood board (G/SG/N/10/MAR/6/Suppl.1 - 
G/SG/N/11/MAR/6/Suppl.1 ) ................................ ................................ ..............................  10 
3.11 Philippines – Linear Low -Density Polyethylene pellets and granules 
(G/SG/N/9/PHL/8 ) ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  10 
3.12 South Africa – Threaded fasteners of iron a nd steel bolt ends & screw studs, screw 
studding and other hexagon nuts (excluding those of stainless steel and those identifiable 
for aircraft) ( G/SG/N/11/ZAF/5/Suppl.4)  ................................ ................................ .............  10 
3.13 Tunisia – Wire of iron or non -alloy steel ( G/SG/N/6/TUN/7)  ................................ ............  10 
3.14 Türkiye – Grinding balls and similar articles for mills (G/SG/N/8/TUR/20 - 
G/SG/N/10/TUR/20 - G/SG/N/11/TUR/27 ) ................................ ................................ ...........  10 
3.15 Ukraine – Sodium hypochlorite ( G/SG/N/9/UKR/10)  ................................ ......................  11 
3.16 Ukraine – Certain types of cheese (G/SG/N/9/UKR/11 ) ................................ ..................  11 
3.17 Ukraine – Tricone Drilling Bits (G/SG/N/9/UKR/12 ) ................................ ........................  11 
3.18 United Kingdom - Certain steel products ( G/SG/N/10/GBR/1/Suppl.9 – 
G/SG/N/11/GBR/1/Suppl.9, G/SG/N/8/GB R/1/Suppl.7 - G/SG/N/10/GBR/1/Suppl.8 - 
G/SG/N/11/GBR/1/Suppl.8, G/SG/N/8/GBR/1/Suppl.7/Corr.1 - 
G/SG/N/10/GBR/1/Suppl.8/Corr.1 - G/SG/N/11/GBR/1/Suppl.8/Corr.1, G/L/1431 - 
G/SG/273 - G/SG/N/12/IND/3, G/L/1431/Suppl.1 – G/SG/N/12/IND/3/Suppl.1, 
G/SG/272, G /SG/271, G/L/1398/Suppl.2 - G/SG/263/Suppl.2, G/SG/257/Suppl.2, 
G/SG/270)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  12 G/SG/M/61  
 
- 3 - 
 
  3.19 United States – Crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells (G/SG/N/10/USA/7/ Suppl .15, 
G/SG/N/10/USA/7/ Suppl .15/Corr.1)  ................................ ................................ ...................  14 
4 INDONESIA - CARPETS AND OTHER TEXTILE FLOOR COVERINGS (ITEM 
REQUESTED BY JAPAN)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 14 
5 INDONESIA - ARTICLES OF APPAREL AND CLOTHING ACCESSORIES (ITEM 
REQUESTED BY JAPAN)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 15 
6 OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  15 
6.1 Morocco's investigation on inner tubes for bicycles, velocipedes, motorcycles and 
scooters (item requested by Türkiye)  ................................ ................................ ..................  15 
6.2 Article 13.1 Requests  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 15 
6.3 Election of the Vice Chair  ................................ ................................ .............................  16 
6.4 WTO reform  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  16 
7 DATE OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING  ................................ ................................ ....... 17 
8 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS  ..........  17 
 
1  NATIONAL LEGISLATION1 
1.1  Review of Notifications of New or Amended Legislation or Regulations Not Previously 
Reviewed by the Committee (Including Supplemental Notifications of Existing Provisions 
Not Previously Reviewed)  
1.1.1   Brazil  – Review of New Legislative Notification ( G/ADP/N/1/BRA/3/ Suppl .19 - 
G/SCM/N/1/BRA/2/ Suppl .21 - G/SG/N/1/BRA/3/ Suppl .12; and 
G/SG/N/1/BRA/3/ Suppl .13) 
8.  Brazil  stated that the detailed explanation would be provided at the meeting of the Committee 
on Anti -Dumping Practices  ("Anti-Dumping Committee "). It explained  that the notification was 
evidence of Brazil's constant effort to improve and update its internal regulations. Brazil was ready 
to engage with Members i f there were any questions . 
9.  No comments or questions were raised.  
1.1.2   Canada  – Review of New Legislative No tification ( G/ADP/N/1/CAN/4/ Suppl .5 - 
G/SCM/N/1/CAN/4/ Suppl .4 - G/SG/N/1/CAN/3/ Suppl .3) 
10.  Written questions were posed regarding this notification and can be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/CAN/20 - G/SCM/Q1/CAN/20 - G/SG/Q1/CAN/4 ‒ Submitted by 
Hong Kong,  China   
11.  The Chair explained that Hong Kong , China's question  relate d to anti -dumping and 
countervailing  duty matters , hence the discussion would  take place in the Anti -Dumping Committee  
and the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures . 
1.1.3   Djibouti  – Review of New Legislative Notification ( G/SG/N/1/DJI/1 ) 
12.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
 
1 Relevant deadlines for written questions and written answers regarding the notifications of legislation 
can be found in section 1 of document G/ADP/W/508 - G/SCM/W/584 - G/SG/W/254.  G/SG/M/61  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.1.4   Myanmar - Review of New Legislative Notification ( G/SG/N/1/MMR/2 ) 
13.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
1.1.5   United Kingdom - Review of New Legislative Notification 
(G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/ Suppl .13 - G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/ Suppl .12 - 
G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/ Suppl .12, G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/ Suppl .14 - 
G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/ Suppl .13 - G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/ Suppl .13, AND 
G/ADP/N/1/GBR/1/ Suppl .15 - G/SCM/N/1/GBR/1/ Suppl .14 - 
G/SG/N/1/GBR/1/ Suppl .14) 
14.  Written questions were posed regarding this notification and can be found in document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/GBR/7 - G/SCM/Q1/GBR/7 – G/SG/Q1/GBR/9 ‒ Submitted by the United States  
15.  The Chair noted  that the United State s had suggested  that the review of the questions be 
conducted in the Anti -Dumping Committee.   
16.  The United Kingdom  stated that it w ould provide written responses to the questions from the 
United States before the next formal meeting  of the Committee. For the day, it provided a summary 
of the three legislation s notified . The first one was Section 74 of the Finance (No 2) Act 2022. This 
provision authoris ed the Secretary of State fo r Internatio nal Trade to "call in" , or take responsibility 
for, specific transition reviews or reconsiderations of transition review s. The second notification  was 
about  the Trade Remedies (Review and Reconsideration of Transitioned Trade Remedies) 
Regulations 2022.  These regulations  set out the details of the "call in" framework , under which the 
Secretary of State c ould "call in " a transition review or reconsideration of a transition review that 
had been initiated by the Trade Remedy Authority ("TRA ") but  had not yet concluded. When a 
transition review or reconsideration thereof was "called in" , the Secretary of State could  issue 
directions to the TRA. The TRA maintain ed its investigatory functions and provide d the Secretary of 
State with a report of  findings which the Secretary of State must take into account when making a 
final decision. The " call-in" framework was about how transition reviews and reconsiderations of 
transition reviews c ould be conducted and it supplement ed the United Kingdom's default domestic 
framework whereby the TRA issue d a recommendation to the Secretary of State , who  could either 
accept or reject the recommendation . This "call-in" legislation applie d only to transition reviews and 
reconsiderations of transition reviews and d id not extend to new investigations and other types of 
reviews. Transition reviews were conducted to determine whether th e trade remedy measures 
originally applied by the European Union on behalf of the United  Kingdom, which the United Kingdom 
had retained , remain ed necessary. Reconsiderations were a key feature of the United Kingdom's 
trade remedy system whereby an interest ed party c ould request the TRA  to revisit a decision that 
affect ed them. The third notification related to the Trade Remedies Miscellaneous Amendments 
Regulations 2022. It amend ed the Trade Remedies legislation to support the TRA and the Secretary 
of State  in carrying out their functions.  
17.  The Committee took note  of the notifications , statements, as well as questions.  
1.2  Review of Notifications of New or Amended Legislation or Regulations with 
Outstanding Written Questions  
1.2.1   Liberia  – Review of New Legislative Notification ( G/SG/N/1/LBR/1 and 
G/SG/N/1/LBR/1/C orr.1) 
18.  Written questions regarding this notification had been submitted and can be found in document:  
• G/SG/ Q1/LBR/1 ‒ submitted by the United  States  
19.  The Chair noted that these questions had been pending since the Committee meeting of 
April 2018.  
20.  The delegation of Liberia  was not present at the time . Oral answers were not provided at the 
meeting, nor had written answers been received.  G/SG/M/61  
 
- 5 - 
 
  21.  The Committee took note  of the notification , statement, as well as questions.  
2  CONTINUING REVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE NOTIFICATIONS PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY 
THE COMMITTEE2 
2.1  Cameroon – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications 
(G/ADP/N/1/CMR/2  - G/SCM/N/1/CMR/2 – G/SG/N/1/CMR/2)  
22.  Written follow -up questions regarding this notification had been submitted and can be found in 
document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/CMR/5 - G/SCM/Q1/CMR/5 - G/SG/Q1/CMR/5 - submitted by the United States  
23.  The Chair explained that the United States had asked that the review of the follow -up questions 
be conducted in the Anti -Dumping Committee.  
2.2  Ghana –Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications (G/ADP/N/1/GHA/2 
‒ G/SCM/N/1/GHA/2 ‒ G/SG/N/1/GHA/2)  
24.  Written fo llow-up questions regarding this notification had been submitted and can be found in 
document:  
• G/ADP/Q1/GHA/3 ‒ G/SCM/Q1/GHA/3 ‒ G/SG/Q1/GHA/3 - submitted by the United States  
 
25.  The Chair explained that the United States had asked that the review of the f ollow-up questions 
be conducted in the Anti -Dumping Committee.  
2.3  Zimbabwe – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications 
(G/SG/N/1/ZWE/3)  
26.  Written follow -up questions regarding this notification had been submitted and can be found in 
document:  
• G/SG/ Q1/ZWE/3 ‒ submitted by the United States  
27.  The delegation of Zimbabwe  was not present at the time.  Oral answers were not provided at 
the meeting, nor had written answers been received.  
28.  The Chair informed the Committee that 1 7 Members had not yet made a legi slative notification .3 
This notification was one of the important obligations of the Agreement  on Safeguards 
("Agreement") . Members that did not yet have any legislation need ed only to submit a simple "nil" 
notificati on. 
29.  The United States  noted that while an increasing number of Members had notified their 
legislation, there still remained many Members which had not yet done so, as indicated in footnote  3 
of the minutes from the April 202 2 meeting. 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. Timely and complete notifications enabled the WTO’s negotiating arm to function 
properly.  The United States continued to encourage all of  the outstanding Members who had yet to 
make their respective notifications to review their individual situations and make the applicable 
notifications. In this context, the United States referred to the transparency proposal, entitled 
Procedures to Enhanc e Transparency and Improve Compliance with Notification Requirements.4 This 
proposal called for an open, Member -driven process to identify and recommend improvements to 
notification practices. The co -sponsors continued to see the benefits of advancing practical, technical 
work aimed at improving Members' notification capabilities in the Council for Trade in Go ods ("CTG") 
 
2 Relevant deadlines for written questions and written answers regarding the notifications of legislation 
can be found in section 1 of document G/ADP/W/510 - G/SCM/W/587 - G/SG/W/256 .  
3 These M embers were: Antigua and Barbuda,  Cabo Verde, Central African Republic, 
Democratic  Republic of the Congo, Eswatini, Grenada, Guinea -Bissau, Mauritania, Mozambique, Niger, Rwanda, 
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tajikistan, Tanzani a, and Yemen.  
4 JOB/GC/204/Rev. 11 - JOB/CTG/14/Rev. 11. G/SG/M/61  
 
- 6 - 
 
  and its subsidiary bodies and at enabling the WTO to function more effectively for the benefit of both 
the Members and traders. The United States encouraged the Committee to consider new approaches 
that would place no additional burdens on Memb ers but would allow for timely and complete 
submission of notifications.  
30.  The Committee took note  of the notifications , statements, as well as questions.  
3  NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RELATED TO SAFEGUARD MEASURES  
31.  China  expressed its concerns regarding the incre ase of initiation safeguard investigations and 
application of safeguard measures . According to China's counting, b etween 2018 and 2020 
safeguard investigations increased by nearly 8 9% compared to the number of investigations 
between 2013 and 2017.  Since 2020 , there had been a steady decline in investigations. However, 
three issues had to be kept in mind : (1) a large number of safeguard measures remain ed in place 
covering important sectors such as steel, chemistry, light industry and agriculture; (2)  many 
safeguard measures were taken by a few Members  -- almost half of the existing measures were 
imposed by only 5 Members; (3) the safeguard  measure s were implemented beyond what was 
necess ary. On the one hand, measures were being applied for an increasin gly longer period of time . 
Extension of measures ha d become common. On the other hand, s ome safeguard measures were 
applied concurrently with anti -dumping and countervailing measures . These practices had resulted 
in multiple and excessive remedies.  China reiterated  that Members should strictly abide by the WTO 
rules when  applying safeguard measures. China believe d it was necessary to further clarify and 
improve the WTO safeguard rules . The Committee should continue to enhance the monitoring  
functions, make necessary recommendations, and guide Members to achieve best practice . China 
encouraged Members to resolve trade dispute s through dialogue.   
32.  Japan  noted that since 2021 the number of initiation of investigations and imposition  of 
measure s had been decreasing. However, the problematic measures still exis ted. After the outbreak 
of the COVID -19 pandemic , the world economy was still recovering from the economic crisis. 
Applying trade restrictive measures inconsistent with the WTO Agreements would invoke retaliatory 
trade restrictive measures by other countries, which would then depress world trade. A Member 
should confirm all th e prerequisites under the WTO Agreements  before imposing a safeguard  
measure. The measure  should be imposed "to the extent necessary". Japan propose d that the 
Committee closely watch the process of safeguard investigations . 
33.  Australia  expressed concerns ove r the frequency of recourse to safeguard measures . The 
number of i nitiation s of investigations and imposition of measures  remain ed high. Safeguard s were 
emergency actions related to imports of otherwise fairly traded goods . These actions were subject 
to strict conditions under WTO rules. Australia particularly  noticed that there appeared to be 
instances where safeguards might not be the appropriate remedy where the apparent surge of 
import s was from one source. Australia reiterated the importa nce of transparency and timeliness of 
notifications.   
3.1  European Union  ‒ Certain Steel Products  (G/SG/N/10/EU/1/Suppl.15 - 
G/SG/N/11/EU/1/Suppl.10,  G/SG/269 ) 
34.  The European Union  referred to the panel report in DS595, which was already adopted by the 
Dispute S ettlement Body. This panel report would be implemented by the European Union in order 
to bring its steel safeguard measure in to conformity with the relevant WTO rules . In August 2022 
the European Union inform ed interested parties o f the intention to implem ent the report. Moreover, 
the European Union and Türkiye agreed to a reasonable period of time for the implementation , which 
was 16 January 2023. The European Union would  inform the WTO when progress was made.  
35.  Türkiye  explained  that since 2 February 2019, the European  Union  was imposing a safeguard 
measure against imports of steel products citing threat of serious injury. In its previous statements 
in this Committee and in its submissions to the European Union , Türkiye had under lined that the 
measur e was not in compliance with the relevant provisions of the Agreement. Therefore, Türkiye 
initiated dispute settlement proceedings accordingly. The panel confirmed that the European Union's 
measure was inconsistent with the Agreement. The panel specifically concluded that the 
European  Union did not ascertain that the increase in imports took place as a result of unforeseen 
development s, and that the European Union 's determination of threat of serious injury was not based G/SG/M/61  
 
- 7 - 
 
  on facts.  As a result of the panel report, the European Commission reopened the original safeguard 
investigation on 24 August 2022. In its notice, the European Commission stat ed that it intend ed to 
supplement its final decision of original investigation to implement the panel's findings. Regarding 
the re -opening of the original investigation , Türkiye conveyed its views to the European Union  that 
the inconsistencies of the measure  could not be bro ught into conformity with the Agreement without  
the termination of the measur e. Türkiye  expect ed the European Union to terminate the measure.   
36.  Brazil  expressed its disappointment and stated that this measure was severely flawed, in 
particular  regarding technical inconsistencies of the investigation, the regional application and the 
extension of the measure . Brazil referred to its previous statements  on this measure and stressed  
that the European Union violat ed Article 8.1 of the Agreement, and that the European Union did not  
seek to maintain  a substantially equivalent level of concessions and obligations with Brazil . Given 
these circumstances , Brazil  reserve d its right to suspend concessions  against the European U nion.  
37.  Japan  expressed its regret that the measure  was still in place. Japan expressed its concerns 
particularly when the extension review was initiated . The review investigation was initiated on 
24 August 2022. The measure had been found to be inconsistent with the fundamental prerequisites, 
such as "unforeseen developments", or "threat of injury". Japan requested that  the measure be 
terminated as soon as practical.   
38.  India stated that there was no basis for extens ion since the original safeguard measure was 
itself flawed. The increase in global steel capaci ty over a period of 17 years could not be considered 
unforeseen development s. Moreover, import volumes into the E uropean Union had dropped, the 
market share of t he European Union industry had increased,  and US Section 2 32 measures  were no 
longer affecting the European Union. In addition, the European Union's  safeguard measure had also 
been declared inconsistent by the DS595 panel . India also expressed its disappointment  that the 
rate of  liberalization had been decreased. This was inconsistent with Article  7.4 of the Agreement . 
India had held consultations with the European Union in 2020 -21 pursuant to Articles 8 and 12.3 of 
the Agreement . India had notified  the proposed suspension of concessions and other obligations . 
India was also disappoint ed about the fact that none of its demands regarding the increase in 
countr y-specific tariff rate quota s had been accepted.  India requested the European Union t o 
terminate the measure. I f the European Union maintained the measure  without providing adequate 
compensation, India w ould be forced to suspend con cessions and other obligations under the 
GATT  1994 in the form of an increase in duties equalling to EUR 292 million on selected products 
originating in the European Union . If necessary, India would  submit to the CTG and to this Committee 
a supplement notification indicating the list of products on which additional duties would be imposed.   
39.  The Russian Federation  expressed its regret that the European Union continue d to apply this 
safeguard measure in a WTO -inconsistent manner. To recall, the European Union decided to 
reallocate to other Members the quotas that w ere originally assigned to Russia, having imposed an 
import ban on Russian products subject to the measure.  The Russian Federation referred to its 
statement s made at previous meeting s of the Committee regarding the detailed explanations on the 
inconsistency of the measure with Article s 2.2, 5.1, 5 .2, and 7.4 of the Agreement.  The 
Russian  Federation urged the European Union  to withdraw the measure.   
40.  Switzerland  stated that it continue d to be negatively affected by th is measure. In particular, 
Switzerland was concern ed that traditional trade flows for certain product categories were crowded 
out as the residual tariff rate quota continued to be exhausted. The European Union  had "globalize d" 
the administration of the tariff qu otas for a certain product category as of 1 July 2022.  This 
adjustment reduced the total tariff rate quota for certain product categories, increasing the risk of  
crowding out traditional trade flows. Switzerland asked the European Union  to immediately address 
the current issue of crowding out of tradi tional trade flows. Moreover, the steel market s had been 
affected considerably by the sharp increase in energy prices and the disruption in the availability of 
intermediate products. For th ese reason s, Switzerland considered it in the shared interest of th e 
European Union and all WTO Members that the European Union's  safeguard measure be terminated. 
Lastly, Switzerland stated that the problem of global overcapacity in the steel sector  should be 
addressed multilaterally, for example, in the Global Forum on S teel Excess Capacity.  
41.  Korea  referred to the fact that t he panel report i n DS595 found that the European Union had 
acted inconsistently with GATT 1994 and the Agreement in relation to the assessment of unforeseen 
development s and threat of serious injury. Korea  asked  the European Union to take full account of 
the panel's finding and hoped that the European Union would lift the safeguard measure as soon as G/SG/M/61  
 
- 8 - 
 
  possible.  Korea explained that it  had already notified  to the CTG the proposed suspension of 
concessions and other obligations.  
42.  China  stated that t he European Union's decision to extend the measure was inconsistent with 
the WTO rules, even pu tting aside the WTO-inconsistency of the original measure. According to t he 
bilateral agreement between the European Union and the United States, the European Union was 
exempted from the U S Section 232 steel measures , and the European Union 's export to the US 
increased significantly . Thus, the European Union's  downstream industries were in need of imports 
to meet their demand for steel. This situation , combined with the clear upward price trend , showed 
that the continuation of the measure was not necessary. The panel report in DS595 confirmed that 
there were inconsistencies with the WTO rules in the original measure . China note d that the 
European Union reopened the original investigation to implement the ruling of the panel. China urged 
the European Union to carefully review the concerns put forward by Members to correct the above 
issues and terminate the safeguard measure as so on as possible.   
43.  The European Union  stated that the best way to address the concerns raised by Members was 
for them to participate in the review investigation.  The European Union  would review the measure  
and decide  whether it should be terminate d or should  be continue d.  
3.2  India  – PVC Suspension Resins with Residual VCM above 2 PPM  (G/SG/N/6/IND/48 ) 
44.  India explained that imports of the subject product were undercutting the prices of the domestic 
industry and had taken over market share. Production quantity, sales quantity, capacity utilisation 
and market share of the domestic industry had fallen considerably. Increase of import s was a result 
of unforeseen developments . Accordingly, the investigation had been init iated.  
45.  Japan  stated that India's notification of the initiation was made on 11  October  2022, but that 
the investigation itself had started on 16 September  2022. Japan request ed that initiations be 
notified "immediately", in line with the Agreement.  Moreover, in the notification, the descriptions of 
the p roduct under consideration were unclear. F or example, it was not clear whether  the subject 
product include d those below 2 ppm. Japan asked that the investigation be conducted in conformity 
with WTO rules.   
46.  India clarified  that the subject products d id not include those below 2 ppm. 
3.3  Indonesia  – Fabrics  (G/SG/N/8/IDN/23/ Suppl .1 - G/SG/N/10/IDN/23/ Suppl .2, 
G/SG/N/6/IDN/31/ Suppl .1 - G/SG/N/14/IDN/3)  
47.  Indonesia  explained that this notification provided opportunities for all interested  parties to 
submit their comments on the investigation . For this purpose, a dedicated virtual public hearing had 
been convened on 31 May 2022.  When the investigating was completed, I ndonesia submitted its  
Article  12.1(b) notification. This notification had been  circulated on 12 August  2022.  All relevant 
information could  be found in th at notification . Prior consultations also had been offered. The 
investigating authority found that the conditions to extend the  safeguard measure had been 
satisfied. Therefore, it had recommended that the government exten d the measure.  Indonesia had 
not receive d any request for Article 12.3 consultations from any Membe r. However, comments 
received by the  investigating authority during the investigation had been taken into consideration.  
Indonesia  was convinced that  the entire process ha d been carried out in compliance with WTO rules.   
48.  Malaysia  stated that safeguard s might not be the right  tool to use in this case. Malaysia asked 
that it be excluded from the measure in accordance with the Article 9.1 of the Agreement . The 
previous application of the safeguard measure by Indonesia had had a significant effect to remedy 
the serious injury suffered by its domestic industry .  
49.  Responding to Malaysia, Indonesia  stated that based on the results of the investigation, the 
import share of Malaysia was above 3%. Based on the results of the investigation, the serious injury 
suffered  by domestic industry  was not caused by other factors such as the Covid -19 pandemic, but 
by the surge of imports.  Any requests for compensation should be conveyed in Article 12.3 
consultations. Indonesi a had provided adequate opportunities for such consult ations but had not 
receive d any requests  from interested Members, including Malaysia.  G/SG/M/61  
 
- 9 - 
 
  3.4  Indonesia  – Curtains (Including Drapes), Interior Blinds, Bed Valances, and Other 
Furnishing Article s (G/SG/N/8/IDN/24/ Suppl .1 - G/SG/N/10/IDN/24/ Suppl .2, 
G/SG/N/6/IDN/33/ Suppl .1 - G/SG/N/14/IDN/4 ) 
50.  Indonesia  explained that t he notification provided opportunities for all interested  parties to 
submit their comments  on the investigation. For this purpose, a dedicated virtual public hearing had 
been convened on 30 May 2022.  When the investigation was completed, Indonesia  had submitted 
its Article  12.1(b) notification , which  was circulated on 12 August 2022.  In the notification, Indonesia 
had provided all relevant information.  The investigating authority had found that the conditions to 
extend the  measure had been satisfied . Therefore, it had recommended that the government exten d 
the measure.  Indonesia had not receive d any request s for Article 12.3 consultations  from any 
WTO Member. However, comments received by the investigating authority during the investigation 
had been  taken into consideration. Indonesia was convinced that the entire process had been carried 
out in compliance with WTO rules.  
3.5  Indonesia  – Yarn (Other Than Sewin g Thread) of Synthetic and Artificial Staple 
Fibre  (G/SG/N/8/IDN/25/ Suppl .1 - G/SG/N/10/IDN/25/ Suppl .2, 
G/SG/N/6/IDN/32/ Suppl .1 - G/SG/N/14/IDN/5 ) 
51.  Indonesia  explained that t he notification provided opportunities for all interested parties to 
submit their comments  on the investigation. A virtual public hearing had been conducted on 
30 May 2022.  After completing the investigation, Indonesia had submitted its Article 12.1(b) 
notification , which had been circulated on 12 August 2022.  All relevant informa tion as well as the 
offer for prior consultations had been included in the notification.  The investigating authority had 
found that the conditions to extend the  measure had been satisfied. Therefore, it had recommended 
that the government exten d the measur e. Regarding Article 12.3 consultations, Indonesia had not 
receive d any request from any WTO Member. However, comments received by the investigating 
authority during the investigation had been  taken into consideration. Indonesia was convinced that 
the entire process had been carried out in compliance with WTO rules.  
3.6  Indonesia  – Evaporators  (G/SG/N/6/IDN/3 0/Suppl.1 ) 
52.  Indonesia  explained that t he notification provided opportunities for all interested parties to 
submit their comments  on the investigation . A virtual public hearing had been  held on 
11 August  2022. All views and  comments made during the public he aring had been  noted properly 
by the invest igating authority.  The investigation was still ongoing, and Indonesia assured that the 
investigation would  be carried out in  an objective  and transparent manner. A ll comments submitted 
in a timely manner were welcome.  
3.7  Indonesia  – I and H Sections of Other Alloy Steel  (G/SG/N/8/IDN/17/Suppl.4 - 
G/SG/N/10/IDN/17/Suppl.4 ) 
53.  Indonesia  explained that the notification provided all relevant information as well as offered an 
opportunity for prior consultations . The investigating authority had concluded that the conditions to 
extend  the measure had been satisfied. Therefore, it had recommended that the government exten d 
the measure.  Regarding Article 12.3 consultations, Indonesia had not receive d any request from any 
Member. However, comments received by the investigating authority during the investigation had 
been taken into consideration. Indonesia was convinced that the entire proc ess had been carried out 
in compliance with WTO rules.  
3.8  Madagascar  – Paints  (G/SG/N/6/MDG/8  and G/SG/N/6/MDG/8/C orr.1) 
54.  Madagascar  explained that the investigation was initiated on 1 June 2022.  
3.9  Morocco – Hot-Rolled Sheets  (G/SG/N/11/MAR/7/suppl. 5) 
55.  Morocco  explained that this notification  concerned the change in the list of developing country 
Members exempted from the measure . Given that Brazil's import s from October 2021 to March 2022 
constituted 20.9%  of the total , Morocco had decided to remove Brazil from the list.  G/SG/M/61  
 
- 10 - 
 
  3.10  Morocco  – Coated  wood board  (G/SG/N/10/MAR/6/Suppl.1 - 
G/SG/N/11/MAR/6/Suppl.1 ) 
56.  Morocco  stated that the notification concerned the extension of an existing measure . The 
measure continue d to be necessary to prevent serious injury.  
3.11  Philippines  – Linear  Low-Density Polyethylene pellets and granules  
(G/SG/N/9/PHL/8 ) 
57.  The Philippines  explained that it had decided to partially terminate the investigation . Regarding 
the other part of the investigation, namely the investigation of high-density polyethylene pellets and 
granules , a decision recently had been made to apply a definitive safeguard measure. This had been 
notified in a recent separate notification, contained in document G/SG/N/8/PHL/14/Suppl.1/Rev.1  - 
G/SG/N/10/PHL/10/Rev.1  - G/SG/N/11/PHL/15/Rev.1.  
3.12  South Africa  – Threaded fasteners of iron and steel bolt ends & screw studs, screw 
studding and other hexagon nuts (excluding those of stainless steel and those identi fiable 
for aircraft)  (G/SG/N/11/ZAF/5/ Suppl .4) 
58.  There were no comments or questions raised at the meeting.  
3.13  Tunisia  – Wire of iron or non -alloy steel  (G/SG/N/6/TUN/7 ) 
59.  Tunisia  explained  that the investigation had been initiated on 19 July 2022  and was still under 
way. All interested parties were invited to present their views. The maximum time period for 
investigation was 9 months. Then the report would  be presented to the National Committee for 
deliberations and final decision. Tunisia was open to any  interaction with interested Members.  
60.  Türkiye  stated that it had submitted its concern s to Tunisia on 13 September 2022. First, there 
were discrepancies between  the figures provided by the domestic industry and those indicated in 
the petition. Second, there was no mention of unforeseen developments in the application  received 
from the domestic industry . Third, serious injury was not demonstrated. T he domestic industry was 
in a good condition. Türkiye  thus expressed its regret for the initiation of this investigation . Türkiye  
expected Tunisia to terminate this investigation without taking any measure.  
61.  Tunisia  took note of Türkiye 's statement.  
3.14  Türkiye  – Grinding balls and similar articles for mills  (G/SG/N/8/TUR/20 - 
G/SG/N/10/TUR/20  - G/SG/N/11/TUR/27 ) 
62.  Türkiye  stated that it ha d provided opportunities to interested parties to present their views , 
and that all the views had been taken into consideration. The investigation had been completed in 
July 2022. Türkiye  had not received any requests for consultations , and the safeguard measure had 
come into force on 26 August 2022.  
63.  The European Union  expressed its  disappoint ment with the imposition of the measure. In 
particula r, the domestic industry was not suffering serious inj ury. The majority of the indicators had 
improved. The European Union had asked Türkiye  to clarify the investigation period of this 
investigation . Türkiye had not yet made this clarification . The period of one quarter was too short to 
draw conclusions and was insufficient as a basis of an objective analysis. In addition, the 
investigation period should cover either full years, half years or quarters, but not a mix . Any 
difficulties experienced in the first quarter were not due to an increase of imports but due to other 
factors. The measure was not in the national interest  of Türkiye . The European Union was  very 
disappointed that the measure had been  imposed  and invite d the Turkish authorities to respond to 
their questions.   
64.  Türkiye  stated that it would endeavour to provide further information to the European Union . G/SG/M/61  
 
- 11 - 
 
  3.15  Ukraine  – Sodium hypochlorite  (G/SG/N/9/UKR/10 ) 
3.16  Ukraine  – Certain types of cheese  (G/SG/N/9/UKR/11 ) 
3.17  Ukraine  – Tricone Drilling Bits  (G/SG/N/9/UKR/12 ) 
65.  Ukraine  stated that it would explain items 3.15, 3.16 and 3.17  at the same time. Since the 
Committee's previous meeting , Ukraine  had terminated three safeguard investigations : on sodium 
hypochlorite , on certain types of cheese  and on tricone drilling bits. One of the reasons was the 
blatant act of Russia's  aggression against Ukraine through its brutal and unprovoked full -scale 
military invasion  which had affected Ukraine's entire territory. Some production facilities of the 
products con cerned  were located in the occupied territories or were under constant fire . This affected  
the Ukrainian capacit ies, production , cost of production  and export potential. These circumstances  
deprived the Ukrainian industry and other interested parties of their right to participate in these 
procedures effectively , and impede d the ability to prepare , submit and verify information necessary 
for reaching an objective conclusion , as envisaged by the Agreement. Ukraine appreciated the 
support it received from the global community and was deeply grateful to all  Members that were 
stand ing by Ukraine during these unprecedented times.  
66.  The European Union  commended Ukraine for its efforts to comply with WTO notification 
obligations during the brutal, unprovoked and illegal invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation.  
The European Union  condemned the Russian Federation in the strong est possible term s. The 
European Union noted  that it was impossible to conduct a proper  investigation in the presence of 
Russia's attacks on non -military targets and in a situation where Russia illegally occupie d part of 
Ukrainian territory. The European Union would stand by Ukr aine for as long as it would take.  
67.  Canada  condemned Russia's most recent missile strikes against civilian infrastructure and cities 
across Ukraine in the strongest possible terms. Russia's unprovoked and unjustifiable invasion of 
Ukraine was not only a bl atant violation of international law and the rules -based international 
system, but also a constant threat to Ukraine's meaning ful participation at the WTO.  Canada would 
stand by Ukraine.  
68.  The United Kingdom  noted the challenges faced by Ukraine in the investigations given the 
current situation in Ukraine . The United Kingdom stated that it could not  ignore the egregious 
violation s of international law and of the UN Charter committed by one WTO Member , Russia , against 
another, Ukraine. President Putin's illegal annexation of regions of Ukraine constituted a new low 
point in Russia's blatant violation of international law. The United Kingdom unreservedly condemned 
this outrageous and illegal act.  
69.  The United States  continued to condemn Russia's unwarranted and illegal war of aggression 
against Ukraine. Russia's actions contravene d the principles and values of the WTO . Respect for 
Members ' sovereignty was crucial to maintain open and predictable  market s and to facilitat e 
international trade. The United States called upon all Members to condemn unequivocally Russia's 
war of aggression in its attempt to acquire territory by force.  
70.  Japan  stated that t he illegal annexation of the areas that ha d been forcibly put under Russia's 
temporary control by its aggression against Ukraine  was an  attempt to acquire territory by force . 
Such action  went against international law, including the UN Charter . Such attempts were invalid 
and were diametrically against the principle s of rule of law in the international community . Japan 
also condemn ed Russia's missile attacks against civilian infrastructure and cities across Ukraine.  
Japan strongly urge d Russia to  stop the aggression and withdraw its forces from the internati onal 
recognized borders  of Ukraine . Japan would continue to work on the two pillars of imposing strong 
sanctions against Russia and support ing Ukraine, in cooperation with the international community.   
71.  Norway  commend ed Ukraine for its efforts to comply wit h the notification obligations . Norway 
condemned in the strongest possible terms  Russia's military  attack  on Ukraine , and violation of 
Ukraine's independent sovereignty and territorial integrity . 
72.  Australia  condemn ed Russia's unilateral , illegal and immoral  aggression against the people of 
Ukraine. T he invasion was a gross violation of international law, including the UN Charter . Russia's 
sham referenda in the occupied areas o f Ukraine were illegitimate and had no legal effect . Any claims G/SG/M/61  
 
- 12 - 
 
  that these territories were now part of Russia were baseless and false . In addition, Australia noted  
with concern the fact that Ukraine could not fully exercise its right s under the Agreement . 
73.  Korea  commend ed Ukraine's effort to comply with  its WTO notific ation obligation . Korea  strongly 
condemned Russia's illegal  armed invasion  against Ukraine as a violation of the principl es in the 
UN Charter. Ukraine's sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence should be respected. Korea 
did not recognize  as legitimate the referenda and Russia's annexation of four regions of Ukraine 
territory.  
74.  Moldova  condemn ed Russia's war against Ukraine in the strongest  possible  terms. Moldova did 
not recognise any annexation  of Ukrainian territories  by Russia and called upon Russia to respect  
international law  and the UN Charter and to stop the war  and destruction.  
75.  The Russian Federation  expressed its disappoint ment that this meeting was tainted  by political 
interventions based on unreliable and biased assessments of the special operation in Ukraine. 
A group of Members shifted the focus away from trade issues, which was the mandate of this 
Committee, and pushed forwar d their political interests. The Russian Federation recalled Rule  27 of 
the Rules of Procedure, prescribing delegates to avoid repetition of statements on issues that had 
already been raised before. Positions by the delegations on the situation in Ukraine had been voiced 
multiple times and had not changed. The repetition of the statements detract ed from the 
Committee's work. Regarding  the recent accession of four new regions to the Russian Federation, 
this decision was based on the results of referendum wit h unequivocal results in favour of accession. 
They were carried out in accordance with the principle of equal rights and self -determination of 
people, enshrined in the UN Charter. However, this and other events relating to the special operation 
had already  been extensively discussed within the United  Nations. The Russian Federation  referred 
the interested delegations to the respective clarifications made by the Russian Federation in the 
appropriate forum.  
76.  Ukraine  expressed its gratitude  to all Members that had stood with Ukraine and call ed upon 
Members not to remain indifferent and to continue to react to Russia's blatant violation of 
international law.   
3.18  United Kingdom  - Certain steel products  (G/SG/N/10/GBR/1/Suppl.9 – 
G/SG/N/11/GBR/1/Suppl.9, G/SG/N/8/GBR/1/Suppl.7 - G/SG/N/10/GBR/1/Suppl.8 - 
G/SG/N/11/GBR/1/Suppl.8, G/SG/N/8/GBR/1/Suppl.7/Corr.1 - 
G/SG/N/10/GBR/1/Suppl.8/Corr.1 - G/SG/N/11/GBR/1/Suppl.8/Corr.1, G/L/1431  - 
G/SG/273 - G/SG/N/12/IND/3, G/L/1431/Suppl.1 – G/SG/N/12/IND/3/Suppl.1, 
G/SG/272, G/SG/271, G/L/1398/Suppl.2 - G/SG/263/Suppl.2, G/SG/257/Suppl.2, 
G/SG/270 ) 
77.  After recapping the developments regarding this investigation  since October 2020, t he 
United  Kingdom  explained as follows. On 7 September 2021, foll owing the acc eptance of eight 
applications for reconsideration, the TRA had announced the initiation of the reconsideration process, 
covering its conclusions on 14 of the 19 retained steel product categories. The opportunity for 
interested parties to request a reconsideration was a key feature of the trade remedy system. The 
United Kingdom  notified the initiation of this process on 9  September 2021 and subsequently 
informed the Committee on 6 April 2022 that as of 22 March, the reconsideration of the steel 
safeguard measure was being carried out under new domestic legislation. This was the  "call-in 
framework" explained during the first part of the present meeting . Amongst other matters, the TRA 
had considered evidence relating to the 19 product categories . On 23 June 2022, the TRA published 
its findings,  and the Secretary of State p ublished her conclusions and the proposed decision. Having 
considered the TRA's findings, the Secretary of State proposed that the steel safeguard measure 
should continue to apply on 10 steel product categories until 30 June 2024 , and to extend the 
measure  on five product categories for a further two years, also until 30  June 2024. The 
United  Kingdom  had notified the content of the report of the Secretary of State  under 
Articles 12.1 (b), 12.1 (c) and 9 of the Agreement and made an offer for consultations under 
Article  12.3. The United Kingdom  had held these consultations in good faith and discussions with 
certain Members were still ongoing. On 29 June  2022, the Secretary of State had announced the 
government's decision to extend the measure in line with the propos al. On the same day the 
United  Kingdom  had made a notification under Articles 12 and 9  of the Agreement . In parallel to the 
reconsideration, the TRA had been conducting three tari ff rate quota reviews. Tariff rate quota 
reviews allowed the review and adjustment of TRQs to respond to change s in the circumstances. On G/SG/M/61  
 
- 13 - 
 
  4 February 2022, the TRA had initiated the first tariff rate quota review in product categories 4, 5 
and 19, due to a correction by HM Revenue & Customs, affecting statistical data sets used as the 
basis of the calculation of the TRQs. In this review, the TRA had reassessed traditional trade flows 
affected by this rectification.  On 30 June 2022, the TRA had recommended am ending the tariff rate 
quotas to reflect corrections in published HMRC trade data.  On 28 February 2022, the TRA had 
initiated a second tariff rate quota review to examine whether the exception status of developing 
countries from the safeguard measure neede d to be revised as a result of information indicating 
that, during 2020 and 2021, there was an increase in imports from certain developing countries  
which were , at the time , exempt ed from the measure. On 30 June 2022, the TRA had recommended 
amending the TRQs to reflect changes in trade flows from developing countries and to take account 
of changes in the list of countries that benefit ed from the exemption provisions.  Finally, on 
6 April 2022, the TRA had initiated a third TRQ review to examin e the effects of the trade sanctions 
the United Kingdom  had introduced on certain goods, including steel, imported from the Russian 
Federation and the Republic of Belarus. On 29  April 2022, the TRA had recommended the removal 
of country specific TRQs for R ussia and Belarus and the reallocation across other existing country -
specific and residual quotas. These reviews had been  conducted separately from the reconsideration 
process and their initiation had been  notified to the Committe e. The TRA 's recommendatio ns had 
been accepted by the Secretary of State and the amended tariff rate quotas had come into effect on 
1 July. The U nited Kingdom  had notified the results of the TRQ reviews on 1 July  2022.  
78.  Japan  stated that it had expressed its concerns in this Commit tee and directly to the 
United  Kingdom . Japan  regrett ed the fact that the U nited Kingdom  had decided to extend the 
measure on some products which were originally supposed to be extended only for one year. The 
United Kingdom  had extended the measure without the initial investigation and without a solid basis 
in the Agreement. Japan saw no adequate explanation  regarding whether  the measure continue d to 
be necessary. Japan urge d the U nited Kingdom  to terminate the measure  as soon as possible.   
79.  India expressed its concerns. India had held consultations with the United Kingdom under 
Article  12.3 of the Agreement on 5 August 2022. The  United Kingdom had disagreed with India's 
views , but had agreed to discuss adequate means of compensation. Subsequen tly, as stipulated 
under Article  12.5 of the Agreement, India had reserved its right to suspend concessions and other 
obligations. India had estimated that the decline of exports from India to the United Kingdom was 
to the tune of 219,000 metric tonnes, on which the duty collection would be USD 247.7 million. The 
proposed suspension would be in the form of an increase in duty on selected products originating in 
the United Kingdom . India had reserved its right to adju st the specific products for its suspension of 
concessions and its right to adjust the additional rate of duty on such products. The suspension 
would  continue to apply until the safeguard measure of the United Kingdom was lifted. India was 
still willing to  discuss the issues bilaterally with the United Kingdom in order  to arrive at a mutually 
agreeable compensation. In the event of a failure to reach a consensus on compensation, India 
would  impos e the additional duties on the identified products to compensa te for the trade loss.   
80.  Switzerland  was concern ed with th is measure . Switzerland referred to its previous statement in 
this matter and reiterated its position that such transitioning was subject to the material and 
procedural requirements that were applicable to new safeguard measures, pursuant to the 
Agreement. Switzerland was of the view that this safeguard measure must be terminated. 
Regrettably , the latest development add ed more concerns. Switzerland  referred to the latest decision 
of the United  Kingdom to extend safeguard measures for two more years on certain imports of steel 
products, including certain categories for which no increase of imports had taken place.  If there was 
no increase of imports relative to domestic  production , Switzerland f ailed to see on what basis such 
measures could  be extended in a manner consistent with the Agreement.  Switzerland had requested 
consultations with the United Kingdom under Article 12.2 of the Agreement. These consultations had 
taken place on 11 July 2022. Switzerland remain ed of the view that the measure applied by the 
United  Kingdom raised serious systematic concerns. Safeguard measures were emergency actions . 
Switzerland  urged the United Kingdom to terminate the measure with immediate effect.  
81.  The Russian Federation  referred to its statements made at the previous Committee meeting, 
where it had raised concerns about the United Kingdom's review of the measure, in particular, about 
the reallocat ion of  the quotas originally provided to Russia. As a result of t he review, the 
United  Kingdom  had distributed proportionally among other countries the quotas in certain product s 
that were originally assigned to Russia. Consequently , products from other Members were now 
enjoying more advantageous terms of access to the United Kingdom's  market.  The 
Russian  Federation  stress ed that the result of the review violate d WTO rules. The Russian Federation G/SG/M/61  
 
- 14 - 
 
  also noted that the recommendation of the TRA resulting from the review  referred to various sources, 
which indicate d possible shortages of supply due to the import ban. The Russian Federation 
questioned  how shortage of supply could  indicate a necessity to prevent or remedy serious injury 
caused by increased imports or threat thereof. The Russian Federation called on the United Kingdom 
to withdraw the measure.  
82.  Korea  pointed out that there was internal inconsistency in the report issued by the TRA. Such 
inconsistency showed that the United Kingdom's measure d id not comply with t he Agreement.  Korea 
expected th is measure to be lifted as soon as possible . Korea also recalled that it had already notified  
to the C TG its proposed suspension of concessions and other obligations.  
83.  The United Kingdom  took note of the interventions. Concerning  India's statement, the 
United  Kingdom expressed its  readiness to continue consultations. It asked India to explain the 
methodology o f the calculat ion of  the alleged adverse effects . The United Kingdom also clarified th at 
it did not intend to engage with the statement s of the Russian Federation.   
3.19  United States  – Crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells  (G/SG/N/10/USA/7/ Suppl .15, 
G/SG/N/10/USA/7/ Suppl .15/Corr.1 ) 
84.  Japan  stated  that in July 2022, the United States had exempted imports from Canada from the 
measure based on a bilateral agreement between the United States and Canada. As such, Japan 
expressed its concerns over the measure 's consistency with Article 2.2 of the Agreement . This 
provision provid ed that safeguards should be applied to an imported product "irrespective of its 
source". In addition, a  safeguard measure could  be extended only when it continue d to be necessary. 
Japan asked that this measure be terminat ed. 
85.  The United States  took note of Japan 's statement and expressed willingness to proceed with 
further bilateral  discussions.  
86.  The Committee took note  of the notifications and statements, as well as questions and answers 
provided.  
4  INDONESIA - CARPETS AND OTHER TEXTILE FLOOR COVERINGS  (ITEM REQUESTED BY 
JAPAN)  
87.  Japan  pointed out that Indonesia had been implement ing this safeguard measure since 
February  2021. Although Japan had repeatedly expressed concerns on its WTO inconsistency, the 
measure  was still ongoing. It was regrettabl e that the negative impacts on Japanese industries  were 
continuing.  The measure was practically quantitative restrictions prohibited under the 
WTO Agreement. In addition, the measure appl ied extremely high duties of around 150 -200% 
ad valorem . During the investigation, the Indonesian authorities had arbitrarily determined the 
increase of imports without considering the sharp decrease of imports caused by the import 
registration and approval system introduced in 2019. In fact, import s of the subjec t product in 2020 
were approximately one -tenth of th eir level in 2019. This determination had been  made possible by 
setting the period of investigation as 2017 -2019, immediately prior to the aforementioned decrease 
of imports caused by the import registrat ion system. Japan request ed Indonesia to terminate the 
measure immediately, or to exclude imported products which d id not compete with Indonesian 
domestic products because of their different characteristics. Japan regretted that there had been no 
improveme nt. At the last meeting in April 2022, Indonesia had simply insisted that the measure w as 
consistent with the WTO Agreements. Japan requested Indonesia to address Japan's questions and 
concerns  clearly . 
88.  Indonesia  stated that all concerns raised by Japan had been seriously taken into account. 
However, after taking into consideration all relevant aspects, Indonesia nevertheless had decided to 
impose the safeguard measure. That mean t it was exceptionally important fo r Indonesia to impose 
the measure, which was temporary and legitimate, in order to prevent or remedy serious injury 
encountered by its domestic industry.  As a developed Member, Japan could not be exempted from 
the measure by virtue of Article 9.1. I mport s from Japan had also been increasing steadily and 
significantly.  Indonesia believe d that the entire process had been carried out in an objective  and 
transparent manner, as well as in compliance with WTO rules.  G/SG/M/61  
 
- 15 - 
 
  89.  Japan  stated that the recent import increase fr om Japan show ed the lack of competition between 
domestic  products and products imported from Japan. Japan  asked Indonesia to terminate the 
measure.  
90.  The Committee took note  of the statements.  
5  INDONESIA - ARTICLES OF APPAREL AND CLOTHING ACCESSORIES (ITEM REQUESTED 
BY JAPAN)  
91.  Japan  stated that during the investigation, the Indonesian authority had requested the 
interested parties to submit trade data covering "January -June 2019 and January -June 2020" . The 
authority then found that the amoun t of import s of the relevant products in 2020 had decreased 
from 2019 by 13%. Having recognized these data, Indonesia then had set the period of investigation 
as 2017 -2019 so that it could arbitrarily determine an increase of imports. Japan request ed that the 
measure be corrected.  
92.  Indonesia  explained that it had provided opportunities to all interest ed parties to submit their 
comments  on the investigation at a public hearing held on 20 November 2020.  The investigating 
authority had found that the condition s to impose safeguard measures were satisfied . Therefore, the 
investigating authority had recommended that the government impos e the measure. Indonesia 
highlighted that Japan in fact was able to maintain its import share of 0.17%, compared to the period 
of 2019 , which accounted for 0.10% of the Indonesian domestic market.   
93.  Japan  further explained  that this safeguard measure raised  a systematic issue, which was 
identical to that under the previous agenda  item: that the Indonesian investigating autho rity had 
set the investigation  period to avoid a decrease in imports, so that the Indonesian authority could  
determine that imports had increased. The m ost recent survey s showed that import s were 
decreasing . Japan asked Indonesia to terminat e this measure as soon as possible.   
94.  The Committee took note of the statements.  
6  OTHER BUSINESS  
6.1  Morocco's investigation on inner tubes for bicycles, velocipedes, motorcycles and 
scooters ( item requested by Türkiye)  
95.  Türkiye  stated that on 3 October 2022, Morocco had initiated an investigation on imports of 
inner tubes for bicycles, velocipedes, motorcycles and scooters . Türkiye believe d that the petition 
did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that the alleged injuries stemmed  from unforeseen 
development s. Furthermore, the  analysis regarding the increase in import s was flawed. In 2021, 
there had been  a significant increase in import volume. However, the long-term declining trend of 
Moroccan domestic production had contin ued regardless of the trend in import volume since 2018. 
In this context, Türkiye was of the view that there was no causal link between imports and Morocco's  
domestic production. Türkiye  asked that this investigation be terminated without any measure.   
96.  Morocco  explained that t he massive increase of imports was the result of unforeseen 
developments, which consisted of a number of factors such as a massive increase of use of two -
wheeled vehicles over the past three years.  Given the link between two -wheeled vehicles and inner 
tubes, such increased use had led to a surprising increase in the demand for these products, giving 
a considerable advantage to imports. The imports of these products had a negative impact on the 
economic situation of the national production. Thus, Morocco considered it necessary to initiate this 
investigation . 
6.2  Article 13.1 Request s 
97.  The Chair reminded Members , for the purpose of transparency,  that two requests based on 
Article 13.1 of the Agreement remained  pending: one by the E uropean Union  and the other by 
Ecuador. There had been  no movement on either of these matters, and so neit her of the two requests 
were on the agenda of the meeting .  G/SG/M/61  
 
- 16 - 
 
  98.  Ecuador  explained that Ecuador legally and technically sustained the reasons behind its request , 
and deplored the strong impact that the Ukrainian safeguard action had on its economy . However, 
Ecuador did not insist  to push this matter at this time . Ecuador was considering the future actions 
to be taken . 
6.3  Election of the Vice Chair  
99.  The Chair recalled that the Committee had decided at its April 2022 meeting that once she had 
taken office, she would conduct the necessary consultations with Members with respect to the 
election of the Committee's Vice -Chair. She had started these informal consultations, but for the 
time being she was not in a position to propose a name for the election of a ne w Vice -Chair.  
6.4  WTO reform  
100.  The Chair referred to the ongoing consultations at the level of the General Council (GC) and 
the CTG regarding  WTO reform . She noted that a number of delegations at the recent GC meeting 
had raised the issue of improving the operat ion of WTO  Committees as an area for potential work. 
The Chair of the GC  in his closing remarks also had emphasized that in parallel with the formal and 
informal conversations in the GC, each subsidiary body should be tasked to see what ha d been done 
and to explore ways to improve their daily functioning and better deliver on their respective 
mandates. The GC Chair also had encouraged the subsidiary bodies that had already started such 
discussions to continue to do so.  In the same vein, the Chair of the CTG had convened an informal 
session of that Council on 14  October 2022 to report on his consultations concerning MC12 
implementation issues, including the issue of improving the functioning of the different Committees 
under the auspices of the CTG. At the end of that meeting, the CTG Chair had proposed two concrete 
and immediate suggestions, to which there had been  no objections, which could be used to prepare 
for fu ture discussions. The Chair quoted them one by one : 
"The first suggestion would be to request the Chairpersons of the 14 CTG's subsidiary bodies 
to prepare a report, under their own responsibility and with the Secretariat's assistance, 
describing the concr ete actions their Committees have adopted over the past years to improve 
their work, as well as the proposals for improvements that have been submitted. This will 
provide an opportunity for each Chair to present an overview of the history of past negotiati ons 
or attempts to improve the daily work of their Committee. We can then request the Secretariat 
to compile this information for our consideration, and then have an informal meeting where 
we will also invite those 14 Chairpersons of the subsidiary bodies.  
The second suggestion that was proposed by several delegations, and that was also subjacent 
in my report, was to organize an information session, including the use of Interprefy to allow 
for participation from Capitals, to learn more about the electronic tools that are currently being 
used by some Committees (for example, e -Agenda, Trade Concerns Database, the 
Notifications Portal, and e -Ping). We will work on the format with the Secretariat. This would 
provide an opportunity to explore whether we can get inspiration to expand the use of these 
tools to other Committees, if there are possible improvements that can be introduced to them, 
and also whether there are plans for improvements in the context of the modernization of the 
Secretariat that were launched  by the Director General."  
101.  The Chair further explained that on 20 October 2022, the CTG Chair had invited all 14 Chairs 
of the different CTG subsidiary bodies , including herself,  to a meeting at which he reported back on 
the outcome of the meeting held wit h Members on 14 October  2022 and sought an exchange of 
views on the issue. At the meeting on 20 October  2022, and as confirmed by a communication to all 
14 Chairs received from the Chair of the CTG, the Chairs of the CTG subsidiary bodies were requested 
to prepare two factual reports under their own responsibility. The Chair indicated that she would 
thus prepare these reports with the help of the Secretariat and under her own responsibility as the 
Chair of the Committee.  The first report concern ed the WTO response to the pandemic and should 
describe the activities that the Committee ha d undertaken in the context of the pandemic over the 
past two years, if any. If no work ha d been done in the Committee, then this should be stated briefly.  
The seco nd report concern ed the current functioning of the Committee, which was one of the issues 
that Members had identified for discuss ion under the umbrella of the WTO reform. This report should 
describe the concrete actions that the Committee ha d adopted over the past years to improve its 
work, as well as the proposals for improvements that had been submitted, even if they were not G/SG/M/61  
 
- 17 - 
 
  successful. This w ould provide an opportunity for each Chair to present an overview of the reforms 
that had already been introduced  and where the Committee currently st ood. This exercise sh ould 
only focus on past actions and discussions. Since this was meant to be a stocktaking and information -
gathering exercise to allow for a fact -based discussion among Members, all Chairs had been  
requested to refrain at this stage from including recommendations or an assessment of what need ed 
to be improved . This would be for Members to take up, should they so choose.  The Chair mentioned 
that once she had  provide d her factual report to the CTG, any Member that might  have new ideas 
about the operation of the Committee would be  welcome to raise them for consideration in this 
forum .5 
102.  The Committee took note  of all the statements made  under Other Busin ess. 
7  DATE OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING  
103.  The Chair recalled that by decision of the Committee, its two regular meetings would take 
place in spring and autumn of each year in the last week of April and the last week of October, 
respectively. For spring  2023, the last week of April 2023 would coincide with Eid El Fitr which 
followed the Holy Muslim month of Ramadan. The United Nations would observe Eid on 24 April  2023, 
and the WTO Secretariat would not schedule any official meetings that day. To ensure a full five -day 
work week for the Rules Committees , the Chair suggested that the Committee 's meeting be 
exceptionally held in the week of 1 May 2023 . The exact date would be confirmed later.  
104.  The Committee so decided . 
8  ANNUAL REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS  
105.  The Committee adopted  its 2022 Annual Report to the CTG.6 
106.  The United States  suggested that from  the next version of the annual report , additional 
information could be included in to Annex 3  regarding whether  a measure had expire d or was  
extended , and asked the Secretariat to p roduce an example to be shared with the Members.   
107.  The Chair noted the suggestion of the United States.  
__________  
 
5 The two reports were subsequently circulated as G/L/14 51 – G/SG/276 and G/L/14 52 – G/SG/277.  
6 G/L/1435 – G/SG/ 274.