WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SG/N/8/TUR/4 
G/SG/N/10/TUR/4 
G/SG/N/11/TUR/4 
12 July 2006 
 (06-3367) 
Committee on Safeguards Original:   English 
  
 
NOTIFICATION UNDER ARTICLE 12.1(B) OF THE AGREEMENT 
ON SAFEGUARDS ON FINDING A SERIOUS INJURY OR THREAT 
THEREOF CAUSED BY INCREASED IMPORTS 
 
NOTIFICATION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 12.1(C) 
OF THE AGREEMENT ON SAFEGUARDS 
 
NOTIFICATION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 9, FOOTNOTE 2 
OF THE AGREEMENT ON SAFEGUARDS 
 
TURKEY 
 
(Steam Smoothing Irons
) 
   The following notification, dated 11 July 2006, is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of Turkey. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
 In light of the agreed format for notifications (G/SG/W/1, 23 February 1995), Turkey 
provides notification to the Committee on Safeguards of  findings of serious injury or threat thereof 
caused by increased imports and notification of proposed safeguard measures.   On 5 January 2006, Turkey initiated an inves tigation relating to serious injury or threat 
thereof to domestic producers of products like or di rectly competing with the imported product.  The 
initiation of the investigation has been  notified to the Committee on Safeguards.
1  
  Consistent with Article 12.3 of the Agreement on Safeguards , Turkey is prepared to consult 
with those Members having a substantial inte rest as exporters of the product concerned. 
  I. Evidence of serious injury or threat thereof caused by increased imports 
A. E
VIDENCE OF SERIOUS INJURY  
 In order to make a determination of serious in jury to the domestic industry of the like product, 
an evaluation of all relevant factors of an objec tive and quantifiable nature having a bearing on the 
situation of the industry has been undertaken.  Th e four producers, which cooperated fully in the 
investigation, have constituted major proportion of  the domestic production.  Hence, the following 
evaluation has been based upon data prov ided by the applicant companies.  
 
                                                      
1 G/SG/N/6/TUR/9 G/SG/N/8/TUR/4 
G/SG/N/10/TUR/4 G/SG/N/11/TUR/4 
Page 2 
  
  1. Consumption 
 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 
Consumption 
(Quantity-Index) 100 116 136 175 206 
 
Consumption of the product concerned was est ablished on the basis of total domestic sales 
made by the domestic producers and total impor ts of the product concerned into Turkey. 
 Consumption index (2001=100) increased by 16% , 17%, 28% and 18% in 2002, 2003, 2004 
and 2005 respectively and reached its highest level in the year 2005. 
 
2. Capacity and capacity utilization 
 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 
Capacity  
(Quantity-Index) 100 135 133 141 143 
Capacity Utilization 
(%-Index) 100 70 46 34 21 
  
Production capacity index of the domestic producers (2001=100) increased by 35% in 2002 
and fell by 3% in 2003.  It increased slightly in the following years.  
Capacity utilization index (2001=100) fell betw een 2001 and 2005 from 100 to 21.  This fall 
is partially explained by the increase in capacity in the period, but the major part is explained by the 
dramatic fall in production.  The falls in capacity  utilization, from 2001 onwards reflect the falls in 
production in the same period.  
 
3. Production 
 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 
Production 
(Quantity-Index) 100 95 61 48 30 
 
 Production index of the domestic producers (2001=100) fell between 2001 and 2004 from 100 
to 48.  Thereafter, production index fell by a furt her 38% in 2005 to its lowest level in the period 
under examination.  
 
4. Employment 
 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 
Employment (End 
of Period-Index) 100 103 89 72 60 
 
 The data on employment level shows a dramatic  decline.  Employment in relation to the 
product concerned fell substantially starting from 2003 and reached its lowest level in 2005. 
  G/SG/N/8/TUR/4 
 G/SG/N/10/TUR/4 
 G/SG/N/11/TUR/4 
 Page 3 
  
  5. Domestic sales volume 
 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 
Domestic Sales  
(Quantity-Index) 100 100 62 40 28 
 
 Domestic sales index of the product concerne d (2001=100) remained stable in the years 2001 
and 2002. It fell by 38% in 2003 and 35% in 2004.  Th ereafter, domestic sales index fell by a further 
30% in 2005 to its lowest level in  the period under examination.  
 6. Market share 
 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 
Market Share of 
Domestic Producers  (%-Index) 100 87 46 23 14 
 
 Domestic producers’ market share index (2001=100) fell by 13% in 2002, 47% in 2003 and 50% in 2004.  In 2005, index decreased by 39% to reach its lowest level for the period under 
examination.  The substantial falls in the recen t period demonstrate the increasing share taken by 
imports in the market.   
 7. Price of the like product and price undercutting 
 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 
Unit Prices of 
Domestic Sales     (US $/Pcs)
 10 9 10 13 13 
Unit Prices of Total 
Imports                  
(US $/Pcs) 16 14 15 16 18 
 
There was no price undercutting by total imports in the period under examination.  On the 
other hand, the table below show s development of imports having price below domestic producers’ 
yearly average price of domestic sales (PDS) and the ratio of that imports to total domestic production and total imports.  
  
 
     
 
 
 Imports  2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 
Price < PDS (Pcs)      123.391 260.554 634.192 1.138.255 620.712 
Ratio to Production 
(%) 8 19 70 160 140 
Ratio to Total 
Imports (%) 22 32 42 49 21 G/SG/N/8/TUR/4 
G/SG/N/10/TUR/4 G/SG/N/11/TUR/4 
Page 4 
  
  The imports of the product concerned ha ving unit price below PDS increased by 111%, 
143% and 79% in 2002, 2003 and 2004, respectively.   However, imports declined by 45% in 
2005.  While below PDS-priced imports constitutes 8% of total domestic production in 2001, the 
ratio of that portion of imports to total production jumped to 140% in 2005.  Therefore, the 
dominance of the imports having unit price below PDS in the domestic market increased during the period under examination.  On the other hand,  despite the increase in total imports in 2005 by 
26%, the weight of below PDS-priced imports in total imports declined to 21%-almost the same 
percentage with 2001- in 2005 from 49% in 2004. 
 
8. Profitability 
(a)  
 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 
Net profit/loss (%) 1,5 0,2 0,1 -0,6 -2,6 
 
 Data relating to profitability is  based on data relating to domes tic sales only.  The profitability 
of the domestic industry in the domestic market va ried significantly in the five-year period under 
consideration.  The lowest profitability was record ed in 2005, and the highest in 2001 in parallel with 
the changes in imports.   9. Stocks 
 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 
Closing Stocks 
(Quantity-Index) 100 212 139 138 97 
  
Stocks level increased between 2001-2002.  Th ereafter, it fell by 35% in 2003 and 1% in 
2004.  In 2005, stocks level decreased below its le vel in 2001, as the domestic industry reduced its 
stocks level by cutting production.   10. Productivity 
 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 
Productivity 
(Pieces/Employee) 6.096 5.537 4.018 4.541 2.970 
 
 Productivity has consistently decreased thr oughout the period under consideration from 6.096 
pieces/employee in 2001 to 4.018 pieces/employee in 2003.  Productivity increased by 13% in 2004 and then decreased by 35% in 2005.
  
 11. Conclusion 
 The data show negative developments for capac ity utilization rate, production, domestic sales, 
market share, employment and profitability in the period under consideration.  Stock levels dropped to 
the lowest level in 2005 owing to the consistent fall in the production level throughout the period.  G/SG/N/8/TUR/4 
 G/SG/N/10/TUR/4 
 G/SG/N/11/TUR/4 
 Page 5 
  
   
 Imports have risen from 821.792 pieces in the year 2000 to 2.945.853 pieces in the year 2005 recording a 258% increase.  It is noteworthy that  as imports increased by 26% in the year 2005 
compared to the year 2004, economic indicators of the domestic industry such as capacity utilization, 
production, employment, domestic sales, market sh are and profitability took their lowest values in 
that year. 
 Taking account of all of these factors, investig ating authority concludes that the domestic 
industry has suffered serious injury.  No other factors that could have contributed to the injury apart 
from the increase in imports were identified.  Theref ore, it is concluded that there is a genuine and 
substantial link between increased imports a nd serious injury to the domestic industry. 
 B. C
AUSATION ANALYSIS  
In order to examine the existence of a causal link between increased imports and the serious 
injury, and in order to ensure that  injury caused by other factors is not attributed to increased imports, 
the investigating authority analyzed the effects of the following factors: 
 
1. Analysis of causation factors 
- Effect of increased imports: 
Imports have increased from 821.792 pieces in the year 2000 to 2.945.853 pieces in the year 
2005, which means a 258% increase in the level of im ports.  Additionally, the market share taken by 
imports increased by 24%, 59%, 21%, and 7% in 2001, 2002, 2003 a nd 2004, respectively.  The 
expansion of the market share of the imported pr oducts eroded domestic producers’ market share.  
 
 For the foregoing reasons, the investigating au thority concludes that there is a correlation 
between the increase in imports and the serious inju ry suffered by the domestic industry, and that the 
increase in imports has had injurious effects in par ticular in terms of volume sold by the domestic 
industry on the domestic market.  - Other factors 
 
(a) Effect of changes in consumption:  De mand for the product concerned has not decreased 
throughout the period under consideration.  
(b) Effect of competition between the domestic producers:  Competition in the domestic 
market has not created an injurious effect. 
 (c) Changes in production technology:  The production technology used by the domestic 
industry is the same with the technology used by foreign producers.  
(d) Alternative products and changes in consum er preferences:  There is no product, which 
can be a substitute for the product concerned.  Theref ore, changes in user preferences have not been 
identified. 
 (e) Lack of production capacity:  The domestic  industry has adequate production capacity to 
meet domestic demand. 
 G/SG/N/8/TUR/4 
G/SG/N/10/TUR/4 G/SG/N/11/TUR/4 
Page 6 
  
  (f) Changes in financial costs:  The investig ating authority determined that changes in 
financial costs did not contribute to the injury suffered by the domestic industry. 
 
(g) Effect of changes in export performance:  The effect of vari ations in the level of exports 
has also been examined.   
 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 
Exports        
(Quantity-Index)  100 78 59 65 32 
 
The index of domestic producers’ exports of the product concerned (2001=100) decreased by 
22% and 24% in 2002 and 20 03, respectively.  Exports increased by 10% in 2004 and declined again 
in 2005 by 52%. Since domestic sales constituted major proportion of total sales during the period 
under examination, it is concluded that there is no link between the changes in exports and the 
injurious effects observed.   2. Conclusion on causation 
 After having examined the injurious effects of the other known factors, the investigating 
authority has reached the conclusion that there is  a genuine and substantial link between increased 
imports and serious injury to the domestic industry. 
 
II. Information on whether there is an absolu te increase in imports or an increase in 
imports relative to domestic production 
The investigation was conducted in accordance w ith the requirements of Turkish Legislation 
on Safeguard Measures and the procedures prescrib ed by the WTO Agreement on Safeguards and 
Article XIX of GATT 1994, i.e. determination of th e existence of unforeseen developments and effect 
of obligations, including tariff concessions which le d to the increased imports and resulting injury to 
the domestic producers.    
Although these circumstances need not be demonstrated for the reason that the product 
concerned is not the subject of any tariff concessi on granted by Turkey under the WTO Agreement, 
current investigation was governed by the national legislation and the term s and conditions of the 
Agreement on Safeguards and Article XIX of GATT 1994. 
 
 The investigating authority found that the New Turkish Lira appreciated unexpectedly since 
2001.  According to the data circulated by the Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey, the New 
Turkish Lira appreciated by 47% in real terms in 2005 compared to the year 2001.  The real value gain of the New Turkish Lira speeded up the imports and lessened the competitive power and 
profitability of the domestic industry.  The incr eased imports in significant quantities consequently 
eroded the domestic producers’ market share.   
 
Also, the growth trend of the Turkish ec onomy during the period under examination is 
considered to be another unforeseen development.  The expected and realized growth rates of Gross 
National Product of Turkish economy are provided below.   G/SG/N/8/TUR/4 
 G/SG/N/10/TUR/4 
 G/SG/N/11/TUR/4 
 Page 7 
  
  GNP 
Growth  2001 2002 2003 2004 2005  
Expected 4,5 4,0 5,0 5,0 5,0 
Realized -9,5 7,9 5,9 9,9 7,6 
Source: State Planning Organization 
 
Having contracted by 9,5% in 2001 economic crisis, Turkish economy grew well above the 
expected figures in the following years.  The fact that  the realized growth figures were higher than the 
expected values indicates that there have been increases in income and consumption demand above 
the expected levels and hence import demand has exc eeded expectations.  Therefore, the unexpectedly 
high growth performance of Turkish economy is anothe r factor that has led to increase in imports. 
 
The real appreciation of the New Turkish Lira and impressive growth performance of Turkish 
economy during the period under examination are th e unforeseen developments under Article XIX of 
GATT 1994.  
Turkey has investigated whether the product c oncerned is imported into Turkey in such 
increased quantities, absolute or re lative to total production, and/or on such terms or conditions as to 
cause, or threaten to cause, serious injury to th e domestic producers. In this respect, Turkey has 
focused on imports of the product concerned in the mo st recent period for which data are available.  
The table below shows the development of impor ts for the years 2000-2005 and the first 4-month 
periods of 2005 and 2006.  1. Volume of imports 
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005     
(1-4) 2006     
(1-4) 
Imports (Pcs) 821.792 561.185 807.637 1.510.002 2.340.651 2.945.853 871.851 1.014.059
 
Volume of imports decreased by 32% in 2001 comp ared to level of imports in 2000 due to the 
macro-economic crisis occurred in Turkey in that  year. In the following year, imports increased by 
44% and reached 807.637 pieces.  The rates of increase of imports were 87% in 2003, 55% in 2004 
and 26% in 2005.  The volume of imports increased by 258% in the period of 2000-2005. In the first 
4-month period of 2006, imports increased by 16% comp ared to the same period in the previous year.  
This reflects the fact that imports  increased in absolute terms. 
 
 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 
Imports/ 
Production (%) 38 58 168 328 666 
 
 Relative to total domestic production, imports increased from 38% in 2001 to 58% in 2002.  
The ratio increased by 110 and 160 percentage point s in 2003 and 2004, respectively.  In 2005, the 
ratio reached to its highest level with 666% for the period under examination. 
 G/SG/N/8/TUR/4 
G/SG/N/10/TUR/4 G/SG/N/11/TUR/4 
Page 8 
  
  2. Market share of imports 
 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 
Market Share of 
Imports (%-
Index) 100 124 198 239 255 
 
 In 2002, 2003 and 2004, the market share index of imports (2001=100) increased by 24%, 
59% and 21%, respectively.  The market share take n by imports further increased by 7% in the year 
2005.   3. Import prices 
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2005  
(1-4) 2006     
(1-4) 
Price       
(US $/Pcs)  17 16 14 15 16 18 17 21 
 
The average prices of the total imports decr eased between 2000-2002. In the years 2003, 2004 
and 2005 average import prices increased by 7%, 7 and 13%, respectively. In the first 4 months of the 
year 2006, average import prices increased by 23% co mpared to the same period and reached 21 US $ 
per piece.  
 
III. Precise description of the product involved 
 The product concerned, which is steam smoothi ng iron, is currently classified within the 
Turkish Customs Tariff Schedule 8516.40.10.00.00. 
 
IV. Description of the proposed measure 
 It is proposed to impose definitive safeguard me asure in the form of specific duty which will 
be implemented as 5 US$ per piece.  The difference between PDS and the average price of imports having price under PDS was 5 US$ in 2005.  Also, it is proposed to apply the measure on products 
regardless of their unit price since it is total impor ts, rather than only low-priced imports, that have 
caused serious injury to the domestic producers.  He nce, the type and magnitude of the measure were 
established in consistent with the aim of preven ting serious injury to the domestic industry.   
 
Below is the list of Developing Countries exclude d from the measures as they export less than 
3% of imports to Turkey (Article 9.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards ) 
 
 Afghanistan;  Antigua and Barbuda;  Angola;  Argentina;  American Samoa;  Anguilla;  
Antarctica;  Aruba;  Azerbaijan;  Barbados;  Banglad esh;  Burkina Faso;  Bahrain;  Burundi;  Benin;  
Belarus;  Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela;  Brunei Darussalam;  Bolivia;  Brazil;  Bahamas;  
Bhutan;  Botswana;  Belize;  Bermuda;  Bouvet Isla nd;  British Virgin Islands;  British Indian Ocean 
Territory;  Democratic Republic of Congo;  Cent ral African Republic;  Congo;  Côte d'Ivoire;  
Cameroon;  Chad;  Colombia;  Costa Rica;  Cuba;  Cape Verde;  Cayman Islands;  Chile;  Christmas 
Islands;  Cocos Islands;  Cook Islands;  Djibouti;   Dominica;  Dominican Republic;  Algeria;  
Ecuador;  Egypt;  Eritrea;  Ethiopia;  Fiji;  Federate d States of Micronesia;  Falkland Islands;  French 
Polynesia;  French Southern Territories;  Gabon;  Grenada;  Ghana;  Gambia;  Georgia;  Greenland;  G/SG/N/8/TUR/4 
 G/SG/N/10/TUR/4 
 G/SG/N/11/TUR/4 
 Page 9 
  
  Guinea;  Equatorial Guinea;  Guatemala;  Guinea- Bissau;  Guyana;  Gibraltar;  Guam;  Honduras;  
Haiti;  Heard Island and McDonald Islands;  India;  Iraq;  Iran (Islamic Republic of);  Jamaica;  
Jordan;  Kazakhstan;  Kenya,  Cambodia,  Kiriba ti,  Comoros,  St Kitts and Nevis,  Kuwait,  
Kyrgyzstan;  Laos;  Lebanon;  St Lucia;  Sri Lanka;  Liberia;  Lesotho;  Libyan Arab Jamahiriya;  
Morocco;  Madagascar;  Marshall Islands;  Mali;  Moldova;  Mongolia;  Mauritania;  Mauritius;  
Maldives;  Malawi;  Mozambique;  Macao ;  Mayotte;  Montserrat;  Namibia;  Niger;  Nigeria;  
Nicaragua;  Nepal;  Nauru;  Netherlands Antilles;  New Caledonia;  Niue Island;  Norfolk Island;  
Northern Mariana Islands;  Oman;  Panama;  Peru ;  Papua New Guinea;  Philippines;  Pakistan;  
Palau;  Paraguay;  Pitcairn;  Qatar;  Russian Fede ration;  Rwanda;  Samoa;  Saudi Arabia;  Solomon 
Islands;  Seychelles;  Sudan;  Sierra Leone;  Sene gal;  Somalia;  Suriname;  Sao Tomé and Principe;  
El Salvador;  Syrian Arab Republic;  Swaziland;   South Georgia and S outh Sandwich Islands;  
St Helena and dependencies;  St Pi erre and Miquelon;  Tajikistan;  Th ailand;  Togo;  Tunisia;  Tonga;  
East Timor;  Trinidad and Tobago;  Turkmenistan;  Tuvalu;  Tanzania;  Tokelau;  Turks and Caicos 
Islands;  Ukraine;  United Arab Emirates;  United States Minor outlying islands;  Uganda;  Uruguay;  
Uzbekhistan;  St Vincent;  Vietnam;  Vanuatu;  Virg in Islands of USA;  Wa llis and Futuna Islands;  
Yemen;  South Africa;  Zambia;  Zimbab we;  Indonesia;  Malaysia and Mexico.  
 
V. Proposed date of introduction of the measure 
The date of introduction of the pr oposed measure is 10 August 2006. 
 
VI. Expected duration of the measure 
 The expected duration of the proposed measure is three years. 
 
VII. Proposed date for the review  
 Not applicable. 
 
VIII.  Expected timetable for progressive liberalization of the measure 
In order to induce adjustment, the proposed m easure will be subject to liberalization on a 
regular basis following its imposition, thereby ensuri ng that there is a strong incentive for domestic 
producers to progressively undertake the necessary rest ructuring and adjustment.  The timetable for 
progressive liberalization of the prop osed measure is shown below.  
 
1
st year (period) 2nd year (period) 3rd year (period) 
5 US $ per piece 4,5 US $ per piece 4 US $ per piece 
 
IX. Information relating to the extension of a safeguard measure 
 Not applicable. 
 
__________