WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
G/SG/M/39 
8 July 2011 
 (11-3398) 
Committee on Safeguards  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING 
HELD ON 2 MAY 2011 
 
Chairperson:  Mr. Tobias Lorentzson 
 
 
1. The Committee on Safeguards (the "Committee" ) held a regular meeting on 2 May 2011. 
2. Regarding "Other Business", the representative of Turkey indicated that he wished to make a 
statement concerning an investiga tion by Ukraine.  The representa tive of Egypt indicated that he 
wished to make a statement concerning an investig ation by Jordan.  The Chairperson stated that he 
wished to make a brief statement on clerical matters concerning notifications. 
3. With this, the following agenda was adopted: 
A.  NATIONAL LEGISLATION  ............................................................................................................. 2  
1.  European Union – Review of New Legislative Notification .................................................. 2  
2.  Gabon – Review of New Legislative Notification ................................................................... 3  
3.  Oman – Review of New Legi slative Notification .................................................................... 3  
B.  NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RELATED TO SAFEGUARD MEASURES  ............................................ 3  
1.  Dominican Republic – Certain Sports and Other Socks ....................................................... 3  
2.  Ecuador – Windshields ......................................................................................................... .... 4 
3.  European Union – Wireless Wide Area Networking Modems ............................................. 5  
4.  India – N1, 3-Dimethyl Butyl-N Phenyl Paraphenylenediamine .......................................... 5  
5.  Indonesia – Cotton Yarn other than Sewing Thread ............................................................. 5  
6.  Indonesia – Tarpaulins, Awnings and Sunblinds of Synthetic Fibres.................................. 7  
7.  Indonesia – Stranded Wire, Ropes and Cabl es, Excluding Locked Coil, Flattened 
Strands and Non-Rotating Wire Ropes .................................................................................. 7  
8.  Indonesia – Certain Stranded Wire, Ropes and Cables ........................................................ 7  
9.  Indonesia – Wire of Iron/Non-alloy Steel, Plated with Zinc ................................................. 7  
10.  Indonesia – Certain Wire of Iron Non-Alloy Steel (not plated/coated) ................................ 7  
11.  Indonesia – Bleached and Unbleached Woven Fabric of Cotton ......................................... 7  
12.  Israel – Glass Wool and Rock Wool ........................................................................................ 8  
13.  Kyrgyz Republic – Poultry Eggs ............................................................................................. 8  
14.  Morocco – Machine-Made Carpets ......................................................................................... 8  
15.  Thailand – Glass Block ........................................................................................................ ..... 8 G/SG/M/39 
Page 2  
 
  16.  Turkey – Polyethylene Terephthalate ..................................................................................... 8  
17.  Turkey – Spectacle Frames ..................................................................................................... . 9 
18.  Turkey – Travel Goods, Handbags and Similar Containers ................................................. 9  
19.  Ukraine – Cooling and Refrigerating Equipment .................................................................. 9  
20.  Ukraine – Ferro-Manganese and Ferro-Silico-Manganese ................................................... 9  
21.  Ukraine – Mineral or Ch emical Fertilisers ............................................................................. 9  
22.  Ukraine – Matches ............................................................................................................. ....... 9 
23.  Ukraine – Certain Products of  Crude Oil Processing ......................................................... 10  
C.  O
THER BUSINESS  ...................................................................................................................... 10  
1.  Statement by Turkey ........................................................................................................... ... 10 
2.  Statement by Egypt ............................................................................................................ ..... 11 
3.  Statement by the Chairperson ............................................................................................... 11  
D.  DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING ............................................................................................ 11  
E.  ELECTION OF OFFICERS  ............................................................................................................. 12  
 
A. NATIONAL LEGISLATION  
4. The Chairperson stated that the first item on the Committee's agenda was the review of 
notifications of national safeguards legislation and/or regulations, in accordance with the procedures 
adopted by the Committee at its special meeting in April 1996. 
5. Concerning the procedure for this meeting, the Ch airperson stated that he would first give the 
floor to the Member whose legislation was being revi ewed, to make any introductory statement that it 
wished.  He would then invite that Member to present its answers to any written questions.  In 
accordance with the procedures adopt ed by the Committee, a written version of those answers should 
also be provided after the meeti ng, unless it had already been provi ded.  Members would also be 
given an opportunity to ask questions orally.  Af ter the meeting, there would be a period for the 
submission of additional written questions concerning an y of the legislative notifications reviewed at 
this meeting. 
6. The Chairperson stated that if Members wished to have written answers to questions, they had 
to ensure that all questions were presented in writi ng to the Member concerned, and to the Secretariat, 
no later than 23 May 2011.  He stated that writte n answers to all questions submitted in writing by 
that deadline should be submitted to the Secretariat no later than 14 June 2011. 
1. European Union – Review of New Legislative Notification 
7. The Chairperson noted that the legislativ e notification from the European Union was 
contained in document G/SG/N/1/EEC/2.  He no ted that no written questions concerning this 
notification had been received.  
8. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.  G/SG/M/39 
 Page 3 
 
 
  2. Gabon – Review of New Legislative Notification 
9. The Chairperson noted that the legislative notification from Gabon was contained in 
document G/SG/N/1/GAB/2.  He noted that this w as a nil notification, and that no written questions 
concerning this notification had been received.  
10. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
3. Oman – Review of New Legislative Notification 
11. The Chairperson noted that the legislative no tification from Oman was contained in document 
G/SG/N/1/OMN/2.  He noted that no written questions concerning this notification had been received.  
12. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
13. The Chairperson reminded Members that the deadline for written questions concerning any 
legislation reviewed at this meeting was 23 May 20 11.  The deadline for writt en answers to all written 
questions, including questions s ubmitted in writing prior to this meeting, was 14 June 2011.  
Concerning these deadlines, he reminded the Co mmittee of the importan ce of providing written 
answers to written questions posed.  The exchange of written questions and answers constituted the 
Committee's only record of the review of legislation.  Thus, the Committee's records were left 
incomplete when written questions were not answer ed, or only answered long after the meeting where 
the review took place.  He stated that, in order to help Members keep track of the questions posed and 
the responses submitted, any questions left unanswe red would be indicated in the draft annotated 
agenda of the next Committee meeting. 
14. Before proceeding to the next agenda item, the Chairperson informed the Committee that 
there were still 27 Members that had not yet made a legislative notification.1  He stated that he would 
not read out the names of those Members, but want ed to note that this was one of the important 
obligations of the Safeguards Agreement.  Members th at did not yet have legislation need only submit 
a very simple "nil" notification.  He stated th at if delegations had any questions regarding the 
procedures for notifications, they should feel free to contact the Secretariat or the Chairperson. 
B. NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RELATED TO SAFEGUARD MEASURES  
15. The Chairperson noted that various notifications of actions related to safeguard measures had 
been received since the last meeting.  In order to  ensure that all of these notifications could be 
reviewed in the limited time available, the Chairp erson suggested that the Committee address relevant 
safeguard investigations as separate agenda items, and review all of the notifications pertaining to 
each separate investigation at the same time. 
1. Dominican Republic – Certain Sports and Other Socks 
16. The Chairperson noted that the Dominican Repub lic had made two notifications regarding an 
investigation on certain sports and other socks in documents G/SG/N/8/DOM/2/Suppl.1–
G/SG/N/10/DOM/2–G/SG/N/11/DOM/2/Suppl.1. 
17. The representative of Panama stated that Pa nama had requested consultations with the 
Dominican Republic, and was waiting for a response.   
                                                      
1 These Members were: Angola, Antigua & Barbuda, Belize, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African 
Republic, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo,  Djibouti, the Gambia, Grenada, Guinea Bissau, Mali, 
Mauritania, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Papua New Guin ea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts & Nevis, Saint Vincent & 
Grenadines, Sierra Leone, Solomon Island s, Swaziland, Tanzania , Togo, and Tonga. G/SG/M/39 
Page 4  
 
  18. The representative of the Dominican Repub lic stated that she would check.  
19. The representative of Brazil referred to document G/SG/N/8/DOM/1/Suppl.2–
G/SG/N/10/DOM/1–G/SG/N/11/DOM/1/Suppl.1, which re lated to an investigation on a different 
product, tubular fabric.  She noted that in that doc ument, Brazil was not liste d as a developing country 
to which the measure did not apply by virtue of Article 9.1.  In fact, Brazil had not exported the 
product during the period of investigation.  By cont rast, in the notification at issue here, Brazil was 
listed as a developing country to which the measure did not apply by virtue of Article 9.1.  In 
addition, she noted that the second table indicated th at the total share of developing countries' shares 
exceeded 9 per cent. Brazil wished to clarify what the criterion was that the Dominican Republic was 
using in terms of the 9.1 exclusion.   
20.  The representative of the Dominican Republic clar ified that a three-year period was used, and 
stated that Brazil did not appear on the table if it was not exporting during that period.  
2. Ecuador – Windshields 
21. The Chairperson noted that Ecuador had made notifications regarding an investigation on 
windshields in documents G/SG/N/8/ECU/3–G /SG/N/10/ECU/4 and G/SG/N/8/ECU/3/Suppl.1–
G/SG/N/10/ECU/4/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/11/ECU/1.  
22. The representative of Colombia stated that Colo mbia had concerns regarding this item.  In 
Colombia's views, Ecuador had not complied with th e procedural requirements of the Agreement.  In 
particular, Ecuador did not comply with Article 12.  It did not provide adequate opportunity for 
consultations in line with Article 12.  In this rega rd, he stated that Colombia would submit a request 
asking the Committee to act on the basis of Article 13.1(b) of the Agreement.2  
23. The representative of Ecuador stated that Ecua dor would consider that request, and would 
report back on this issue at the next regular Committ ee meeting.  At the same time, he stressed that 
Ecuador had complied with the relevant proced ures.  Ecuador submitted the notification on 
15 October 2010, and the measure was imposed only on 1 November 2010.  A nd Ecuador did consult 
with Colombia twice.    
24. The Chairperson clarified that he did not exp ect substantive discussion on this matter since 
this issue was raised only now, and went on to ask whether any Member wished to take the floor on 
this matter.  He also clarified that his intention was, unless Members objected, to propose that the Committee hold a special meeting in due course to discuss this issue.   
25. Having seen no flags up, the Chairperson stated that he would ask the incoming Chair to hold 
a special meeting in due course to discuss this issu e, and that he would ask the incoming chair to 
make the necessary arrangements, and inform Members of the next steps. 
26. The representative of Ecuador asked whether th ere was any precedence or procedure on this 
issue.  He noted that Rule 25 of the Rules of Procedures of the Committee should be applicable. He 
stated that he would like to hear the views of the Secretariat as well. 
27. The Chairperson stated that  there was no precedence.  
28. The Secretariat stated that Rule 25 of the Ru les of Procedures concerned "Other Business".  
                                                      
2 Subsequently submitted and circulated as document G/L/957–G/SG/93.   G/SG/M/39 
 Page 5 
 
 
  29. The representative of Ecuador clarified that he  was talking about the possibility of holding a 
special meeting.  He understood that there was no provision in the Rules of Procedures about special 
meetings.  The relevant rule only provided that the Committee "shall meet not less than twice a year 
in regular session, and otherwise as appropriate".  He asked what the provi sion was that provided for 
special meetings. 
30. The Chairperson stated that, as read out by Ecua dor, the provision read "not less than twice a 
year".  He clarified that whatever one calls the meeting, what he was proposing was that the 
Committee discuss this issue at the ne xt separate meeting.  He stated that he would leave it to the 
incoming Chair to see in what way it could be done – whether it could be discussed before the regular 
meeting or otherwise.  He stated that he would ask the incoming chair to consult with Members.   
31. The representative of Ecuador thanked the Chairpers on for the clarification, and stated that he 
had noted that together with Article 25 of the Rules of Procedures. 
3. European Union – Wireless Wide Area Networking Modems 
32. The Chairperson noted that the European Union had made a notification regarding an 
investigation on Wireless Wide Area Networ king Modems in document G/SG/N/9/EEC/2. 
33. The representative of China welcomed the terminat ion of the investigation, but stated that 
considering the potential commercial impact, China ur ged Members to be prudent in deciding to open 
an investigation. 
4. India – N1, 3-Dimethyl Butyl-N Phenyl Paraphenylenediamine 
34. The Chairperson noted that India had made a no tification regarding an investigation on N1, 3-
Dimethyl Butyl-N Phenyl Paraphenylene diamine in document G/SG/N/6/IND/28.  
35. The representative of the European Union stated that the European Union took issue with the 
initiation of this investigation, and urged India to  terminate the proceedings.  In the view of the 
European Union, there was no surge in imports, a nd no unforeseen development.  There was also an 
issue with injury determination in relation to cap acity utilization, share, and profits of domestic 
industry.  The injury analysis period of 10 years was also far too long.  In addition, the European 
Union was of the view that certain injury suffe red by the domestic industry was due to dumping, 
which was already remedied by a separate remedy of anti-dumping duties.  
36. The representative of the United States stated th at the United States also had concerns with 
this notification.  The United States was concerned about the ten-year analysis period used. He noted 
that India used more recent data in other notifications .  He also noted that there appeared to be several 
indications of health within the domestic industry. 
37. The representative of India asked the questions to be submitted in writing.  
5. Indonesia – Cotton Yarn other than Sewing Thread 
38. The Chairperson noted that Indonesia had made several notifications regarding an 
investigation on cotton yarn other than sewi ng thread in documents G/SG/N/8/IDN/4,  
G/SG/N/8/IDN/4/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/10/I DN/4, and G/SG/N/8/IDN/4/Suppl.2– 
G/SG/N/10/IDN/4/Suppl.1.  Questions concerning this notification had been received from India in 
document G/SG/Q2/IDN/1.   G/SG/M/39 
Page 6  
 
  39. The representative of Indonesia made three point s in the general, not necessarily limited to 
this item.  First, he stated that Indonesia handled a ll investigations in a fair and transparent manner. Of 
the seven notifications made to this meeting, two,  including this item, related to a stage before an 
imposition. In particular, notwithstanding the title  given to documents G/SG/N/8/IDN/4/Suppl.1–
G/SG/N/10/IDN/4 and  G/SG/N/8/IDN/4/Suppl.2–G /SG/N/10/IDN/4/Suppl.1, it was his delegation's 
understanding that these notifications regarding co tton yarn were made under Article 12.1(b), and not 
Article 12.1(c).  He suspected that this may have cr eated certain confusion.  Second, he explained that 
recently, there was a significant number of applications from the domestic industry to initiate safeguard investigations.  While it was true that there were five final measures recently imposed, he 
stressed that the government's findings in all of th e investigations were based on an objective and 
accountable process. The domestic industry was now well aware of the remedies that were available 
to them.  The government was in a delicate position.  It had to ensure that the imposition of measures 
were in line with applicable rules, and ther efore could not accept all the applications for 
investigations.  Third, he reiterated that Indonesia' s investigation proceedings would take into account 
the applicable rules and regulations as well as b est practices.  Indonesia was willing to discuss any 
matters with Members, and would offer the opportuni ty for consultations in light of the relevant 
multilateral framework. 
40. Finally, he informed that the response to th e questions from India had already been provided 
to India.         
41. The representative of India stated that their cap ital was still looking at the Indonesian replies, 
and would revert later.    
42. The Chairperson requested Indonesia to submit the response so that it could be circulated to 
all Members.3  In relation to Indonesia's statement that the notification was intended to be made under 
Article 12.1(b) and not Article 12.1(c), the Secretar iat explained that there was an established practice 
of how to provide titles of certain notifications, and so the title of a document would not necessarily 
be the same as the one given by the notifying Memb er.  However, the content of the notification was 
exactly the same as notified.  
43.  The representative of Japan registered Japan's general concern that some notifications, not 
limited to the ones from Indonesia, were late, and thus  there was insufficient ti me for the exporters to 
submit comments.  She stated that, for example, I ndonesia's investigation regarding "certain wire of 
iron/non-alloy steel, plated with zinc" was submitte d on 3 February 2010, while the actual initiation 
date was 21 January 2010.  As correctly indicated in  document G/SG/N/8/IDN/7, in this investigation, 
only the domestic industries submitted comments.  It was regrettable that exporters with substantial 
interests were deprived the opportunity to comment, due to late notifications.  The notification of 
imposition was also late in this investigation.  Japan noted that Thailand's initiation notification 
regarding glass block and Ukraine's notification re garding certain products of crude oil processing, 
both of which were on the agenda, were also la te.  Japan urged Members to make immediate 
notifications in order that interested parties had sufficient time to comment.  
44. The representative of the United States echoed the concerns raised by Japan and India 
regarding the general need for timely notification,  and pointed out the short registration periods and 
compressed deadlines that often acco mpanied safeguard investigations. 
45.   The representative of Canada pointed out th at the safeguard instrument was unique in the 
sense that it was applied on otherwise "fair" trade, an d urged Members to carefully abide by the rules, 
including timely notifications.  
                                                      
3 Subsequently circulated in  document G/SG/Q2/IDN/2.  G/SG/M/39 
 Page 7 
 
 
  46. The representative of Indonesia asked that questions be submitted in writing.  
6. Indonesia – Tarpaulins, Awnings and Sunblinds of Synthetic Fibres 
47. The Chairperson noted that Indonesia had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
tarpaulins, awnings and sunblinds of synthe tic fibres in document G/SG/N/6/IDN/13.   
48. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
7. Indonesia – Stranded Wire, Ropes and Cabl es, Excluding Locked Coil, Flattened 
Strands and Non-Rotating Wire Ropes 
49. The Chairperson noted that Indonesia had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
stranded wire, ropes and cables, excluding locked co il, flattened strands and non-rotating wire ropes 
in document G/SG/N/8/IDN/5-G/SG/N/10/IDN/5-G/SG/N/11/IDN/4.  
50. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
8. Indonesia – Certain Stranded Wire, Ropes and Cables 
51. The Chairperson noted that Indonesia had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
certain stranded wire, ropes and cables in document G/SG/N/8/IDN/6-G/SG/N/10/IDN/6-
G/SG/N/11/IDN/5. 
52. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
9. Indonesia – Wire of Iron/Non-alloy Steel, Plated with Zinc 
53. The Chairperson noted that Indonesia had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
wire of iron/non-alloy steel, plated with zinc  in document G/SG/N/8/IDN/7-G/SG/N/10/IDN/7-
G/SG/N/11/IDN/6. 
54. The representative of Indonesia noted that Japan's earlier general comments included 
comments specifically on this item, and requested that any question be submitted in writing.   
10. Indonesia – Certain Wire of Iron Non-Alloy Steel (not plated/coated) 
55. The Chairperson noted that Indonesia had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
certain wire of iron non-alloy steel in  document G/SG/N/8/IDN/8-G/SG/N/10/IDN/8-
G/SG/N/11/IDN/7.  
56. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
11. Indonesia – Bleached and Unbleached Woven Fabric of Cotton  
57. The Chairperson noted that Indonesia had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
bleached and unbleached woven fabric of cotton in document G/SG/N/8/IDN/9-G/SG/N/10/IDN/9-
G/SG/N/11/IDN/8.  
58. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. G/SG/M/39 
Page 8  
 
  12. Israel – Glass Wool and Rock Wool  
59. The Chairperson noted that Israel had made a notification regarding an investigation on glass 
wool and rock wool in document G/SG/N/6/ISR/2.  
60. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
13. Kyrgyz Republic – Poultry Eggs 
61. The Chairperson noted that Kyrgyz Republic had made a notification regarding an 
investigation on poultry eggs in document G/SG/N/6/KGZ/3.  
62. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
14. Morocco – Machine-Made Carpets 
63. The Chairperson noted that Morocco had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
machine-made carpets in document G/SG/N/9/MAR/3.  
64. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
15. Thailand – Glass Block 
65. The Chairperson noted that Thailand had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
glass block in documents G/SG/N/6/THA/ 1 and G/SG/N/7/THA/1–G/SG/N/8/THA/1–
G/SG/N/11/THA/1 & Suppl.1. 
66. The representative of the European Union stated that the European Union took issue with the 
provisional measure.  In the view of the European Union, the provisional measure was not warranted. 
There were no critical circumstances justifying the imposition of a provisional measure, nor was there any reference to unforeseen developments.  In add ition, he stated that the investigating authority 
failed to demonstrate serious injury and that the notification did not contain any meaningful 
information.  He noted that Thailand was also imposing anti-dumping duties on the same product, and 
the European Union was concerned that Thaila nd would proceed with an impermissible double-
remedy. 
67.  The representative of Indonesia stated he agreed with the European Union that the 
notification had to include sufficient data. 
68.  The representative of Thailand requested that  questions be submitted in writing.   
16. Turkey – Polyethylene Terephthalate 
69. The Chairperson noted that Turkey had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
polyethylene terephthalate in document G/SG/N/6/TUR/16.  
70. The representative of the European Union stat ed that the European Union was generally 
concerned about the recent extensive use of safeguard s by Turkey.  Safeguards were instruments to be 
used exceptionally.  For this product, in the view of  the European Union, there was no recent, sudden, 
sharp or significant increase of imports while domestic production remained  unchanged, and nor was 
there serious injury.   G/SG/M/39 
 Page 9 
 
 
  71. The representative of Indonesia stated that he agreed with the points made by the European 
Union. 
72. The representative of Turkey stated that it wa s well understood that safe guards should be used 
exceptionally, and that Turkey was indeed using it excep tionally.  He stressed that all of the safeguard 
duty rates were lower than the bound rate, which was rather low.  He further explained that Turkey 
had a customs union with the European Union, wh ich had a certain effect on Turkey's way of 
proceeding.  He also stressed the fact that Tu rkey was a developing country.  For this specific 
investigation, he requested that qu estions be submitted in writing.   
17. Turkey – Spectacle Frames 
73. The Chairperson noted that Turkey had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
spectacle frames in document G/SG/N/7/TUR/8–G/SG/N/11/TUR/14–G/SG/N/14/TUR/5.  
74. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
18. Turkey – Travel Goods, Handbags and Similar Containers 
75. The Chairperson noted that Turkey had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
travel goods, handbags and similar cont ainers G/SG/N/7/TUR/9–G/SG/N/11/TUR/15–
G/SG/N/14/TUR/6. 
76. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
19. Ukraine – Cooling and Refrigerating Equipment 
77. The Chairperson noted that Ukraine had made tw o notifications regarding an investigation on 
cooling and refrigerating equipment in document s G/SG/N/6/UKR/7/Suppl.1 and G/SG/N/9/UKR/4. 
78. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
20. Ukraine – Ferro-Manganese and Ferro-Silico-Manganese  
79. The Chairperson noted that Ukraine had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
ferro-manganese and ferro-silico-manganese in document G/SG/N/6/UKR/6/Suppl.1. 
80. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
21. Ukraine – Mineral or Chemical Fertilisers 
81. The Chairperson noted that Ukraine had made tw o notifications regarding an investigation on 
mineral or chemical fertilisers in documents G/SG/N/6/UKR/5/Suppl.1 and G/SG/N/9/UKR/3.  
82. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
22. Ukraine – Matches  
83. The Chairperson noted that Ukraine had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
matches in document G/SG/N/8/UKR/2/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/10/UKR/2/Suppl.1.  
84. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. G/SG/M/39 
Page 10  
 
  23. Ukraine – Certain Products of Crude Oil Processing 
85. The Chairperson noted that Ukraine had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
certain products of crude oil processing in document G/SG/N/6/UKR/8.  
86. The representative of Turkey noted that the notif ication was circulated nearly two and a half 
months after the actual initiation, which was on 29 January 2011.  Turkey asked Ukraine to make 
timely notifications, and urged all Members to do so as well. 
87. The representative of Ukraine explained that the notification was sent to the Central Registry 
of Notifications on 10 March 2011, but was actually circulated only on 13 April 2011. 
88. The Chairperson stated that he understood that  there had been some mistake, and asked the 
Secretariat to clarify.  The Secretariat acknowledged that the notification was originally received by 
the Central Registry of Notifications on 10 March 2011,  and that it was somehow lost in the system.  
It was only on 12 April that the Rules Division was ma de aware of the notification, hence the delay in 
circulating the document.          
89. The representative of the European Union made sev eral points.  First, the product scope of 
this investigation was too wide.  In the view of the European Union, certain products needed to be 
analysed separately.  Second, certain products in cluded in the investigation were not like products, 
and should be excluded from the investigation.  Thir dly, there was no surge of imports.  Finally, the 
decrease of domestic production was not caused by imports, and there was no causal link between 
imports and injury.      
90. The representative of Ukraine requested that  questions be submitted in writing.   
91. The Chairperson thanked all delegations fo r their statements, questions and answers 
concerning the various notifications of actions related to safeguard measures.  He reminded 
delegations once again that any questions for which written responses were requested should be 
submitted to the Member concerned and to the Se cretariat no later than 23 May 2011.  He also 
reminded delegations that written responses to ques tions, including questions submitted in writing 
prior to this meeting, should be submitted to the S ecretariat no later than 14 June 2011.  As with the 
legislative notifications, if there were any questions  left unanswered, they would be indicated in the 
draft annotated agenda of the next Committee meeting. 
92. The Committee took note of the statements made. 
C. OTHER BUSINESS  
1. Statement by Turkey 
93. The representative of Turkey referred to a notification made by Ukraine in document 
G/SG/N/6/UKR/4, circulated on 4 September 2009, concerning an initiation of an investigation on 
float glass.  Notification of the imposition of th e provisional measure on this product was circulated 
on 4 December 2009 in document G/SG/N/7/UKR/1.  While Turkey understood that Ukraine imposed 
a final measure with a duration of 10 days on 23 October 2010, that final measure was not notified.  
Turkey requested an update of this investigation.  
94.  The representative of Ukraine asked that  the question be posed in writing.    G/SG/M/39 
 Page 11 
 
 
  2. Statement by Egypt 
95. The representative of Egypt referred to a notification made by Jordan in document 
G/SG/N/10/JOR/7/Suppl.2–G/SG/N/11/JOR/3/Suppl.2, circulated in September 2010, concerning the 
imposition of a final measure on ceramic tiles.  He noted that there were two similar notifications 
preceding this imposition notification, the first one being notified in document G/SG/N/8/JOR/7– 
G/SG/N/10/JOR/7–G/SG/N/11/JOR/3, circulated in July 2009, and the second one being notified in 
document G/SG/N/10/JOR/7/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/11/JOR/ 3/Suppl.1, circulated in March 2010.  The 
investigation was initiated in 2008.  This turn of events resulted in a gap of 20 months between the 
end of the investigation and the time of the ultimate decision.  In addition, the period of investigation 
was 2003-2008.  In Egypt's view, this was not in lin e with the disciplines of the Agreement.  There 
were other problems with the findings as well.  Fi rst, the increase of imports was not recent, sudden, 
sharp or significant enough.  There were no unforesee n developments, and no causal link.  Egypt was 
also of the view that the level of the duty was qu estionable, since the final duty was three times higher 
than that which was originally proposed.  In add ition, Jordan had not provi ded sufficient information 
which Egypt had requested in vari ous consultations.  The representa tive of Egypt further noted that 
the latest notification indicated that the measure would be "reviewed after six months of its 
implementation", which meant that the review should have been done in March 2011.  He asked what 
the current situation was.     
96. The representative of Jordan stated that the measure was in compliance with the Agreement, 
and that timely notifications had also been made.  Prior consultations with Egypt had taken place, and 
the relevant questions had been answered.  As fo r the review, he explaine d that it was on-going, and 
that a notification would be made as soon as there was a result.  With regard to the outstanding 
questions, he asked that these be posed in writing.    
3. Statement by the Chairperson 
97. The Chairperson made a statement on certain administrative matters concerning notifications.  
He first reminded Members that the new format  of notifications adopted in 2009 was found in 
document G/SG/1/Rev.1–G/SG/N/6/Rev.1–G/SG/89. Second, he strongly encouraged Members to 
submit electronic versions of their notifications to assist the Secretariat in the timely circulation of 
documents.  He added that he was pleased to re port that Members were increasingly submitting their 
notifications in electronic form.  Third, he enc ouraged Members to submit, together with their 
notifications, an electronic version of the pub licly available document containing the relevant 
decisions made by the competent authority.  The " publicly available document" did not need to be in 
the WTO official language.  This would allow the notifying Member to provide detailed information 
without having to produce a long WTO notification.  Finally, he asked Members to ensure, as far as possible, that their notifications did not contain typographical and other errors, since that might cause delays in the translation and eventual circulation of the documents.  He clarified that neither the 
secretary of the Committee, nor the translators were in a position to edit the text of notifications.   
98. The Committee took note of the statements made. 
D. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING  
99. The Chairperson suggested that  the Committee meet in the week of 24 October 2011.  He 
stated that the exact date would be confirmed in due course.  
100. The Committee so decided. G/SG/M/39 
Page 12  
 
  E. 
ELECTION OF OFFICERS  
101. The Chairperson stated that the chairperson of  the Council for Trade in Goods had carried out 
informal consultations on the nomination of chai rpersons for the different bodies operating under the 
auspices of the Council for Trade in Goods.  The proposed nominations were taken note of by the 
Council for Trade in Goods.  He stated that concer ning this Committee, the chairperson of the Council 
for Trade in Goods proposed the nomination of Ms  Lillian Saili Bwalya of Zambia.  He therefore 
proposed that the Committee elect Ms Saili Bwalya as Chairperson.   
102. The Committee so decided. 
103. Regarding the position of Vice-Chairperson of th e Committee, the Chairperson stated that he 
had conducted consultations with a number of Members, and on the basis of those consultations he 
proposed that the Committee elect Ms Tomoko Ota of Japan as Vice-Chair of the Committee.  
104. The Committee so decided. 
__________