. /.   WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SG/Q2/PHL/3 
6 June 2007 
 (07-2353) 
Committee on Safeguards Original:   English 
  
 
NOTIFICATION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 9, FOOTNOTE 2, 
OF THE AGREEMENT ON SAFEGUARDS 
 
NOTIFICATION UNDER ARTICLE 12.1(C) OF THE  
AGREEMENT ON SAFEGUARDS 
(EXTENSION OF THE EXISTING MEASURE)  
  
Replies to Questions Posed by THAILAND
1 
Regarding Notifications of the PHILIPPINES2 
 
(Float Glass ) 
   The following communication, dated 4 June 2007, is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of Philippines. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
Question 1 
Thailand seeks clarification from the Philippines regarding the period of investigation 
used by its authorities.  We understand that the period used to examine the amount of imports 
differs from the one used to determine de me n/mis exemptions.  Could the Philippines please 
verify whether our understanding is correct?  If Thailand’s understanding is correct, could the 
Philippines please provide details of the different p eriods of investigation as well as the reasons 
for using different periods?   
Reply
 
  In determining the original de minimis exemptions, Philippine authorities draw import data 
from the same period of investigation (POI) used  in the examination of import volumes, and the 
determination of serious injury and causality.   
 
 With regard to the notification on the final determination for float glass 
(G/SG//N/8/PHL/5/Suppl.1 dated 26 May 2004), the re levant POI was from 1999 to 2003.  In that 
determination, Thailand was treated as a de minimis  exporter of tinted float glass, but not of clear float 
glass, based on import data for 2003.   
 
 The Philippines then conducts subsequent revi ews of import data of the countries that fell 
under the original de minimis exemption.  Pursuant to Section 13 of Republic Act No. 8800 (the 
                                                     
 
1 G/SG/Q2/PHL/2.   
2 G/SG/N/11/PHL/5/Suppl.3 – G/SG/N/14/PHL/2.   G/SG/Q2/PHL/3 
Page 2  
 
  safeguards legislation), and guided by Article 9.1 of the WTO Agreement on Safeguards (AOS), 
reviews were conducted for 2004 - 2006 resulting in the removal of other developing WTO Members 
from the original de minimis  exemption list because their individual share of imports exceeded 3 per 
cent during the review period (see, for ex ample, G/SG/N/8/PHL/5/ Suppl.2 dated 
11 September 2006).   
 
 In respect of the extension of the safeguard measure on float glass, an updated de minimis 
exemption list was annexed to the notification (G /SG/N/11/PHL/5/Suppl.3 dated 4 December 2006).  
In that notification, Thailand continued to be treated as a de minimis  exporter of tinted float glass, but 
not of clear float glass. 
 
Question 2 
 
We also seek clarification from the Phili ppines regarding the evidentiary standard 
required by its safeguard legislation in examining the threat of "serious injury".  We 
understand that the standard for threat of "seri ous injury" used by the Philippines in this 
investigation resembles that required to determ ine a threat of "material injury" under the 
WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement (ADA).  Could th e Philippines please verify whether our 
understanding is correct, and if so, clarify why it has employed the ADA injury standard 
instead of that required by the provisions of the WTO Safeguards Agreement?   
Reply
 
 
 For purposes of determination of serious injury and threat thereof, Section 12 of Republic Act No. 8800, consistent with Article 4.2(a) of th e AOS, requires an objective examination of, but not 
limited to:  (a) the rate and amount of the increase in  imports in absolute and relative terms;  (b) the 
share of the domestic market taken by increased impor ts;  (c) changes in the level of sales, prices, 
production, productivity, capacity utilization, invent ories, profits and losses, wages and employment 
in the domestic industry.     In order to supplement the above provisions on "threat of serious injury", Rule 12.3 of the 
Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Ac t No. 8800 adopted factors that can be found in 
the ADA in determining ‘threat of material injury’, e. g., those in Article 3.7(i), 3.7(ii) and 3.7(iv).   
 
 In addition, Rule 12.3 takes account of the declin e in sales or market share, a downward trend 
in production, profits, wages, productivity or em ployment (or increase in underemployment) in the 
domestic industry and its inability to generate capital for modernization or maintain existing levels of 
expenditures for research and development.  These fa ctors mirror many of those found in Article 3.4 
of the ADA, which guide the determination of "mat erial injury" and not of the "threat of material 
injury".   What thus transpired was the incorporati on of useful ADA concepts into the national 
safeguards legislation in order to further elaborate on, and to assist authorities in making an objective and quantifiable determination of, "threat of serious injury".   
 
__________