RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SG/M/33 
16 September 2008 
 (08-4290) 
Committee on Safeguards  
  
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING 
HELD ON 30 APRIL 2008  
 
Chairperson:  Mrs Jo McKeagg (New Zealand) 
  
1. The Committee on Safeguards (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 30 April 2008. 
2. The following agenda was adopted: 
A.
 NATIONAL LEGISLATION ............................................................................................................2  
1. Albania – Review of New Legislative Notification .................................................................2  
2. Costa Rica – Review of New Legislative Notification ............................................................3  
3. Guatemala –  Review of New Legislative Notification...........................................................4  
4. Malaysia –  Review of New Legislative Notification ..............................................................4  
5. Nicaragua –  Review of New Legislative Notification............................................................5  
6. Turkey – Review of New Legislative Notification ..................................................................6  
B. NOTIFICATIONS  OF ACTIONS  RELATED  TO SAFEGUARD ............................................................7  
1. Australia – Swine Meat ......................................................................................................... ...7 
2. Egypt– Blankets ................................................................................................................ ........7  
3. Moldova – Sugar ................................................................................................................ .......8  
4. Panama – PVC Films............................................................................................................. ...8 
5. Philippines – Ceramic Floor and Wall Tiles...........................................................................9  
6. Philippines – Gl ass Mirrors .................................................................................................... .9 
7. Philippines – Figured Glass.................................................................................................... ..9 
8. Philippines – Float Glass ...................................................................................................... ....9 
9. South Africa – Lysine .......................................................................................................... .....9 
10. Turkey – Certain Electrical Appliances................................................................................10  
11. Turkey – Spectacle Frames....................................................................................................11  
12. Turkey – Travel Goods.......................................................................................................... .11 
C. OTHER  ISSUES ...........................................................................................................................12  
D. DATE OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING ..................................................................................12  
E. ELECTION OF OFFICERS ............................................................................................................12  
 G/SG/M/33 
Page 2  
 
  A. N
ATIONAL LEGISLATION  
3. The Chairperson  stated that the first item on the Co mmittee's agenda was the review of 
notifications of national safeguard legislations and/or regulations, in accordance with the procedures 
adopted by the Committee at its special meeting in  April 1996.  The Chairperson mentioned that, as 
had been indicated in the airgram convening th e meeting, the Committee had received legislative 
notifications from six Members.  As indicated in  the annotated draft agenda dated 27 March 2008, 
questions regarding these legislative notifications  were to have been submitted to the Member 
concerned and to the Secretariat no later than 7 April 2008. 
4. Concerning the procedure for this meeting, the Chairperson stated that she would first give 
the floor to the Member whose legislation was be ing reviewed, to make any introductory statement 
that it wished.  She would then i nvite that Member to present its answers to any written questions.  
The Chairperson reminded Members of the Comm ittee that in accordance with the procedures 
adopted by the Committee, a written version of th ose answers also had to be provided after the 
meeting.  The Chairperson also reminded Members that follow-up questions could be asked at this 
meeting.  Other delegations would also be given an opportunity to present questions orally at this 
meeting.  After the meeting there would be a period for the submission of written questions 
concerning any of the legislati ons reviewed in the meeting. 
5. The Chairperson mentioned that if Members wi shed to have written answers to questions, 
they had to ensure that all questions were presen ted in writing to the Member whose legislation was 
concerned, and to the Secretariat, no later than th ree weeks after the meeting, i.e., no later than 
21 May 2008.  Written answers to all questions su bmitted in writing by that deadline had to be 
submitted to the Secretariat no later than three weeks later, i.e., no later than 11 June 2008. 
1. Albania – Review of New Legislative Notification 
6. The Chairperson  noted that the legislative notification from Albania was contained in 
document G/SG/N/1/ALB/2. She further noted that wr itten questions concerning this notification have 
been received from the United States and from Chile, contained in documents G/SG/Q1/ALB/1 and 
G/SG/Q1/ALB/2, respectively. 
7. The representative of Albania  took the floor to respond to the questions from the United 
States and from Chile. She first took up the ques tions from the United States. On question 1, she 
explained that issues related to the terms used in the notification were mere translation matters and do 
not reflect substantive differences. Adjustments have now been made, wh ere appropriate, and a 
revised version of Law No. 9790 dated 19 July 2007 w ould be notified.  On question 2, she explained 
that this commission would be established to ev aluate the necessary measure in accordance with 
Articles 4, 5 and 6 of the Albanian law, and that  the nomination of the members of the commission had already been sent for approval to the Council of Ministers. On question 3, she stated that upon the 
request of the Ministry, the Commission would decide whether or not to take the surveillance measure, which was not to exceed 9 months.  She further explained that an import document was 
necessary only while surveillance measur es were in place.  On question 4, she stated that the Ministry 
officially publicized safeguard investigations in th e Official Journal as well as a widely circulated 
national newspaper. The website addresses were provi ded.  On question 5, she explained that in 
accordance with Article 5 of Albanian law, the Commission functioned as a collegial and decision-making body.  After reviewing the Ministry's report the Commission had to decide whether to adopt the proposal made by the Ministry or to implement its own remedy. On question 7, she stated that the 
word "security" had now been  replaced by "guaranties". 
8. Concerning the question from Chile, the representative of Albania
 stated that in order to 
demonstrate serious injury or threat thereof to  domestic producers, a causal link between increased  G/SG/M/33 
 Page 3 
 
 
  imports and injury should be determined along with any other fact ors that could simultaneously injure 
domestic industry.  In this regard, technological  developments, as a potential factor, should be 
analysed.  For example, old domestic technology wo uld have its own impact on productivity, capacity 
utilization and production costs, resulting in domestic products being less attractive in the market and, 
subsequently, an increased demand for imported like-product. The representative of Albania 
explained that while this situation may lead to serious  injury or threat thereof to the domestic industry, 
the injury caused by such factors must no t be attributed to the increased imports. 
9. The Chairperson  stated that the revised notification from Albania would be taken up in the 
next meeting.1  
2. Costa Rica – Review of New Legislative Notification 
10. The Chairperson  noted that the legislative notification from Costa Rica was contained in 
document G/SG/N/1/CRI/4. She further noted that written questions concerning this notification had 
been received from the United States and from Chile, contained in documents G/SG/Q1/CRI/3 and G/SG/Q1/CRI/4 respectively. 
11. The representative of Costa Rica
 first took up the questions from the United States. On 
question 1, he confirmed that the WTO Agreemen t on Safeguards was self-implementing, and would 
prevail as provided for in Article 4 of the Regul ations.  Both legal instruments were applied 
simultaneously and were complementary. On question 2, he explained that each member state of the 
Central American Economic Integration System had its own investigating authority.  In accordance 
with Article 35 of the Regulations, any resolution of an investigating authority leading to provisional 
or definitive measures would have to be made known to and be approved by the Council of the 
Ministers. In any event, the investigating authorit y must submit a text of the resolution concerning 
these measures to SIECA.  On question 3, he explained that there was presently no regional 
investigating authority.  Each country had its own investigating authority and the only role played by 
SIECA was to convene the Council of Ministers.  On question 4, the representative of Costa Rica 
replied that both legal instruments were self-impleme nting in the Costa Rican legal system and were 
applied jointly and complementarily.  On question 6, he referred to Article 23 of the Regulations, 
stating that the objective of such visits would be  to check information received previously from 
interested parties during the investigating period.  On question 7, he reite rated that the Safeguards 
Agreement was self-implementing in the Costa Rican legal system, and thus, Article 7.4 of the Safeguards Agreement would be applied jointly a nd complementary, and all safeguard measures 
would be subject to the pre-requisite of progressive liberalization. On question 8, the representative of 
Costa Rica clarified that Article 7.5 of the Safeguards Agreement would be applied in a 
complementary and joint fashion with the Regulations, as provided for in Article 32 of the Regulations.  On question 9, he confirmed that in  these situations the Regulation would work jointly 
and in a complementary fashion with Article 7.4 of  the WTO Safeguard Agreement.  On question 10, 
the representative of Costa Rica stated that Article  38 differentiated between publication made by an 
interested party and those made by a State party imposing the measure.  He further stated that an 
official journal for the Central American Integr ation System had not yet been established.  On 
question 11, he clarified that Article 39 provided that regulations were identical for all Central 
American countries while each country had its own i nvestigating authority.  Therefore, remedies 
would be identical to those that existed in domestic  laws and regulations of the country imposing the 
measure.  On question 12, he explained that the member countries report only to the Executive 
Committee for Economic Integration. Such reports we re made orally at regular meetings, and the 
meetings were not public.     
                                                     
 
1  The revised notification was circul ated as G/SG/N/1/ALB/2/Rev.1    G/SG/M/33 
Page 4  
 
  12. On the questions from Chile, th e representative of Costa Rica
 replied as follows: On question 
1, he stated that the Regulations applied the same concept as the WTO Safeguards Agreement, and 
did not develop criteria above a nd beyond what had been established within that Agreement.  On 
question 2, he referred to the provisions in the customs code and other pr ovisions applicable under 
customs issues. 
13. The representative of the United States as well as  the representative of Chile requested that 
the responses be submitted in writing.2  
3. Guatemala – Review of New Legislative Notification 
14. The Chairperson  noted that the legislative notification from Guatemala was contained in 
document G/SG/N/1/GTM/3. She further noted that written questions concerning this notification had 
been received from the United States and from Chile, contained in documents G/SG/Q1/GTM/3 and 
G/SG/Q1/GTM/4 respectively. 
15. The representative of Guatemala  stated that its notification reflected the regional Central 
American regime, and thus its c ontent was substantially the same as that notified and explained by 
Costa Rica. She further explained that since th e majority of questions addressed to Guatemala 
coincided with those already responded to by Costa Rica, she would not take up the questions one by 
one but instead would make some general comme nts on the Regulations. Guatemala adopted the 
Central American Regulations on Safeguard Measur es by a Ministerial Agreement of 7 May 2007 
(No. 140-2007). Article 2 of the Central Amer ican Regulations was aimed at developing 
implementation provisions for Article XIX of GA TT 1994, the WTO Agreement on Safeguards, as 
well as the Protocol of Guatemala, and the Agreement on Tariffs and Customs for the Central 
American System and its protocols.  Likewise, Ar ticle 4 provided that all substantive aspects related 
to the implementation of safeguard measures, as well as procedural aspects not covered in this 
Regulation, would be determined through the provisi ons established in the instruments referred to in 
Article 2.  The Congress of Guatemala approved a ll WTO agreements and incorporated them into 
Guatemala's national legislation along with the Regula tions, giving them the same level of hierarchy. 
Thus, it was difficult for Guatemala to imagine a situation where a conflict arose between the two 
bodies of rules. If any conflict should arise, a solution would be sought through the rules of interpretation of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, as well as other applicable rules.  All 
decisions or resolutions carried out by the ad ministrative authorities in Guatemala including the 
investigating authority would, of course, abide by law.  Therefore, the decisions taken by the 
investigating authorities in Guatemala would not go over and beyond those concepts and notions that 
were accepted in the WTO Agreements.  The represen tative of Guatemala also pointed out that the 
Regulations contained no provision th at would contradict the letter and spirit of the provisions in the 
Safeguards Agreement.   
16. The representative of the United States
 queried whether or not parties to the Central American 
Regulations were allowed to impose safeguard measures agai nst each other's imports.  
17. The representative of Guatemala requested that the question be posed in writing.  
4. Malaysia – Review of New Legislative Notification 
18. The Chairperson  noted that the legislative notification from Malaysia was contained in 
document G/SG/N/1/MYS/2. She further noted that written questions concerni ng this notification had 
                                                      
2  The responses from Costa Rica to the United States and to Chile were subsequently circulated as 
G/SG/Q1/CRI/5 and   G/SG /Q1/CRI/6, respectively.  G/SG/M/33 
 Page 5 
 
 
  been received from Chile contained in documen ts G/SG/Q1/MYS/1 and G/ SG/Q1/MYS/3, and from 
the United States contained in document G/SG/Q1/MYS/2. 
19. The representative of Malaysia  explained that the responses were submitted in writing as 
room documents to the meeting,3 and would not be read out. 
20. The representative of the United States  stated that he may have fu rther questions, since he had 
just received the document.  Meanwhile, he asked if  there was a website for the government gazette.   
21. The representative of Malaysia  informed that there was no website. 
5. Nicaragua – Review of New Legislative Notification 
22. The Chairperson  noted that the legislative notificat ion from Nicaragua was contained in 
document G/SG/N/1/NIC/2. She further noted that written questions concerning this notification had 
been received from the United States and from Ch ile contained in documen ts G/SG/Q1/NIC/1 and 
G/SG/Q1/NIC/2, respectively. 
23. The representative of Nicaragua  stated that the legislation, which was applicable for both 
Guatemala and Costa Rica, was someth ing akin to a joint legislation.  She stated that since Guatemala 
and Costa Rica had already explained their notif ications, she would focus on issues specific to 
Nicaragua.  
24. The representative of Nicaragua first focussed on questions 4, 5, 7 and 8 from the United 
States. She observed that many of the questions pe rtained to hierarchy between domestic legislation 
and the WTO Agreement on Safeguards.  She confir med that the WTO Safeguard Agreement was the 
substantive rule and that the Central American Re gulations were the procedural regulation or norm, 
and thus the Regulations were entirely compatible w ith the WTO Agreement.  Article 4 of the Central 
American Regulations stated that "all substantive aspects relating to the application of safeguard 
measures and procedural aspects not covered by these Regulations shall be determined by the 
provisions of the instruments referred to in Artic le 2 of these Regulations." And the "instruments 
referred to in Article 2" were the Safeguards Ag reement, Article XIX of GATT 1994, the Guatemala 
Protocol, and the Convention. Regarding question 2 from the United States, the representative of 
Nicaragua explained that the relationship between  investigating authorities and the Cabinet for 
Economic Integration was establishe d under Article 35 of the Centra l American Regulations which 
provided that "[t]he investigating authority shall transmit to SIECA a copy of resolutions for the 
application of provisional and definitive safeguard measures, where these involve increased duties ..." 
The procedures related to trade measures or trade re medy proceedings were to  be found in Chapter II 
of the Regulations.  Regarding question 3, she stated  that in Nicaragua the i nvestigating authority was 
the Directorate for the Application of Treaties of the Ministry of Economic Growth and Trade and 
Industry.  SIECA's role was solely a secretariat, filing adopted resolutions relating to implementation 
of provisional or definitive measures and the convening of the Council of Ministers.  SIECA was an intermediary between the State Parties and its C ouncil of Ministers.  Regarding question 11, the 
names of the publications were Diaro  and La Prensa .  Costa Rica explained that no official journal 
for Central American Integration Systems had ye t been established.  Regarding question 11, the 
representative of Nicaragua stated that the Regulations could not be seen as something that would replace the laws and regulations published by Nicara gua relating to remedies.  With regard to the 
questions from Chile, she made a comment on question 2, following up on what Costa Rica had explained.  She explained that security was indeed a system used by custom s.  Such security would 
provide an economic backing to guarantee the pa yment when the investigation concluded that a 
                                                     
 
3  Subsequently circulated officially as documents G/SG/Q1/MYS/4, G/SG/Q1/MYS/5 and 
G/SG/Q1/MYS/6. G/SG/M/33 
Page 6  
 
  definitive safeguard measure would be imposed.  If that was not the case, the security would be 
promptly returned.  The representative of Nicaragua  stated that the answers would be provided in 
writing as well.   
25. The representative of the United States
 stated that he was looking forward to the written 
version of the responses. He also enquired about th e functionality of the Council of Ministers, i.e. 
whether the Council's approval of the measures were by consensus.  He further asked whether the 
Council of Ministers had the authority to amend the measures. 
26. The representative of Nicaragua  stated that the response to the last question from the United 
States would be included into its wr itten responses to be submitted later.4 
27. The representative of El Salvador  took the floor to state that the Central American 
Regulations on Safeguard Measures were in force in  their country as well, and a notification under the 
symbol G/SG/N/1/SLV/3 had been submitted in this regard.  
28. The Chairperson  stated that this notification was submitted too late to be discussed at this 
meeting, and would be take n up at the next meeting. 
6. Turkey – Review of New Legislative Notification 
29. The Chairperson  noted that the legislative notification from Turkey was contained in 
document G/SG/N/1/TUR/3/Suppl.1. Written questions concerning this notification had been received 
from Chile and from the United States cont ained in documents G/SG/Q1/TUR/5 and 
G/SG/Q1/TUR/6, respectively. 
30. The representative of Turkey  advised at the outset that written responses would be submitted 
later, but he would respond orally for the meeting.5 He explained that the amendment on the Council 
of Ministers' decree entered into force on 4 Janua ry 2008 with the aim to increase effectiveness of 
safeguard measures.  The product subject to investig ation was defined by the investigating authority 
upon application from a domestic producer in compli ance with Articles 2 & 4 of the WTO Safeguard 
Agreement.  In addition, in determining the product subject to investigation, the authority considered 
the production process, production factors, and func tionality of the product.  Following this, a 
customs code would be specified.  When determ ining the customs code, there was no automatic 
extension to any other products, parts, or component s.  Therefore, any parts or components that had 
not been investigated could not be subject to a measure.  In other words, no measure would be applied 
on parts or components not covered by the inv estigation. During the investigation phase, the 
investigation authority would analyze the value a dded in the production process.  The expression in 
the amending decree "parts or components, ha ving the added value" corresponded to the main 
production activities undertaken by the domestic producers.  Article 2(a) of the General Rules of Tariff 
Interpretation was designed to apply customs du ties to unfinished products that had the essential 
character of completed products, and such boundaries we re determined by the custom codes. In some 
cases, the scope of the measure could be a subset of a customs code, or a combination of a subset of different codes.  The amendment aimed to specify and liberalize the practices of Article 2(a) of the 
General Rules of Tariff Interpretation and at the sam e time defeat circumvention. For example, when 
parts and components for motorcycles were importe d together, the customs authority defined theses 
goods as motorcycles and collected custom duties as su ch.  The added value that was safeguarded by 
such duty was the assembling factor. By this regulat ion, the customs authority was not automatically 
                                                     
 
4 The written responses were subsequently circulated as document G/SG/Q1/NIC/3. 
5  The written responses were subsequently circ ulated as document G/SG/Q1/TUR/7 (responses to 
Chile) and G/SG/Q1/TUR/8 (responses to the United States). 
  G/SG/M/33 
 Page 7 
 
 
  extending the measure to parts or components. Furt hermore, the content of the amendment did not 
contradict Article 2(a) of the General Rules of Tariff Interpretation.  The representative of Turley 
explained that thus, the amendment was in conf ormity with the provisions of the Safeguards 
Agreement.   
31. Before proceeding to the next agenda item, the Chairperson  informed the Committee that 
there were 33 Members that had not yet made a legislative notification.6  She emphasised that such 
notification was one of the important obligations of  the Agreement, and reminded Members that those 
Members that do not yet have a legislation need only to submit a simple "nil" notification. 
B. NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RELATED TO SAFEGUARD  
32. The Chairperson  noted that various notifications of ac tions 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 be reviewed at the same time. 
1. Australia – Swine Meat 
33. The Chairperson  noted that Australia had made a notif ication regarding actions related to 
safeguard measures concerning swine meat in doc uments G/SG/N/8/AUS/2 and G/SG/N/9/AUS/2. 
34. The representative of Australia  stated that the enquiry of the Productivity Commission 
revealed that there was no causal relationship betwee n injury to the Australian pig meat industry and 
imports.  
35. There were no other comments or questions regarding this notification.   
2. Egypt– Blankets 
36. The Chairperson  noted that Egypt had made a notifi cation regarding actions related to 
safeguard measures concerning blankets in document G/SG/N/6/EGY/4–G /SG/N/7/EGY/3. 
37. The representative of Mexico  asked whether developing countries were excluded from the 
application of this measure in line with Article 9 of the Safeguards Agreement.   
38. The representative of Egypt  asked that the question be submitted in writing so that Egypt 
could respond in writing.  
39. The representative of the United States  stated that they had systematic interests in various 
aspects and would provide questions in writing.  He stated in particular that the United States was 
troubled by the fact that Egypt imposed a provisional safeguard measure on the same day the investigation was initiated.  Whether or not the me asure applied to developing country Members was 
also in question.  He also asked whether E gypt had submitted notifications in accordance with 
Article 9.1 of the Safeguards Agreement.   
                                                     
 
6  These Members were: Angola, Antigua & Barbud a, Belize, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, 
Central African Republic, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Gabon, the Gambia, Grenada, 
Guinea Bissau, Guyana, Kuwait, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, 
Saint Kitts & Nevis, Saint Vincent & Grenadines, Saud i Arabia, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, 
Tanzania, Togo, Tonga and Vietnam. 
 G/SG/M/33 
Page 8  
 
  40. The representative of Egypt
 asked that the question be submitted in writing so that Egypt 
could respond in writing.  
3. Moldova – Sugar 
41. The Chairperson  noted that Moldova had made sev eral notifications regarding the 
investigation on cane or beet sugar in documents G/SG/N/8/MDA/2–G/SG/N/10/MDA/2–
G/SG/N/11/MDA/3, G/SG/N/11/MDA/3/Corr. 1, and G/SG/N/10/MDA/2/Suppl.1. 
42. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
4. Panama – PVC Films 
43. The Chairperson  noted that Panama had made a notif ication regarding the investigation on 
printed BOPP film and printed PVC film  in document G/SG/N/8/PAN/1/Suppl.1-
G/SG/N/10/PAN/1/Suppl.1.  
44. The representative of Panama  recalled that as notified in document 
G/SG/N/10/PAN/1/Suppl.1, the original measure was imposed by Order No. 24 on 8 October 2007 for 
one year, including the period of the provisional measure which was imposed on 11 April 2007.  On 11 April 2008, the investigating authority issued  Resolution No. 01 and recommended that a certain 
portion of the existing safeguard measure be extende d for a prudential period of 90 days.  Since the 
request for extension did not include part of the existing measure, a certain portion of the existing measure had now expired. All interested parties had b een advised of the extension.  Exporters such as 
Colombia were advised that the measure on PVC fi lms from these countries had expired.  Others had 
been assured that the obligation relating to the progressive elimination of  this measure, where 
required, would be taken into c onsideration.  In accordance with domestic law, the Panamanian 
authorities were presently preparing appellate decision s concerning the extension of those measures.   
45. The representative of Colombia
 stated that Columbia understood that the Panamanian 
authorities were considering the possibility of an exte nsion of the existing measure in force. He stated 
that Columbia looked forward to the notification of the next step.  
46. The representative of Peru  expressed its surprise and concern on the statement from the 
representative of Panama.  She understood Panama to have explained that the current measure 
remained in force and that there was a new investig ation underway.  Further, she understood that this 
measure would only be applicable to Peru.  Peru e nquired as to the legal basis for such discriminatory 
application in the light of the fact that Article 2. 2 of the Safeguards Agreement stated that safeguard 
measures would apply regardless of the source of the product.  She also enquired what the injury on 
the Panamanian industry was and what kind of restru cturing was underway.  Peru wished to know the 
legal basis for the possible extension.  She further stated that Peru wished  to know whether Panama 
would notify its decision concerning the extension. Pe ru wished to hold informal consultations with 
Panama. The representative of Peru requested that this item be kept on the agenda for the next 
meeting. 
47. The representative of Panama  stated that the measure would be notified in due course.  He 
added that the decision for an extension of a 90 day period to determine the merits of a continuation of 
the measures had been requested by an  interested company. As regards the concerns of Peru, he stated 
that any additional information required would be sent in writing, if necessary. He further stated that 
responses would be given, at any rate, in informal  consultations that would take place in the near 
future.  
48. The Chairperson  confirmed that this item would be placed on the agenda for the next meeting.   G/SG/M/33 
 Page 9 
 
 
  5. Philippines – Ceramic Floor and Wall Tiles 
49. The Chairperson  noted that the Philippines had made a notification regarding the 
investigation on ceramic floor and wall tile s in documents G/SG/N/11/PHL/1/Suppl.2–
G/SG/N/14/PHL/1/Suppl.2. 
50. The representative of China  took the floor to comment on this agenda item as well as on the 
investigations by the Philippines on glass mirrors, figured gl ass and float glass.  With regard to the 
measure taken on figured glass, he welcomed the de cision of suspension of the measure and suggested 
that the Philippines go further to terminate the measure so as to reflect the real change in the market.  
He also expressed concerns about the extension of  safeguard measures on glass mirrors, float glass, 
and ceramic floors and wall tiles.  He stated that Ch ina was of the view that the extensions of those 
measures were unnecessary. He asked  the Philippines to reconsider the appropriateness of those 
measures. 
51. The representative of Thailand  stated that Thailand shared the views of China. 
6. Philippines – Glass Mirrors 
52. The Chairperson  noted that the Philippines had made a notification regarding the 
investigation on glass mirrors in document G/SG /N//11/PHL/3/Suppl.3-G/SG/N/14/PHL/1/Suppl.2. 
53. There were no comments or questions re garding this particular agenda item. 
7. Philippines – Figured Glass 
54. The Chairperson  noted that the Philippines had made a notification regarding the 
investigation on figured glass in document G/SG /N/11/PHL/4/Suppl.3-G/SG/N/14/PHL/3/Suppl.1. 
55. The representative of the Philippines  stated that an extension ha d been made for reasons given 
in the notification. 
8. Philippines – Float Glass 
56. The Chairperson  noted that the Philippines had made a notification regarding the 
investigation on float glass in document G/SG /N/11/PHL/5/Suppl.4-G/SG/N/14/PHL/2/Suppl.1. 
57. The representative from the Philippines took the floor in relation to all the notifications taken 
up at the meeting. He thanked China and Thailand, and stated that various comments on these 
measures had been received, not only from China an d Thailand.  He stated that the Philippines was 
considering these comments but for the time being th e Philippine authorities did not see any reason to 
terminate these measures. He stated that he woul d convey the statements of China and Thailand, and 
would revert to them bilaterally, if necessary. 
9. South Africa – Lysine  
58. The Chairperson  noted that South Africa had made a no tification regarding the investigation 
on lysine in documents G/SG/N/8/ZAF/1/Suppl.2–G/SG/N/10/ZAF/1/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/11/ZAF/1/Suppl.2. 
59. The representative of Brazil  stated its concerns regarding the measure.  He stated that 
although bilateral consultations with South Africa had been held in conjunction with the last 
Committee meeting, Brazil's concerns and comments we re not taken into consideration.  During the 
period investigated, Brazil's share of imports in South Africa decreased. And thus, in the view of G/SG/M/33 
Page 10  
 
  Brazil, the impact of Brazilian imports to the domes tic industry was minimal.  The representative of 
Brazil asked South Africa to reconsider the measure  and stated that Brazil reserved their right to 
revert to this matter in the future. 
60. The representative of the European Communities
 stated that they had serious concerns about 
the measure.  He recalled that the European Comm unities had made comments on this investigation at 
the autumn 2007 Committee meeting, and regretted th e fact that such comments apparently had no 
effect.  He stated that the good news was that th e level of duty – 160 per cent – for the provisional 
measure was decreased to 27 per cent for the defin itive measure.  But this apparently good news was 
ultimately not good news because it showed that th e provisional measure was excessive.  The factual 
basis seemed to have been very weak in this respect.  Secondly, he st ated that the European 
Communities had serious problems concerning the cau sal link between the imports and the alleged 
serious injury.  The European Communities was of  the view that the problems of South Africa's 
industry were more linked to its low productivity and not  to imports as such.  Finally, he stated that 
the European Communities had a conceptual prob lem along the same lines as the ones stated by 
Brazil.  The core of the proble m in this case was imports from one country. For instance, imports from 
the European Communities represented only three per cent.  However, since the measure invoked was 
a safeguard measure, it applied to imports from all sour ces.  He stated that in the view of the European 
Communities, the application of a safeguard  measure in these circumstances was clearly 
inappropriate.  The European Communities found it un fortunate that this measure was still in place. 
61. The representative of the United States  shared the concerns expressed by Brazil and the 
European Communities regarding the necessity of demonstrating a causal link between imports and 
the injury, but the United States believed that the ca usal link must be demonstrated with respect to 
imports from all sources and not solely from a particular Member. 
10. Turkey – Certain Electrical Appliances 
62. The Chairperson  noted that Turkey had made a notification regarding the investigation on 
certain electrical appliances in document G/SG/N/6/TUR/13. 
63. The representative of the European Communities  stated that having analyzed the non-
confidential version of the complaint, the Eu ropean Communities was very concerned by the 
investigation.  He stated that the complaint in fact does not allow a proper analysis, due to insufficient 
information. For example, one could know that the complaint came from an association, but one could 
not know which companies were behind the complaint.  This was serious all the more so because at the 
hearing which took place in Ankara, some members of the association were  clearly against this 
investigation.  In other words, in the views of the European Communities, a "ghost-like" association 
claimed that there was serious injury for an unspecified number of companies in Turkey. Since the European Communities could not know the names of complaining companies, it could not check whether these companies constituted a major proport ion of the domestic industry, nor could it know 
what they produced. Furthermore, the European Communities did not know whether these companies 
actually suffered serious injury.  To make matters worse, most of the information was provided in an 
indexed form.  This was a problem in terms of the right of the defence.  Indexation of most of the figures clearly constitutes an abuse of the confidentiality of rules, given the likely high number of 
companies involved.  The representative of the Euro pean Communities stated that confidentiality in 
these circumstances did not seem to be warranted. Pr oduct scope was another majo r reason for concern.  
The product scope was defined as appliances running  on electrical power spec ifically designated to 
facilitate personal and domestic daily chores.  It incl uded a variety of products such as mixers, blenders, 
waffle makers, hand vacuum cleaners, hair dryers .  There was simply no common denominator behind 
this range of products.  The European Communities f ound it difficult to see how the investigation could 
be carried out in line with WTO pr inciples.  For example, he wondere d how price comparisons could be 
made between kettles and deep-fryers.  Parts and components were also a problem.  The representative  G/SG/M/33 
 Page 11 
 
 
  of the European Communities recalled that Turkey ha d made some explanations in the earlier part of 
this meeting, but he was still wo rried whether components and part s were products produced by the 
complaining industry. In add ition, the European Communities understood that the domestic i ndustry, at 
least for one product group, had achieved  a profit margin of not less than  17 per cent. It was difficult to 
reconcile such high profit with th e concept of serious injury.  He concluded by stating that the 
European Communities remained very preoccupied by Turkey's excessive use of the safeguard 
instrument. The European Commu nities urged Turkey to disc ontinue this investigation. 
64. The representative of the United States  noted that the investigation was initiated on 
19 December 2007 and asked Turkey to provide an upda te on the current status of the investigation. 
65. The representative of Turkey  requested all comments and questions be submitted in writing to 
enable them to prepare a written response.  He explained that all initiations were rules-based and, 
initiations were legally unavoidable.  In the Turkis h safeguard legislation the conditions necessary to 
initiate an investigation were clearly stated.  If  domestic producers made proper applications, the 
investigating authority had to take it into account .  The representative of Turkey stated that the 
application for this specific investigation satisfie d the conditions concerning the initiation of the 
safeguard investigation. The inform ation contained in the application was evaluated, and the views of 
the interested party would also be taken into account in  the process. In this regard, the collection of data 
continued, and the information that would be used  in arriving at a finding would be announced before 
the end of the investigation in order to provide the interested parties with oppo rtunities to submit their 
final comments on the issue.   
11. Turkey – Spectacle Frames 
66. The Chairperson  noted that Turkey had made a notification regarding the investigation on 
spectacle frames in document G/SG/N/8/TUR /8-G/SG/N/10/TUR/8-G/SG/N/11/TUR/8. 
67. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
12. Turkey – Travel Goods 
68. The Chairperson  noted that Turkey had made a notification regarding the investigation on 
travel goods in document G/SG/N/8/TUR /9-G/SG/N/10/TUR/9-G/SG/N/11/TUR/9. 
69. The representative of the United States , sharing the concerns expressed by the European 
Communities on an earlier notification concerning lack of detail, stated that while the notifications were 
lengthy, it was very hard to discern any usable info rmation from those notifications, primarily due to the 
extensive use of indexing.  The US representative st ated that several questions would be submitted in 
writing.  However, he specifically  posed a question with regards the specific duty that applied to these 
products.  The United States had noted that the products subject to the measure ranged from trunks, 
suitcases, all the way to tobacco pouches. He questione d how a fixed duty of three dollars to five dollars 
per piece can really make sense when the covered products differed widely in terms of value.  He asked how Turkey decided to use such specific duty. 
70. The representative of Turkey
 explained that the weight of a product was multiplied by US$3 
per kilogram to calculate the duty.  However, if the result of the calculation exceeded US$5 per piece 
then the customs authority would collect only US$5.  If  the result was less than  US$5 per piece, the duty 
collected would be equivalent  to the multiplied result. 
71. The representative of the European Communities  took the floor to comment on this measure as 
well as the measure on spectacle frames.  He stated that in both cases, the measures imposed by Turkey 
penalised all imports including those that clearly were  not causing injury to the domestic industry. By G/SG/M/33 
Page 12  
 
  way of example, he explained that the European Co mmunities exports were cl early priced higher than 
Turkish products, and so the Turkish domestic industry could not have been affected by the exports from 
the European Communities.  Turkey must have been affect ed by low import prices from other countries 
and this situation should have been addressed by more appropr iate other instruments. He stated that the 
European Communities was of the view that these safeguard measures clearl y should not have been 
imposed, and stated that the European Communities reserved its rights to pos e further questions on the 
various safeguard measures, pa rticularly on travel goods. 
72. Before proceeding to the next agenda item, the Chairperson
 recalled that any questions 
concerning the notifications of acti ons taken for which written responses were requested had to be sent 
to the Member concerned and to the Secretariat no la ter than the 21 May 2008.  Written answers must be 
submitted to the Secretaria t no later than 11 June 2008. 
73. The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
C. OTHER ISSUES  
74. There were no issues raised under this agenda item. 
D. DATE OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING  
75. The Chairperson  recalled that regular meetings would normally be held in conjunction with 
the regular meetings of the Committees on Anti- Dumping Practices and Subsidies and Countervailing 
Measures.  Accordingly, she suggest ed that the Committee meet in the week of 27 October 2008.  She 
stated that the exact date would be confirmed later.  
76. The Committee so agreed . 
E. ELECTION OF OFFICERS  
77. 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.  She stated that c oncerning this Committee, the Chairperson of the 
Council for Trade in Goods proposed the nomination of  Mr. Robert Kasper of the United States.  She 
therefore proposed that the Committee elect  Mr. Robert Kasper as Chairperson. 
78. The Committee so agreed . 
79. Regarding the position of Vice-Chairperson of th e Committee, the Chairperson stated that she 
had conducted consultations with a number of Members, and on the basis of those consultations she 
proposed that the Committee elect Ms. Athita Komindr of Thailand as Vi ce-Chairperson of the 
Committee.  
80. The Committee so agreed . 
 
__________