WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION   
G/SG/100 
24 April 2012 
 (12-2179) 
Committee on Safeguards Original:   English 
  
 
REQUEST UNDER ARTICLE 13.1(B) OF THE AGREEMENT ON SAFEGUARDS 
(REQUEST FROM COLOMBIA) 
 
Factual Report to the Council for Trade in Goods by  
the Chairperson of the Committee on Safeguards 
 
 
 The following factual report is being submitted by the Chairperson of the Committee on 
Safeguards, Ms Lillian Bwalya.    
–––––––––––––––– 
 
A. I
NTRODUCTION  
1. Procedural Background 
1. On 3 May 2011, Colombia submitted a request  pursuant to Article 13.1(b) Agreement on 
Safeguards concerning certain safeguard actions ta ken by Ecuador on windshields. The request is 
contained in document G/L/957–G/SG/93, attached  as Annex 1 to this report. ("The Request" 
hereafter.) 
2. Article 13.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards ("SG Agreement") provides, in relevant part, as 
follows: 
A Committee on Safeguards is hereby establis hed, under the authority of the Council 
for Trade in Goods, which shall be open to the participation of any Member 
indicating its wish to serve on it.  The Committee will have the following functions: 
[…]  (b) to find, upon request of an affected  Member, whether or not the procedural 
requirements of this Agreement have b een complied with in connection with a 
safeguard measure, and report its finding s to the Council for Trade in Goods; 
3. The Committee on Safeguards ("the Committee") discussed this Request at its regular 
meeting on 27 October 2011
1 and at an informal meeting on 3 February 2012.2  In advance of the 
3 February 2012 meeting, at the request of some Members who made it known that a clearer understanding of chronology might facilitate the Co mmittee's consideration of Colombia's request, I 
prepared a chronology on my own responsibility, and made it available to the Members by fax on 
16 January 2012.  The chronology is attached as Annex 2 to this report. 
                                                      
1 See G/SG/M/40 and its corrigendum for the minutes of this meeting.  
2 At the regular meeting of 2 May 2011, Colombia informed the Committee that it would make the 
Request. There was no substantive discussion on the issue at that meeting. (See G/SG/M/39 for the minutes of 
this meeting.) G/SG/100 
Page 2  
 
  4. The Committee met on 16 April 2012 in informal mode  in order to consider a draft of this 
report. 
2. Notifications by Ecuador 
5. By way of background, the following is an  overview of the notifications submitted by 
Ecuador to the SG Committee in relation to the subject investigation.   
(a) Initiation of the investigation 
6. On 22 April 2010, Ecuador submitted a notification
3 informing the Committee that it had 
initiated an investigation on the subject product on 19 April 2010. 
(b) Notification dated 15 October 2010 
7. On 15 October 2010, Ecuador submitted a notification4 informing that "it was decided to 
apply a definitive safeguard measure to imports of  goods classified under tariff subheading […]."   
8. Item 5 of the notification reads as follows:  
5. Provide the proposed date of introduction of the measure  1 November 2010. 
9. In line with the arrangement ag reed by the Committee in 2009,
5 Ecuador submitted, together 
with the notification, "Registro Oficial No. 297" and "Resolution No. 587" for the information of the 
Members.6  
(c) Notification dated 22 October 2010 
10. On 22 October 2010, Ecuador notified as follows:7 
In document …  Ecuador notified the Committee on Safeguards of Resolution 
No. 587 of Ecuador's Foreign Trade and Inv estment Council, published in Official 
Journal No. 297 of 11 October 2010, whereb y it was decided to apply a definitive 
safeguard measure to imports of goods  classified under tariff subheading ... 
By means of this document and pursuant to Article 9, footnote 2, of the Agreement on 
Safeguards, Ecuador hereby notifies the non-application of the above mentioned 
measure to Chile and Peru   developing c ountries   in accordance with Article 9.1 of 
the Agreement. 
(d) Notification dated 25 November 2010 
11. On 25 November 2010, Ecuador notified as follows:8  
                                                      
3 G/SG/N/6/ECU/8.  
4 G/SG/N/8/ECU/3– G/SG/N/10/ECU/4. 
5 G/SG/1/Rev.1–G/SG/N/6/Rev.1–G/SG/89, section C, para. 13.   
6 See footnote 1 of the notificati on G/SG/N/8/ECU/3– G/SG/N/10/ECU/4. 
7 Excerpt from G/SG/N/8/ECU/3/Suppl.1– G/ SG/N/10/ECU/4/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/11/ECU/1. 
8 Excerpt from G/L/946–G/SG/92.  G/SG/100 
 Page 3 
 
 
  Pursuant to the Government of Ecuador's invitation to the Government of Colombia 
to participate in the consultation pro cess under Article 12.3 of the WTO Agreement 
on Safeguards, bilateral cons ultation meetings on the definitive safeguard measure on 
imports of windshields were held … on 25 October and 23 November 2010. 
[…] 
During the consultations Ecuador provided fu ll information on the subjects raised and 
clarified certain points of contention.  The parties nevertheless maintained diverging 
views on specific issues relating to Ecuador's application of the measure. 
B. SUMMARY OF COLOMBIA 'S REQUEST  
12. In its Request, Colombia asks the Committee to  "rule on whether the procedural requirements 
set forth in the SA [Safeguards Agreement] were me t in the investigation that led to the imposition of 
the definitive safeguard measure in question" and requests that "the Committee report its findings to 
the Council for Trade in Goods." 
13. More specifically, Colombia makes th e following assertions in the Request: 
(a) On 11 October 2010, Ecuador ordered the application of a safeguard measure.  
(b) On 25 October 2010, Ecuador held cons ultations with Colombia. Additional 
consultations were held  on 23 November 2010. 
(c) The consultations were held after th e imposition of the safeguard, which is 
inconsistent with Article 12 of the SG Agreement.  
C. VIEWS EXPRESSED  
1. Colombia 
14. Colombia's statement made at the regular me eting of the Committee of 27 October 2011 is 
available in full in document G/SG/W/219 (Annex 3).    
15. Colombia made the following two additional po ints in support of its view: First, in 
Colombia's view, the relationship between the "Registro Oficial" and "Resolution No. 587" (see 
paragraph 9 above) clarified that the measure came  into force on 11 October 2010. Second, Colombia 
indicated that it had documentary evidence  that showed that the Ecuadorian customs collected SG 
duty on 19 October 2010. However, this could not be shared with the Committee due to 
confidentiality reasons.   
2. Ecuador   
16. Ecuador's statement made at the regular meeting of the Committee of 27 October 2011 is 
available in full in document G/SG/W/220 (Annex 4). 
17. Throughout the process, Ecuador asserted that  the Committee first needed to agree on a 
procedure clarifying how to proceed in case Article 13.1(b) was invoked. Without such procedure, predictability and objectivity would not be assured. Ecuador also asserted that the Committee first 
needed to define what "procedural require ments" meant as used in Article 13.1(b). 
18. Duly noting the above situation, I unders tand Ecuador's assertions to be as follows: G/SG/100 
Page 4  
 
   The measure came into force on 1 November 2010.
9 
 The consultations were held on 25 October 2010. 
 Therefore, Ecuador did not act inconsis tently with the SG Agreement.   
3. Other Members' Views 
19. The views of other Members are summarized below:  
 Some Members observed that the process under Article 13.1(b) was distinct from the DSU 
procedure, since the Committee was not the Dispute Settlement Body.  
 Several Members considered that the Committe e could take up request s under Article 13.1(b) 
on an ad hoc  basis.10   
 Many Members stated that this issue related to a fact – when did the measure come into force 
– and that they were not in a position to determine such fact.  
 Some Members stated that IF the measure ca me into force on 11 October 2010, the party 
concerned seems to have acted inconsistently with  the SG Agreement.   
 D. C
LOSING  
20. In spite of its efforts, the Committee was una ble to reach a consensus on the findings called 
for by Article 13.1(b).  Further, the Committee could not reach a consensus on specific procedures 
that might facilitate efforts to reach such findings.  Accordingly, I have chosen to submit this factual 
report to the Council on Trade in G oods, under my own responsibility.  
 
 
 
_______________ 
 
 
                                                      
9 See, for example, Ecuador's statement at the regular meeting of 27 October 2011 (G/SG/M/40, 
para. 66).   
10 See, for example, Australia's statement at the regular meeting of 27 October 2011 (G/SG/M/40, 
para. 77).      G/SG/100 
   Page 5 
 
 
. /.  ANNEX 1 
 
WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION   
G/L/957 
G/SG/93 
10 May 2011  
 
(11-2389) 
Council for Trade in Goods Committee on Safeguards Original:   Spanish 
 
 
 
REQUEST UNDER ARTICLE 13.1(B) OF THE 
SAFEGUARDS AGREEMENT 
 
Request from Colombia Concerning an Alleged Violation of 
Article 12 by Ecuador 
   The following communication, dated 3 May 2011, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegation of Colombia. 
 
_______________ 
 
  Pursuant to Article 13.1(b) of the Agreemen t on Safeguards (SA), the Republic of Colombia 
(Colombia) requests that the Committee on Safeguards (the Committee) analyse and rule on the 
non-compliance by the Republic of Ecuador (Ecuador) with the procedural requirements set forth in 
Article 12 of the SA and report its findings to  the Council for Trade in Goods.  Ecuador's 
non-compliance specifically concerns its failure to hold prior consultations as part of the process of 
establishing the definitive safeguard (the safegua rd) for the goods classified under NANDINA tariff 
subheading 7007.21.00.00 (glass windshields), wh ich was imposed on 11 October 2010 and notified 
to the World Trade Organization (WTO) on 15 October 2010, as set out in document 
G/SG/N/8/ECU/3  - G/SG/N/10/ECU/4 of 21 October 2010. 
 
 The basis for this request is as follows: 
 I. FACTS 
1. On 22 April 2010, Ecuador notified Reso lution No. 10061 of 8 March 2010 of the 
Under-Secretariat for Trade and Investment of th e Ministry of Industry and Productivity, which 
related to the initiation of an investigation pr ocedure concerning imports of goods classified under 
NANDINA subheading 7007.21.00 ("Of size and shape su itable for incorporation in vehicles, aircraft, 
spacecraft or vessels") to determine whether such im ports had caused or threatened to cause serious 
injury to the domestic industry producing like or di rectly competitive products.  This was done with a 
view to establishing the legal basis for the imposition of a safeguard. 
2. Ecuador did not initiate consultations with  Colombia on the process pertaining to the 
imposition of this safeguard. G/SG/100 
Page 6  
 
  3. On 11 October 2010, Ecuador, through Forei gn Trade and Investment Council (COMEXI) 
Resolution No. 587, published in Official Journal No. 297, ordered the application of a definitive 
safeguard measure for a period of three calendar y ears, consisting of "an additional specific duty of 
US$12.72 on imports of windshields classified under NANDINA national import tariff 
subheading 7007.21.00.00". 
4. On 15 October 2010, following the imposition of this safeguard, Ecuador notified the WTO 
of its finding of serious injury or threat thereof caused by increased imports.  This notification is set 
forth in document G/SG/N/8/ECU/3 - G/SG/N/10/ECU/4. 
5. On 25 October 2010, Ecuador held consultations  with Colombia to discuss the definitive 
safeguard imposed on 11 October.  On 23 November of the same year, additional consultations were 
held. 
6. The consultations with Colombia were held after the imposition of the safeguard, which is 
inconsistent with Article 12 of the SA. 
II. COMPLIANCE WITH PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS 
 Colombia considers Ecuador's failure to hold c onsultations prior to imposing the safeguard to 
be a violation of the procedure established in Ar ticle 12 of the SA.  As  noted by the Panel in Korea – 
Dairy , consultations must take place before a safeguard measure is applied, i.e. when it is still simply 
a proposal.
1  By holding its consultations with Colo mbia after the imposition of the definitive 
safeguard, Ecuador did not follow the procedure established in the SA;  nor did it meet its obligations 
under the GATT 1994 or the aforementioned covered agre ement.  Moreover, as a result of Ecuador's 
actions, the rights of Colombia's producers and e xporters in this process have been affected. 
 
 Ecuador also failed to provide "adequate opportunity" for prior c onsultations in so far as the 
information on the finding of the existence of seri ous injury or threat thereof caused by increased 
imports was provided on 15 October 2010, i.e. afte r the imposition of the definitive safeguard, which 
is inconsistent with Article  12.2 and 12.3 of the SA. 
 
 In fact, as noted in the Report of the Appellate Body in US – Wheat Gluten2, the information 
referred to in Article 12.2 of the SA, i.e. the evid ence of serious injury, should have been provided 
prior to holding consultations a nd, in any case, before the imposition of the definitive safeguard, 
which did not happen, thus furthe r affecting Colombia's rights. 
 III. REQUEST 
 Pursuant to the mandate established in Article  13.1(b) of the SA, Colombia requests that the 
Committee on Safeguards rule on whether the procedural  requirements set forth in the SA were met in 
the investigation that led to the imposition of the de finitive safeguard measure in question.  Colombia 
also requests that the Committee report its findings to the Council for Trade in Goods. 
 
 
_______________ 
 
 
                                                      
1 Report of the Panel in Korea – Dairy (DS98), paragraph 7.147. 
2 Report of the Appellate Body in US – Wheat Gluten  (DS166), paragraph 133.    G/SG/100 
   Page 7 
 
 
 ANNEX 2 
 
Chronology Related to Colombia's Article 13.1(b) Request  
 
 Some delegations have suggested that a cl earer understanding of chronology might facilitate 
the Committee's consideration of  Colombia's request under Article 13.1(b) of the Safeguards 
Agreement concerning Ecuador's investigati on on windshields ("Colombia's Request", 
G/L/961-G/SG/95).  In light of these suggestions, I have prepared the following chronology under my 
own responsibility.   
––––––––––––––––– 
  
1. On 19 April 2010, Ecuador initiated the i nvestigation.  (See G/SG/N/6/ECU/8.) 
2. 22 April 2010 (circulated 26 April 2010), Ecua dor notified the above initiation to the SG 
Committee.  (G/SG/N/6/ECU/8.) 
3. Ecuador explains that on 4 June 2010, a public hearing was held. (Ecuador's statement made 
at the Committee meeting of 27 October 2011. See document G/SG/W/220, item (e).) 
4.   On 11 October 2010 Ecuador published "Resolu tion 587". Colombia asserts in its Request 
and Statement (G/SG/W/219) that Ecuador "ordered th e application" of a definitive measure in this 
Resolution. Ecuador asserts in its Statement that this Resolution "did not establish the date of entry of 
effect of the measure". 
5. On 15 October 2010 (circulated 21 October 2010), Ecuador notified the content of 
"Resolution 587" to the SG Committee.  (G/SG/N/8/ECU/3–G/SG/N/10/ECU/4) 
6. Ecuador explains that on 18 October 2010, a No te Verbale was issued, inviting Colombia to 
consultations. (Ecuador's Statement, item (m).) 
7. On 22 October 2010 (circulated 27 October), Ecua dor notified the list of developing countries 
that would be exempt from the final measure by virtue of Article 9.1. (G/SG/N/8/ECU/3/Suppl.1–
G/SG/N/10/ECU/4/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/11/ECU/1) 
8. Colombia and Ecuador agree that a c onsultation was held on 25 October 2010.  
9. Ecuador explains that the final measure came  into force on 1 November 2010. (See Ecuador's 
Statement, item (o). See also Ecuador's notif ication G/SG/N/8/ECU/3–G/SG/N/10/ECU/4 (above) 
under "proposed date of introduction of the measure".) 
10. Colombia and Ecuador agree that a second consultation was held on 23 November 2010. 
 
 
_______________ 
 
 
 G/SG/100 
Page 8 
 
 
 ANNEX 3 
 
WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION   
G/SG/W/219 
10 November 2011 
 (11-5789) 
Committee on Safeguards Original:   Spanish 
   
STATEMENT BY THE DELEGATION OF COLOMBIA 
 
(Regarding the Request under Article 13.1(b) of the 
Agreement on Safeguards) 
 
 
 The following statement was made by the dele gation of Colombia at the meeting held on 
27 October 2011 under agenda item D - Request under Article 13.1(b) of the Agreement on 
Safeguards.  
_______________ 
 
 
I. REQUEST AND INTEREST 
 Colombia once again requests that the Comm ittee, pursuant to Article 13.1(b) of the 
Agreement on Safeguards, find whether or not th e procedural requirements set forth in the 
Agreement, in particular that under Article 12 con cerning the need to hold prior consultations, were 
complied with in connection with the proce dure undertaken by Ecuador pertaining to the 
establishment of a definitive safeguard measure on goods classified under tariff subheading 7007.21.00.00 (glass windshields).  The measure was imposed on 11 October 2010 and 
notified on 15 October 2010, as set out in doc ument G/SG/N/8/ECU/3 - G/SG/N/10/ECU/4 of 
21 October 2010.  Colombia also reiterates its request that the Co mmittee report its findings to the 
Council for Trade in Goods. 
  Colombia recognizes and takes into considerati on Members' right to use the instruments and 
procedures expressly established under the Agreemen ts, but wishes to take this opportunity to 
reaffirm its systemic interest in protecting the ins titutional framework and rules of this Organization. 
 
 Colombia notes with concern the increased number of trade defence measures taken by 
Ecuador and wonders whether this is not an expression of the protectionist tendencies that have 
emerged recently.  We hereby call for any measur es adopted to be truly in consonance with the 
reasons for which they were established and to meet  the procedural requirements regarding which all 
Members of this Organization have undertaken commitments.  The measure to which our request 
refers failed to comply with the procedural requi rements and moreover is not in full compliance with 
the substantive requirements governing its imposition.  However, given that Article 13.1(b) refers 
only to procedural aspects, we will focus on this point.  G/SG/100 
Page 9 
 
 
  II. RELEVANT FACTS 
(a) With a view to establishing the legal basi s for the imposition of a safeguard measure, on 
8 March 2010 Ecuador initiated an investigation concerning im ports of goods classified under 
NANDINA subheading 7007.21.00 ("Of size and shap e suitable for incorporation in vehicles, 
aircraft, spacecraft or vessels") to determine wh ether such imports had caused or threatened to 
cause serious injury to the domestic industry prod ucing like or directly competitive products. 
(b) On 11 October 2010, Ecuador ordered the applica tion for a period of three calendar years of a 
definitive safeguard measure consisting of "an additional specific duty of US$12.72 on 
imports of windshields classified under NANDINA national import tariff 
subheading 7007.21.00.00". 
 
(c) On 15 October 2010, following the imposition of  this safeguard, Ecuador notified the WTO 
of its finding of serious injury or threat ther eof caused by increased impor ts.  This notification 
is set forth in document G/SG/N/8/ECU/3 - G/SG/N/10/ECU/4. 
 
(d) On 25 October 2010, after the imposition of the definitive measure, Ecuador held 
consultations with Colombia to discuss the safeguard.  A further meeting was held on 
23 November 2010.  At neither of these meeti ngs, which we reiterate were held after the 
imposition of the measure, did Ecuador seek to re view the information on the application of 
the safeguard or to exchange views on an agreement on any adequate means of 
trade compensation for the measure, with a view  to reaching an understanding on ways to 
achieve the objective set out in Article 8.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards. 
 (e) At neither of the two meetings, which were  held after the imposition of the measure, was 
there an exchange of views on this measure or a review of the pertinent information, such as, 
inter alia , evidence of serious injury or threat ther eof caused by increased imports, the precise 
description of the product involved and the pr oposed measure, the proposed date of 
introduction of the measure, its expected duration and the timetable for progressive 
liberalization, in accordance with Article  12.3 of the Agreement on Safeguards. 
 
III. SHORTCOMINGS IN THE PROCEDURE 
 Ecuador's failure to hold consultations prior to  imposing the safeguard is a flagrant violation 
of the procedure established in Article 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards. 
  As noted by the Panel in Korea – Dairy , consultations must take place before a safeguard 
measure is applied, i.e. when it is still simply a proposal.
1  This did not happen in this case since the 
consultations with Colombia were held af ter the imposition of the definitive safeguard. 
 
 Ecuador also failed to provide "adequate opportunity" for prior c onsultations in so far as the 
information on the finding of the existence of seri ous injury or threat thereof caused by increased 
imports was not notified prior to the imposition of th e definitive safeguard, whic h is inconsistent with 
Article 12.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards.  
 In fact, as noted in the Report of the Appellate Body in US – Wheat Gluten
2, the information 
referred to in Article 12.2 of the Agreement on Safe guards, i.e. the evidence of serious injury, should 
have been provided prior to hol ding consultations and, in any case, before the imposition of the 
definitive safeguard, which did not happen, t hus further affecting Colombia's rights. 
 
                                                      
1 Report of the Panel in Korea – Dairy  (DS98), paragraph 7.147. 
2 Report of the Appellate Body in US – Wheat Gluten  (DS166), paragraph 133. G/SG/100 
Page 10  
 
   Ecuador's actions in this process, as detaile d above, violate the international commitments 
undertaken by this country under the GATT 1994 a nd its covered agreements , in particular the 
Agreement on Safeguards.   In view of the foregoing, we categorically insi st on our request, so that the Committee carries 
out the mandate assigned to it by Members in Artic le 13.1(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards and 
reports without delay on this situa tion to the Council for Trade in Goods. 
  We will continue to make every effort, at both bilateral and multilateral levels, to ensure that 
Ecuador terminates this measure, which is seriously affecting our domestic industry and which, as has 
been illustrated, was imposed in disregard of the procedure and the requirements laid down in the 
Agreement.   Colombia and Ecuador are friendly, neighbouring countries, bound by strong ties that they constantly strive to deepen.  We therefore seek today both to  maintain our good relations with 
Ecuador and to protect our industry - two objectives which are not necessarily incompatible. 
  We hereby request that this statement be inco rporated in full in the minutes of this meeting. 
 
 
_______________ 
 
 
    G/SG/100 
   Page 11 
 
 
 ANNEX 4 
 
WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION   
G/SG/W/220 
10 November 2011 
 (11-5788) 
Committee on Safeguards Original:   Spanish 
   
STATEMENT BY THE DELEGATION OF ECUADOR 
 
(Regarding request under Article 13.1(b) 
of the Agreement on Safeguards) 
 
 
 The following statement was made by the dele gation of Ecuador at the meeting held on 
27 October 2011 under agenda item D - Request under Article 13.1(b) of the Agreement on 
Safeguards.  
_______________ 
 
 
I. BACKGROUND 
On 10 May 2001, in document G/L/957, Colo mbia requested that the Committee on 
Safeguards (the Committee) analyse, rule and report its  findings on whether, in the investigation that 
led to the imposition of a definitive safeguard measur e, the procedural requirements set forth in the 
Agreement on Safeguards had been met.  Colombia  also requested that the Committee report its 
findings to the Council for Trade in Goods.  
II. FACTS 
As emerges from the factual account below, Ec uador strongly disagrees with version of the 
facts presented by Colombia in its request, which ar gues that the procedural requirements set forth in 
the Agreement on Safeguards were not met:  (a) On 24 February 2010, the domestic industry, consid ering itself to be seriously affected by the 
massive increase in imports of goods classified  under NANDINA subheading 7007.21.00, requested 
the initiation of an investigation with a view to the adoption of a safeguard  measure, in accordance 
with the WTO rules.  (b) On 19 April, the Investigating Authority, by means of Resolution No. 10061 published in 
Official Journal No. 174, decided to initiate an  investigation.  The Resolution established, inter alia , 
that the Investigating Authority: 
 
(i) "will gather information relating to the i nvestigation up to 45 days from the date of 
initiation of the investigation"; G/SG/100 
Page 12  
 
  (ii)  "… will hold a hearing for all interested parties within a period of 45 days of the date 
of initiation of the investigation, … (and) may hold separate hearings, of which the 
parties will be previously informed";  and 
(iii)  "will assess all the information and documentation submitted by the interested 
parties". 
The purpose of these provisions was to guarantee explicitly and ab initio  the central role that 
interested parties are called upon to play in the i nvestigation process, in addition to making them the 
primary source of information for the Investigating Authority.  (c) On 22 April, in document G/SG/N/6/ECU/8, pursu ant to Article 12.1(a) of the Agreement on 
Safeguards, Ecuador notified the Committee of the initia tion of an investigation into imports of goods 
classified under NANDINA subheading 7007.21.00. 
 
The notification stated that Ecuador had recorded a massive increase in imports calculated at 209 per 
cent in volume terms (rising from 488.21 kg in 2003 to 1,513.10 kg in 2008) and at 174 per cent in c.i.f. value terms (rising from US$1,919,760 in 2003 to US$5,277,400 in 2008), which had adversely affected the domestic industry, whose domestic ma rket share had declined (from 31.8 per cent in 2003 
to 10.4 per cent in 2009) in spite of an increase in domestic demand for windshields. 
 (d) On 27 May, through Resolution 565 published in Official Journal No. 214, the Foreign Trade 
and Investment Council rejected the domestic indus try's request for the application of a provisional 
safeguard measure, in the absence of a determination of the existence of "critical circumstances" that 
could cause damage that it would be difficult to repair. 
 
(e) On 4 June, upon prior notice issued on 26 May, a public hearing was held in order that, 
pursuant to Article 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards,  "the importers, exporters, and other interested 
parties could present evidence and their views, including the opportunity to respond to the 
presentations of other parties and to submit their views, inter alia …". 
 
(f) Taking part in the public hearing were representa tives of:  the Colombian Ministry of Industry 
and Tourism, the Chilean Embassy, the Peruvian Em bassy, the Colombian Association of Auto Parts 
Producers (ACOLFA), the Ecuadorian companies CR ILAMYT S.A., Quito Motors SACI, VITEMCO 
Ecuador and CRISTALAUTOS, and the Ecuadorian Ch amber of Automotive Industry (CINAE), who 
were given ample and sufficient opportunities to pr esent evidence and the criteria and grounds they 
considered relevant to the case, as well as to res pond to the evidence and arguments put forward by 
the other participants.  
At this hearing, among other matters the re presentatives of the Chilean and Peruvian 
Embassies requested that imports from their respectiv e countries be excluded from the application of 
the safeguard measure, pursuant to Article 9.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards;  furthermore, the 
representative of the Colombian Ministry of Industry and Tourism requested that imports of "armoured windshields" be excluded from th e application of the safeguard measure. 
 
Proceeding from the understanding that the interested parties should be the primary source of 
information, at the end of the public hearing the Investigating Authority invited them to provide 
additional comments and/or supplementary information within the following 15 days. 
 (g) On 11 October, through Resolution 587 published in Official Journal No. 297, the Foreign 
Trade and Investment Council, determined, inter alia , that: 
(i) There was a clear threat of injury caused by increasing imports;  and G/SG/100 
Page 13 
 
 
  (ii) the increase in these imports had already led to a decline in the sales, production, 
utilized capacity and productivity of the domestic industry and its share of the 
domestic market. 
(h) In the light of Resolution 587, it was conseque ntly decided to apply a definitive safeguard 
measure on imports of goods classified under NANDINA subheading 7007.21.00, irrespective of their 
origin. 
(i) Resolution 587 did not establish the date of entry into effect of the safeguard measure, but 
Article 7 of the Resolution expressly provided that the Investigating Authority would subsequently 
determine the date of entry into effect and the tim etable for progressive liberalization of the measure. 
(j) Resolution 587 also provided for the following: 
(i) To exclude imports of "armoured windshiel ds" from the application of the safeguard 
measure;  and 
(ii) to exclude imports from Chile and Peru from the application of the safeguard 
measure, pursuant to Article 9.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards. 
(k) Article 6 of Resolution 587 made express provi sion for "the Colombian Government to be 
invited to take part" in the cons ultations on the proposed measures, in  accordance with Article 12.3 of 
the Agreement on Safeguards. 
(l) This Resolution was notified to the Committee in document G/SG/N/8/ECU/3-
G/SG/N/10/ECU/4 of 15 October and circulated on 21 October.  This document contains the 
notification under Article 12.1(b) and the notifi cation under Article 12.1(c) of the Agreement on 
Safeguards. 
 Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the doc ument provide a precise description of the proposed measure 
("the application of a specific tariff of US$12.72 per windshield") and specify the proposed date of 
introduction of the measure ("1 November 2010"). 
 Paragraph 8 of the document also indicates the expected timetable for the progressive 
liberalization of the measure ("Year 1:  US$12.72.  Year 2:  US$9.55.  Year 3 First half:  US$6.36.  
Year 3 Second half:  US$3.18"). 
 (m) Note Verbale No. 25734 of 18 October invited th e Colombian Government to take part in 
consultations, proposing a reasonabl e range of dates.  Moreover, several electronic communications 
insisting on this matter were immediately sent vi a the Ecuadorian Embassy in Bogota to the 
Directorate of Integration of the Colombian Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Tourism. 
(n) The consultations finally took place in Quito on 25 October, that is, several days after 
Resolution 587 had been published in the Official J ournal and, among other matte rs, the details of the 
proposed measure had been notified to the Committ ee.  During these consultations, information was 
provided on the investigation, its conclusions and th e proposed measure;  in particular, the aims were 
to review the information contained in docum ent G/SG/N/8/ECU/3-G/SG/N/10/ECU/4, exchange 
views on the measure, resolve any technical concerns and try to reach an agreement. 
(o) Given the failed outcome of the talks, it was d ecided that the originally proposed date of 
1 November would be maintained, as notifie d to the Committee on Safeguards in document 
G/SG/N/8/ECU/3-G/SG/N/10/ECU/4. G/SG/100 
Page 14  
 
  (p) Ecuador notified the non-application of the measure to imports from Chile and Peru in 
accordance with Article 9.1 in document G/SG /N/8/ECU/3/Suppl.1-G/SG/N/10/ECU/4/Suppl.1-
G/SG/N/11/ECU/1. 
(q) In order to pursue all avenues to reach an unde rstanding, with the greatest openness and in an 
effort to reduce the impact on Colombian exporters  as much as possible, it was agreed to hold a new 
round of consultations on 23 November.  Although some points were clarified, diverging views 
remained on certain specific issues.  Neither in this, nor in the previous round of consultations did the 
delegation of the Colombian Government ever mention or call attention to any procedural deficiencies 
or failure to comply with procedural requireme nts.  Moreover, the cons ultations provided ample 
opportunity for Colombia to raise any relevant con cerns about matters relating to the measures as well 
as any possible trade compensation.  Therefore, it s interests and right to defence were always 
preserved. 
(r) As a single text could not be agreed upon, th e outcome of this round of consultations was 
unilaterally notified by Ecuador in document G/L/946-G/SG/92. 
III. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS WITH RESPECT TO REQUEST G/L/957 
(a) Under Article 13.1(b) of the Agreement on Safe guards, it is for the Committee to determine, 
at the request of an affected Member, whether the procedural requirements of the Agreement on Safeguards have been complied with.  In Ecuador 's view, the only way to do this is by properly 
establishing the facts and making an objective and im partial assessment of them.  Establishing the 
facts and assessing them can only be properly achieved within the framewo rk of a procedure;  so far 
the Committee has not agreed upon a specific procedure for examining the requests under 
Article 13.1(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards.  Th erefore, in order to perform this function the 
Committee must adopt the corresponding rules of pro cedure;  in the absence of such rules, Ecuador 
considers that the due process guarantees necessary to  make adequate and reasoned findings in this 
case would be lacking. 
(b) As regards the scope of the function entruste d to the Committee under Article 13.1(b), it is 
quite clear that the findings may only relate to  compliance with the procedural requirements. 
The Committee must be extremely cautious in order to avoid running the risk of usurping the 
roles assigned to the WTO dispute settlement bodies,  i.e. panels and the Appellate Body, under 
Article 3.2 of the Understanding on Rules and Pro cedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, a 
provision that empowers the dispute settlement sy stem to clarify the provisions of the covered 
agreements and to preserve the rights and obligations of Members.  
Strict observance of the scope of the Committe e's function under Article 13.1(b) is also 
fundamental in that this provision must not be in voked with a view to obtaining determinations of 
violation of the substantive requirements set out in the Agreement on Safeguards without complying 
with the rules and procedures established in the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing 
the Settlement of Disputes.  Such a course of acti on would run directly counter to the provisions of 
Article 23 of the Understanding. 
 
(c) The Committee in all its actions, including th e establishment of the procedure referred to 
above, must proceed in accordance with the rule of  consensus (Rule 33 of the Rules of Procedure of 
the Committee).  IV. CONCLUSIONS 
In view of the foregoing: G/SG/100 
Page 15 
 
 
  (a) Ecuador considers that it has fully complied with  the procedural obligations laid down in the 
Agreement on Safeguards.  All notifications were submitted in a timely fashion and in keeping with 
the formats adopted by the Committ ee, meaning that Ecuador ensured due transparency and provided 
the necessary information.  From the outset and du ring the course of the process, every effort was 
made to afford the interested pa rties effective and sufficient opportunities to provide information and 
present and defend their interests.  Consultations  regarding the issue were conducted before the 
safeguard measure came into force.  Moreover, in lin e with the principle of good faith and in order to 
reduce the impact on Colombian exporters as much  as possible, a new round of consultations took 
place on 23 November. 
(b) Ecuador considers that the request by Colombia lacks merit because it is based on inaccurate 
factual premises. 
(c) Ecuador considers that in order for the Co mmittee to perform the function set out in 
Article 13.1(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards, the sine qua non  is that the latter adopt the 
corresponding rules of procedure, and that  these should be adopted by consensus. 
(d) It is essential to ensure strict adherence to the scope of the Committee's function under 
Article 13.1(b). 
__________