RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SG/M/37 
21 September 2010 
 (10-4785) 
Committee on Safeguards  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING 
HELD ON 26 APRIL 2010  
 
Chairperson:  Ms. Poonam D. Mohun (Mauritius)  
 
 
1. The Committee on Safeguards (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 26 April 2010. 
2. Regarding "Other Business", the representative of Ecuador  indicated that he wished to make a 
statement concerning its initiation of an investig ation on windshields.  The representative of the 
United States  indicated that she wished to make a stat ement concerning the initiation of two safeguard 
investigations by the Gulf Cooperation Council that had not yet been notified to the Committee.  The 
representative of Egypt  indicated that he wished to make a statement concerning a Turkish 
investigation regarding salt. The Chairperson  stated that she wished to  provide brief observations 
concerning the implementation of the new formats which the Committee adopted at the 19 October 2009 meeting. 
3. With this, the following agenda was adopted: 
A.
 NATIONAL LEGISLATION ............................................................................................................3  
1. Burkina Faso – Review of New Legislative Notification........................................................3  
2. Cambodia – Review of New Legislative Notification.............................................................3  
3. Japan – Review of New Legislative Notification ....................................................................4  
4. Viet Nam – Review of New Legislative Notification ..............................................................4  
5. Zambia – Review of New Legislative Notification .................................................................4  
6. Norway – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications...................................4  
7. Honduras – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications ...............................5  
8. Dominican Republic – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications..............5  
9. Panama – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications ..................................5  
10. Thailand – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications.................................5  
B. NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RELATED TO SAFEGUARD MEASURES ..........................................6  
1. Brazil – CD-R and DVD-R.......................................................................................................6  
2. Chile – Powdered Milk  and Gouda Cheese ............................................................................6  
3. Croatia – Cheese and Ch eese Substitutes ...............................................................................6  
4. Dominican Republic – Certain Sport and Dress Socks..........................................................7  
5. Dominican Republic – Bottles, Flasks and Other Glass Containers.....................................7  
6. Dominican Republic – Polypropylene Bags and Tubular Fabric Bottles.............................7  G/SG/M/37 
Page 2  
 
7.
 Dominican Republic – Toilet Paper (I)....................................................................................9  
8. Dominican Republic – Toilet Paper (II)..................................................................................9  
9. India – Unwrought Aluminium, Aluminium Waste and Aluminium Scraps ......................9  
10. India – Hot Rolled Coils/Sheets/Strips..................................................................................10  
11. India – Coated Paper and Paper Board................................................................................10  
12. India – Uncoated Paper and Copy Paper .............................................................................11  
13. India – Oxo-alcohols ........................................................................................................... ....11  
14. India – Particle board......................................................................................................... ....11  
15. India – Linear Alkyl Benzene ................................................................................................12  
16. India – Caustic Soda ........................................................................................................... ....12  
17. India – Acrylic Fibre.......................................................................................................... .....12  
18. Indonesia – Stranded Wire, Ropes and Cables ....................................................................12  
19. Indonesia – Aluminium Tray and Plain Lid.........................................................................12  
20. Indonesia – Wire of Iron/Non-alloy Steel, not Plated or Coated ........................................13  
21. Indonesia – Wire of Iron/Non-alloy Steel, Plated with Zinc ...............................................13  
22. Indonesia – Wire Nails......................................................................................................... ...13 
23. Israel – Steel  Rebars .......................................................................................................... .....13  
24. Jordan – Footwear .............................................................................................................. ....13  
25. Jordan – Ceramic Tiles ......................................................................................................... .13 
26. Kyrgyz Republic – Wheat Flour............................................................................................14  
27. Peru – Cotton Yarn............................................................................................................. ....14  
28. Philippines – Float Glass ...................................................................................................... ..14 
29. Philippines – Figured Glass.................................................................................................... 15 
30. Philippines – Ceramic Floor and Wall Tiles.........................................................................16  
31. Philippines – Testliner Board ................................................................................................16  
32. Philippines – Gl ass Mirrors ...................................................................................................1 6 
33. Turkey – Footwear.............................................................................................................. ....16  
34. Turkey – Vacuum Cleaners ...................................................................................................17  
35. Turkey – Motorcycles........................................................................................................... ..17 
36. Turkey – Smoothing Irons .....................................................................................................17  
37. Turkey – Matches ............................................................................................................... ....17  
38. Ukraine – Ferro-Manganese and Ferro-Silico-Manganese.................................................17  
39. Ukraine – Mineral Fertilisers ................................................................................................17  
40. Ukraine – Liquid Chlorine.....................................................................................................1 8 
41. Ukraine – Sheet Glass.......................................................................................................... ...18 
42. Ukraine – Matches .............................................................................................................. ....18   G/SG/M/37 
 Page 3 
 
 
43. Viet Nam – Float Glass......................................................................................................... ..18 
C. TIME-FRAME TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSES OF ARTICLE  9.1 (PROPOSAL BY 
CHINESE TAIPEI ) .......................................................................................................................19  
D. OTHER BUSINESS ......................................................................................................................19  
1. Statement by Ecuador ........................................................................................................... .19 
2. Statement by the United States..............................................................................................19  
3. Statement by Egypt............................................................................................................. ....19  
4. Statement by the Chairperson ...............................................................................................19  
E. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING .........................................................................................20  
F. ELECTION OF OFFICERS ............................................................................................................20  
 
 A. N
ATIONAL LEGISLATION  
4. The Chairperson  stated that the first item on the Co mmittee'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 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 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 meeting, unless it was alre ady provided.  Members would also be given an 
opportunity to ask questions orally.  After the mee ting, there would be a period for the submission of 
additional written questions concerning any of the legi slative 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 17 May 2010.  She stated that writte n answers to all questions submitted in writing by 
that deadline should be submitted to the Secretariat no later than 7 June 2010. 
1. Burkina Faso – Review of New Legislative Notification 
7. The Chairperson  noted that the legislative notificatio n from Burkina Faso was contained in 
document G/SG/N/1/BFA/1.  She noted that this w as a nil notification, and that no written questions 
concerning this notification had been received.  
8. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
2. Cambodia – Review of New Legislative Notification 
9. The Chairperson  noted that the legislative notification from Cambodia was contained in 
document G/SG/N/1/KHM/1.  She 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. G/SG/M/37 
Page 4  
 
3. Japan – Review of New Legislative Notification 
11. The Chairperson
 noted that the legislative notification from Japan was contained in document 
G/SG/N/1/JPN/2/Suppl.2.  She noted that written qu estions concerning this notification had been 
received from the United States in document G/SG /Q1/JPN/7, and that Japan had submitted its 
responses in writing. 
12. The representative of Japan  indicated that its written answer s to the questions received from 
the United States were contained in document G/ SG/Q1/JPN/8.  He explained that Japan had 
undertaken a review of its system of trade remedi es in 2008 in light of recent experiences of its 
investigation authorities. As a result, Japan had published the amendment of relevant articles in 
related laws and regulations. These were in effect  as of 1 April 2009.  He stated that several 
procedural reforms had been undertaken to achieve  enhanced efficiency and transparency, among 
other things.  He proceeded to read the responses contained in G/SG/Q1/JPN/8. 
4. Viet Nam – Review of New Legislative Notification 
13. The Chairperson  noted that the legislative notification from Viet Nam was contained in 
document G/SG/N/1/VNM/1.  She noted that written questions concerning this  notification had been 
received from the United States in document G/SG/Q1/VNM/1. 
14. The representative of Viet Nam  indicated that the questions had been transmitted to capital, 
and that it would inform the Committee when  the answers were received from capital.1 
15. The representative of the United States  indicated that it was looking forward to receiving 
written responses to its questions.    
5. Zambia – Review of New Legislative Notification 
16. The Chairperson  noted that the legislative notifi cation from Zambia was contained in 
document G/SG/N/1/ZMB/2.  She noted that written questions concerning this notification had been 
received from the United States in document G/SG/Q1/ZMB/1, and that Zambia had submitted its written responses in document G/SG/Q1/ZMB/2. 
17. The representative of Zambia
 made a statement to add some clarification.  She explained that 
the safeguards legislation was contained in two acts of Parliament, the first one being the Customs and 
Excise Act (Act No. 11 of 2004), and the second Contro l of Goods Act (Act No. 12 of 2004).  These 
legislations were based on the principles set out the WTO Agreement on Safeguards.  The legislation 
provided for the establishment of an investiga ting committee and an advisory committee. The 
rationale for this structure was to ensure that  the process of investigation was impartial. The 
investigating committee provided its findings to th e advisory committee for its consideration. As 
reflected in section 4(g)(1)(j), the Minister may appoint two other persons to the advisory committee 
in order to cater for specific situations arising out  of the investigations which cannot be adequately 
dealt with by the standing body of the advisory co mmittee. The legislation had taken into account the 
flexibilities provided to developing countries in Ar ticle 9.2 of the WTO Agreement on Safeguards, 
and therefore section 4(u) should be read in this light.  
6. Norway – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications 
18. The Chairperson  noted that this item, as submitted in document G/SG/N/1/NOR/4/Corr.1, 
was a corrigendum to Norway's legislative notification that had already been reviewed by the 
                                                      
1 Subsequently circulated as document G/SG/Q1/VNM/2.  G/SG/M/37 
 Page 5 
 
 
Committee at its last meeting.  She noted that no written questions concer ning this corrigendum had 
been received. 
19. There were no further comments or questions raised regarding this item. 
7. Honduras – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications 
20. The Chairperson  noted that the legislative notifica tion from Honduras, submitted in document 
G/SG/N/1/HND/3, had already been taken up at the last Committee meeting.  Written questions had 
been received on this notification from the United States in document G/SG/Q1/HND/4, and Honduras had responded in document G/SG/Q1/HND/5. 
21. There were no further comments or questions raised regarding this item. 
8. Dominican Republic – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications 
22. The Chairperson
 noted that the legislative notification from the Dominican Republic, 
submitted in document G/SG/N/1/DOM/2/Suppl.1, had already been taken up at the last Committee 
meeting.  After the initial exchange of written questions and written answers, written follow-up 
questions had been received from the United States in document G/SG/Q1/DOM/5, and the Dominican Republic had recently submitted its responses in document G/SG/Q1/DOM/6. 
23. There were no further comments or questions raised regarding this item. 
9. Panama – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications 
24. The Chairperson
 noted that the legislative notifica tion from Panama, submitted in document 
G/SG/N/1/PAN/2/Suppl.1, had already been taken up at  the last Committee meeting.  After the initial 
exchange of written questions and written answer s, written follow-up questions had been received 
from the United States in document G/SG/Q1/PAN/ 4.  Panama had already responded in document 
G/SG/Q1/PAN/5. 
25. The representative from the United States  indicated that the United States had only just 
received the English translation of the responses, and that it reserved the possibility to pose follow-up 
questions if necessary.  
10. Thailand – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Notifications 
26. The Chairperson  noted that the legislative notification from Thailand, submitted in document 
G/SG/N/1/THA//3, had already been taken up at the last Committee meeting.  After the initial 
exchange of written questions and written answer s, written follow-up questions had been received 
from the United States in document G/SG/Q1/THA/3.  
27. The representative of Thailand  confirmed that pursuant to Thailand's Safeguards Act, 
Thailand's transparency measures regarding commen ts provided by interested parties were in 
compliance with the relevant requirements of the WTO Agreement on Safeguards, such as those laid 
down in Articles 3 and 12.  She indicated that Thailand would submit its written responses in due 
course. 
28. The Chairperson  reminded Members that the deadline for written questions concerning any 
legislation reviewed at this meeting was 17 May 20 10.  The deadline for writt en answers to all written 
questions, including questions s ubmitted in writing prior to this  meeting, was 7 June 2010.  
Concerning these deadlines, she reminded the Comm ittee of the importance of providing written 
answers to written questions posed.  The exchange of written questions and answers constituted the G/SG/M/37 
Page 6  
 
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.  She stated that, in order to  help Members keep track of the questions posed 
and the responses submitted, any questions left unans wered would be indicated in the draft annotated 
agenda of the next Committee meeting. 
29. Before proceeding to the next agenda item, the Chairperson informed the Committee that 
there were still 30 Members that had not yet made a legislative notification.
2  She stated that she 
would not read out the names of those Members, but wanted 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.  She stated th at if delegations had any questions regarding the 
procedures for notifications, they should feel free to contact the Secretariat or the Chairperson. 
30. Finally, the Chairperson indicated that after the closure of the agenda for this meeting, 
Guyana had submitted a "nil" notification.  This notif ication would be taken up at the next meeting.  
B. NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RELATED TO SAFEGUARD MEASURES  
31. 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 at the same time. 
1. Brazil – CD-R and DVD-R  
32. The Chairperson  noted that Brazil had made a notifi cation regarding an investigation on 
compact discs- and DVDs- recordable in document G/SG/N/9/BRA/1.   
33. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
2. Chile – Powdered Milk and Gouda Cheese 
34. The Chairperson  noted that Chile had made notifica tions regarding an investigation on 
powdered milk and Gouda cheese in docum ents G/SG/N/7/CHL/9 and Suppl.1. 
35. The representative of the United States  stated that she recognized that Chile had terminated 
this investigation, but that the United States woul d submit follow-up questions regarding the refund of 
provisional duties.  
3. Croatia – Cheese and Cheese Substitutes 
36. The Chairperson  noted that Croatia had made a notifi cation regarding an investigation on 
cheese and cheese substitutes in document G/SG/N/7/HRV/1/Suppl.2–G/SG/N/8/HRV/1–
G/SG/N/10/HRV/1–G/SG/N/11/HRV/1/Suppl.1. 
37. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
                                                      
2 These Members were: Angola, Antigua & Barbuda, Belize, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African 
Republic, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dj ibouti, Gabon, the Gambia, Grenada, Guinea Bissau, 
Guyana, Kuwait, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nepal,  Niger, Papua New Guinea,  Rwanda, Saint Kitts & 
Nevis, Saint Vincent & Grenadines, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Swaziland, Tanzania, Togo, and Tonga.  G/SG/M/37 
 Page 7 
 
 
4. Dominican Republic – Certain Sport and Dress Socks 
38. The Chairperson  noted that the Dominican Republic had made a notification regarding an 
investigation on certain sport and dress socks in document G/SG/N/6/DOM/5.   
39. The representative of the United States  noted that there was a difference in the tariff codes 
that the Dominican Republic notified to the Committ ee, and the tariff codes listed in the notice of 
initiation published on the government's official website .  An incorrect tariff code was a fundamental 
error that should be corrected, and suggested th at the deadlines for the investigation should be 
extended to allow all potential exporte rs reasonable opportunity to register as an interested party.  She 
hoped the Dominican Republic would take due consider ation of the parties' requests to register as 
interested parties, even beyond the 15-day deadline in light of this error in the tariff codes.  
40. The representative of the Dominican Republic  stated that a corrigendum to the notification 
had already been issued, and it contained a correc tion of the tariff code.  As for deadlines, the 
Dominican Republic would consider the matter.  
41. The Chairperson  stated that the corrigendum was contained in document 
G/SG/N/6/DOM/5/Corr.1, but was submitted t oo late to be included in the agenda. 
42. The representative of Chile  highlighted the importance of the correct interpretation of 
Article 9.1 of the Safeguards Agreement concerni ng exemption of certain developing countries.   
43. The representative of the Dominican Republic  stated that meetings had been held with Chile 
on this issue.  
5. Dominican Republic – Bottles, Flas ks and Other Glass Containers 
44. The Chairperson  noted that the Dominican Republic had made a notification regarding an 
investigation on bottles, flasks and other glass containers, in document G/SG/N/9/DOM/2.   
45. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
6. Dominican Republic – Polypropylene Bags and Tubular Fabric Bottles 
46. The Chairperson  noted that the Dominican Republic had made notifications regarding an 
investigation on polypropylene bags and tubular fa bric bottles in documents G/SG/N/6/DOM/3 and 
Suppl.1, and G/SG/N/7/DOM/1-G/SG/N/8/DOM/1-G/SG/N/11/DOM/1. 
47. The representative of El Salvador  pointed out that there was a proliferation of safeguards 
investigations by the Dominican Republic in the past few months, and was concerned about such 
investigations taking place without rigorous analysis .  El Salvador had expressed its concerns to the 
investigating authorities in the Dominican Republic , including its concerns relating to certain 
deadlines.  Problems with publication could affect th e due process rights of parties.  El Salvador was 
surprised to see that the investigating authority had treated polypropylene bags and tubular fabric 
together as though they were one single product.  This would affect the analysis and increased 
El Salvador's concerns.  In El Salvador's view, ca usal link between the imports and the injury to the 
domestic industry was not demonstrated.  There w as no increase in imports that was sufficiently 
sudden, acute, and important in quantity or quality, which could cause or threaten to cause injury.  In 
spite of all of the arguments submitted by El Salv ador, provisional measures in the form of a 38% 
duty had been imposed without technical basis for this  level.  El Salvador hoped that the Dominican 
Republic would take its concerns into account and revoke the provisional measures and close the 
investigation.  G/SG/M/37 
Page 8  
 
48. The representative of Guatemala
 recalled the conditions for imposing safeguard measures that 
were set out in the Agreement on Safeguards.  Gu atemala recognized the right of any Member to 
impose a safeguard measure if these conditions ha d been met and procedural requirements duly 
followed.   However, that was not the case with re spect to this investigation.  Guatemala had noted 
with concern that the investigating authority was car rying out the investigation in apparent violation 
of the disciplines of the Safeguards Agreement.  Firs t, there was a problem with the definition of the 
product being investigated.  He explained that in US – Lamb , the criteria was adopted that a domestic 
industry could not include both the final product and the raw material, when th e investigated material 
was only really the final product. Additionally,  Guatemala had difficulty understanding how raw 
material could be a like product, or a directly comp etitive product, to the finished product, when both 
the raw material and the finished product were clas sified within different chapters of the Harmonized 
System.  Second, with the product being under inves tigation incorrectly defined, the definition of the 
domestic industry also posed a problem.  Third, there was a problem with the determination of 
unforeseen developments.  The investigating authority  had not provided any ad equate explanation.  
Guatemala also noted that the investigating author ity had not addressed all of the factors relating to 
injury.  Guatemala also noted the lack of a proper analysis of the existence of a causal link.  
Guatemala pointed out that it took part in the consultations held following the imposition of the provisional safeguard measure, and at that point in time presented a series of written questions.  
Although the Dominican Republic's investigating au thorities stated that these questions would be 
replied by 22 April 2010,  Guatemala had not yet received answers.  Guatemala requested that the Dominican Republic put an end to this investig ation, terminate the provisional measures, and 
reimburse any amounts collected.  
49. The representative of Honduras
 also expressed concern with the imposition of this measure.  
First, as had been pointed out, the decision to treat the raw material and the final product as one product was not well reasoned.  Second, unforeseen developments were not clearly established. The 
technical report indicated that the unforeseen deve lopment was the liberalization of trade under the 
Central American – Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement, but about half of the Dominican 
Republic imports came from othe r origins.  Third, as for injury, the domestic industry clearly 
experienced a considerable improvement in the production, sales, utilized capacity, and level of 
employment, and market share vis à vis  imports.  The only factor where it was possible to base injury 
was financial losses. However, it was clear that  the losses were due to over-indebtedness and 
inappropriate management of certain administrative costs. Neither had the Dominican Republic 
conducted a non-attribution analysis. He stated that  the imposition of the provisional measure was not 
based on an objective assessment of the facts. He urged the Dominican Republic to revoke the 
measure and make the reimbursements as necessary.   
50. The representative of Costa Rica
 stated that Costa Rica was al so concerned about the increase 
of safeguards measures taken by the Dominican Rep ublic in the past year.  The Dominican Republic 
had undertaken five investigations in the past year, three of which were aimed at imports from 
Costa Rica.  According to the jurisprudence, safe guard measures were excep tional instruments to be 
used only in accordance with the strict require ments of the WTO Agreements.  The Dominican 
Republic did not notify any measures prior to this period, and Costa Rica was concerned that the new 
actions might become a standard practice of a pr otectionist nature.  Costa Rica was particularly 
concerned about the provisional safeguard measure im posed in the investigation at issue.  This 
measure seriously harmed the trade interests of Co sta Rica.  Costa Rica had detected a large number 
of anomalies in the process of the adoption of the provisional measure, which lead Costa Rica to understand that the measure was not consistent w ith the Agreement on Safeguards.  First, the 
investigating authority had unduly cumulated imports  of two different products, and this had led to 
serious flaws in the procedure.  The explanati ons given by the investigating authority were 
insufficient. Second, the initial technical report itself recognized the existence of other factors, such as 
an increase in the cost of productio n. Third, the causal link between th e increase of imports and injury 
was not demonstrated.  Fourth, the authority had fa iled to demonstrate that the original obligations 
assumed under GATT 1994 would have prevented counter action of the effect of the increase of  G/SG/M/37 
 Page 9 
 
 
imports.  The bound tariff of both products was 40%.  Fifth, if the commitments undertaken by the Dominican Republic in the context of the free trad e agreements in force had caused variations in 
imports, these were completely predictable, and coul d not be regarded as an unforeseen development.  
Sixth, the finding of serious injury or threat ther eof was unjustified.  He stated that the strangest 
characteristic of the investigation was that the safeguard duty was below the bound tariff rate. He 
asked why the Dominican Republic had made use of  Article XIX if it had not actually increased the 
tariff up to the bound rate. In this context, the represen tative of Costa Rica pointed out the fact that the 
main suppliers of the product at issue were Cost a Rica, China and Honduras. He further pointed out 
that the obligations which the Dominican Republic had vis à vis China was only the MFN bound rate, 
while the obligations which the Dominican Republic had vis à vis Costa Rica was the MFN bound 
rate as well as the obligations under the Costa Rica – Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement. 
Under the Costa Rica – Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement, Costa Rica could export the 
product at issue duty-free. The representative of Costa Ri ca, in this context, asserted that the practical 
effect of taking a safeguard measure was that the Dominican Republic ceased to apply the duty-free 
treatment of this product vis à vis Costa Rica. Finally, the representative of Costa Rica recalled the 
state of play concerning Special Safeguard Mechan ism in the Negotiation Group of Agriculture, and 
stated that he saw a connection between, on the one hand, how the Dominican Republic handled the 
issue at hand and, on the other hand, its position co ncerning the Special Safeguard Mechanism.    
51. The representative of the Dominican Republic
 asked that questions be submitted in writing so 
that they could be answered as quickly as possible.  
7. Dominican Republic – Toilet Paper (I) 
8. Dominican Republic – Toilet Paper (II) 
52. The Chairperson  noted that the Dominican Republic had made notifications regarding two 
investigations on toilet paper – one in document s G/SG/N/6/DOM/2 and G/SG/N/9/DOM/1, and the 
other in G/SG/N/6/DOM/4.  She indicated that wh ile these were two different investigations, since 
these two agenda items relate to the same produc t, she would take up these two items together. 
53. The representative of Costa Rica  stated that it profoundly regretted that the Dominican 
Republic had decided to once again open an investiga tion into imports of toilet paper.  The Dominican 
Republic closed the investigation on this product last year, and three months later opened a new 
investigation on the same product.  Costa Rica had detected a large number of anomalies in the 
investigation.  First, the causal link had not been  demonstrated and the period of analysis of the 
imports was insufficient.  Nor had the commission i ndividualized and analysed other factors.  The 
Agreement on Safeguards established that there must be  a causal link on the basis of evidence, and the 
Dominican Republic had failed to demonstrate this.  The use of a three-year investigation period was 
also anomalous.  Second, if the commitments undert aken by the Dominican Republic in the context of 
the free trade agreements in force had caused the surge in imports, these were completely predictable 
and could not be regarded as an unforeseen developmen t.  Third, given the fact that this process did 
not meet the requirements of the WTO Agreemen ts, the Dominican Republic should have adopted 
other measures consistent with the WTO Agreemen ts. Specifically, it should have increased its 
applied tariff from 20% up to its bound rate, which was 40% 
54. The representative of the Dominican Republic  asked that questions be submitted in writing.  
9. India – Unwrought Aluminium, Aluminium Waste and Aluminium Scraps 
55. The Chairperson  noted that India had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
unwrought aluminium, aluminium waste and aluminium scraps in document 
G/SG/N/7/IND/6/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/8/IND/17/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/9/IND/10. G/SG/M/37 
Page 10  
 
56. The representative of the European Union
 stated that its comments on this investigation 
applied equally to all other notifications from India that were on the agenda, because they all suffered 
from the same weakness as this one.  The European Union welcomed that India had terminated eight 
safeguard investigations that had been initiated at the time that the global economic crisis started.  
However, the European Union strongly  deplored the fact that these inv estigations had been initiated in 
the first place, because this had unduly created uncer tainty on the market, and most probably caused a 
market disruption.  The standard of initiation of all those cases was very low regarding the 
determination of increased imports, serious injury or threat thereof, and causal link.  This could all 
have been avoided if a proper standard of review ha d been applied when checking the applications.  In 
addition, the European Union regrets the non-respect of WTO notification requirements by India.  All 
these actions had been systematically notified with a delay of one month after initiation. He stated that 
the Agreement on Safeguards required that notifi cations be made immediately. Furthermore, the 
European Union stressed the importance of notif ications being clear a nd leaving no room for 
uncertainty which could have negative consequences fo r the exporters concerned.  In this respect, he 
referred to a notification regarding hot rolled coils, and stated that it was misleading.  In particular,  he 
drew the attention to the fact that the notification in November 20093 indicated that the authority "did 
not recommend for the imposition of the safeguard duty (in August 2009)", while in December 2009, 
yet another notification was made indicating that  the authority "has not recommended any safeguard 
duty".4  He was unsure whether the investigation was still ongoing after the first notification.  The 
European Union hoped that India would in the fu ture resists any new uns ubstantiated requests for 
initiation and would fully comply with WTO rules.  
57. The representative of India  asked that the questions be submitted in writing.  
10. India – Hot Rolled Coils/Sheets/Strips 
58. The Chairperson noted that India had made a notification regarding an investigation on hot 
rolled coils/sheets/strips in docum ents G/SG/N/9/IND/5 and Suppl.1. 
59. The representative of the United States indicated  that the United States was very pleased to 
see that India had terminated this and several othe r safeguard investigations recently.  However, the 
United States found it troubling that in the supplemen tal notification regarding the termination of the 
investigation, the Indian authorities found that th e applicant did not constitute the domestic industry 
and that the applicant had failed to identify many relevant factors in its application.  These two 
deficiencies which were found very late in the inv estigative process raised the question of whether the 
investigation should have been initia ted at all.  The United States ur ged India in the future to take 
greater care prior to initiating a safeguard i nvestigation, because as mentioned by the 
European Union, these investigations create mark et uncertainty even if the investigation was 
ultimately terminated.   
60. The representative of India asked that the questions be submitted in writing.  
11. India – Coated Paper and Paper Board 
61. The Chairperson noted that India had made a notif ication regarding an investigation on coated 
paper and paper board in document G/SG/N/7/I ND/5/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/9/IND/9, and that written 
questions concerning this notification had b een received from the United States in document 
G/SG/Q2/IND/11. 
                                                      
3  See document G/SG/N/9/IND/5. 
4  See document G/SG/N/9/IND/5/Suppl.1. 
  G/SG/M/37 
 Page 11 
 
 
62. The representative of India responded to the question from the United States by indicating 
that it was clear from the notification that no safeguard duty had been imposed.  It had been found that there was no serious injury or threat of serious injury.  
63. The representative of the United States stated that it was again pleased to see that India had 
terminated this investigation, but was concerne d that India had initiated and proposed preliminary 
findings in a very short time.  It was only after being urged by the Standing Board on Safeguards to 
reconsider its investigation that the Directorate Gene ral determined that there was no injury or threat 
of serious injury to the domestic industry.  Ag ain, the United States wished to reiterate that 
investigations initiated without ad equate basis had adverse effects on international trade, and urged 
India in the future to take greater care pr ior to initiating a safeguard investigation. 
64. The representative of Canada stated that wh ile his intervention was not addressed only to 
India, it was concerned about the high level of safe guard investigations that had been initiated by 
some Members.  Canada viewed safeguard investiga tions to be unique among trade remedies in that 
they target fairly-traded imports. Canada thus en couraged Members to be particularly diligent in 
following WTO rules when considering the use of safeguards.  Finally, he stated that it was reassuring 
to see that some measures had been terminat ed without any imposition of duties, although the 
initiation of investigations can be just as disruptive.  
12. India – Uncoated Paper and Copy Paper  
65. The Chairperson noted that India had made no tifications regarding an investigation on 
uncoated paper and copy paper in documents G/SG/N /9/IND/8 and Suppl.1, and that written questions 
concerning this notification had been received fro m the United States in document G/SG/Q2/IND/12. 
66. The representative of India stated that, as alread y notified, there was a finding of no injury, 
and accordingly no duty had been imposed.   
67. There were no further comments or qu estions regarding this notification. 
13. India – Oxo-alcohols 
68. The Chairperson noted that India had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
oxo-alcohols in documents G/SG/N/9/IND/4 and Suppl.1  
69. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
14. India – Particle board 
70. The Chairperson noted that India had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
particle board in document G/SG/N/7/IND/7/S uppl.1–G/SG/N/8/IND/18/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/9/IND/7, 
and that written questions concerning this notifica tion had been received from Thailand in document 
G/SG/Q2/IND/13. 
71. The representative of India stated that as with  other previous investigations, it had been 
decided not to impose a safeguard measure in this investigation.   
72. The representative of Thailand stated that she w as pleased at this development, but wished to 
support the prior interventions by the European Un ion, the United States and Canada. Although India 
had not responded to Thailand's questions in light of  the subsequent termination, Thailand wished to 
register that Thailand had no further questions on this item.  G/SG/M/37 
Page 12  
 
15. India – Linear Alkyl Benzene 
73. The Chairperson noted that India had made a no tification regarding an investigation on linear 
alkyl benzene in document G/SG/N/9/IND/6. 
74. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
16. India – Caustic Soda  
75. The Chairperson noted that India had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
caustic soda in document G/SG/N/7/I ND/8–G/SG/N/8/IND/19–G/SG/N/11/IND/5. 
76. The representative of the European Union asked  India what the latest status of this 
investigation was.  
77. The representative of India stated that he had noted the question and would enquire.     
17. India – Acrylic Fibre  
78. The Chairperson
 noted that India had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
acrylic fibre in document G/SG/N/7/IND/3/Suppl.1. 
79. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
18. Indonesia – Stranded Wire, Ropes and Cables 
80. The Chairperson  noted that Indonesia had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
stranded wire, ropes and cables in document G/SG/N/6/IDN/9. 
81. The representative of the European Union  stated that its comments on this case applied to 
other notifications made by Indonesia on the agenda.  First, the European Union doubted that there 
was a recent, sudden and sharp increase in imports.  The rate of increase of imports in 2007-2008 was 
much lower than the rate of increase of imports in pr evious years. Second, in two of the investigations 
the latest figures on imports were those of 2008.  Th at meant that there was a gap of more than one 
year between the date of initiation and the figures pr ovided.  Again, this does not allow the authority 
to determine that there was a sharp, recent and sudden increase in imports.  Furthermore, the authorities had not demonstrated that increased imports were the result of unforeseen developments.  The same applied to the causal link analysis.  Finally, the European Union also expressed doubts on 
the choice of the safeguard instrument, because in a ll cases the main problem seemed to be linked not 
to a general increase in imports, but was more specific.  Therefore, the European Union urged Indonesia to use those instruments which were mo re specific to the problem.  He summed up by 
stating that the European Union had serious doubts on the consistency of these safeguard 
investigations with WTO rules, and urged Indonesia to terminate the investigations without applying 
measures.     
82. The representative of Indonesia
 indicated that it would provide detailed information 
bilaterally.  
19. Indonesia – Aluminium Tray and Plain Lid 
83. The Chairperson noted that Indonesia had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
aluminium tray and plain lid in document G/SG/N/6/IDN/6. 
84. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.  G/SG/M/37 
 Page 13 
 
 
20. Indonesia – Wire of Iron/Non-alloy Steel, not Plated or Coated 
85. The Chairperson noted that Indonesia had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
wire of iron/non-alloy steel, not plated or coated, in document G/SG/N/6/IDN/7. 
86. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
21. Indonesia – Wire of Iron/Non-alloy Steel, Plated with Zinc 
87. 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/6/IDN/8 and Corr.1. 
88. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
22. Indonesia – Wire Nails 
89. The Chairperson noted that Indonesia had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
wire nails in document G/SG/N/8/IDN/3–G/SG/N/10/IDN/3–G/SG/N/11/IDN/3. 
90. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
23. Israel – Steel Rebars 
91. The Chairperson noted that Israel had made a notification regarding an investigation on steel 
rebars in document G/SG/N/7/ISR/1–G/SG/N/11/ ISR/1, and that questions concerning this 
notification had been received from the European Union in document G/SG/Q2/ISR/1.   
92. The representative of Israel indicated that written responses would be circulated in due 
course.  
93. The representative of the European Union stat ed that it looked forward to receiving the 
replies.  
24. Jordan – Footwear 
94. The Chairperson noted that Jordan had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
footwear in document G/SG/N/10/JOR/6/Suppl.2. 
95. The representative of the United States pointed out that what Jordan had notified was the 
cessation of the measure, made pursuant to the new notif ication format agreed to at the last meeting of 
this Committee. She stated that this was a good example of the work done on enhanced notifications.  
The United States hoped that other Members would fo llow Jordan's good example in this regard, as 
this would lead to increased transp arency in safeguards investigations .  More generally, she noted that 
many Members had been submitting their decisions electronically, and the United States saw that as a very positive step and encouraged other members to do likewise.   
25. Jordan – Ceramic Tiles 
96. The Chairperson noted that Jordan had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
ceramic tiles in document G/SG/N/10/JOR/7/Suppl.1-G/SG/N/11/JOR/3/Suppl.1. 
97. The representative of Jordan clarified that th e Minister's decision which was notified to the 
Committee was not a final decision.  The decision would be forwarded to the Tariff Council which G/SG/M/37 
Page 14  
 
would consider and review, and in turn, put its  recommendation to the Minister's Council which 
would take a final decision.  
98. The representative of Egypt stated that exports of ceramic tiles from Egypt to Jordan were 
significant, and therefore Egypt regretted the decisi on to impose safeguard measures.  In its numerous 
submissions to the Jordanian authorities, Egypt  had submitted that the imposition of safeguard 
measures on ceramic tiles was unwarranted for the fo llowing reasons. First, the increase in the volume 
of imports was not recent, sudden, sharp and signi ficant enough.  Second, it had not been established 
that the increase in imports was the result of un foreseen developments within the meaning of 
Article XIX of GATT 1994.  Third, there was no cau sal link between increased imports and injury to 
the domestic industry. Despite its requests, E gypt had not been provided with the pertinent 
information that the Minister of Industry and Tr ade relied upon to reach its decision on 9 March 2010.  
This was particularly important given that the le vel of the proposed safeguard measure was three 
times that proposed by the National Production Protection Directorate of the Ministry of Trade and Industry in its final report dated 13 July 2009.  Also, the most recent data used  as a basis to justify the 
imposition of safeguard measures was over 15 months old. Considering these elements, he stated that 
no safeguard measure should be imposed.   
99. The representative of the European  Union thanked Jordan for the additional explanation.  The 
European Union associated itself with  the comments just made by Egypt, and highlighted in particular 
that the proposed level of safegua rds was three times higher than that proposed eight months ago in 
the final findings published by the investigating authority. The European Union therefore urged Jordan to review the proposal and terminate the i nvestigation without measures.  The European Union 
was considering all options should the case go forward.    
100. The representative of Jordan indicated that he  noted the comments, and that Jordan would 
reply at the appropriate time.  
26. Kyrgyz Republic – Wheat Flour 
101. The Chairperson noted that the Kyrgyz Repub lic had made a notification regarding an 
investigation on wheat flour in document G/SG/N/8/KGZ/1/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/10/KGZ/1. 
102. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
27. Peru – Cotton Yarn 
103. The Chairperson noted that Peru had made a no tification regarding an investigation on cotton 
yarn in document G/SG/N/9/PER/2. 
104. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
28. Philippines – Float Glass 
105. The Chairperson
 noted that the Philippines had made a notification regarding an investigation 
on float glass in document G/SG/N/11/PHL/8–G/ SG/N/14/PHL/6, and that written questions 
concerning this notification had been receive d from Thailand in document G/SG/Q2/PHL/8. 
106. Responding to the questions from Thailand, the representative of the Philippines  stated that 
the investigating authorities had determined that th e safeguard measure on float glass continued to be 
necessary to prevent recurrence of serious injury  to the domestic industry.  The investigating 
authorities had found that despite the imposition of saf eguard measures, imports still came in at very 
low prices, and though the domestic industry showed  improvements in production, sales, market share 
and productivity, they still incu rred losses, which indicated a serious impairment in their financial  G/SG/M/37 
 Page 15 
 
 
condition.  She confirmed that the measure woul d continue to be liberalized annually for the 
remaining years of the extension period.  Finally, wi th regard to Thailand's request for an opportunity 
for consultations, she indicated that the Ph ilippines' Tariff Commission conducted preliminary 
meetings on this matter with notices published on 10 September 2009 in newspapers of general 
circulation. Individual notices were sent to interest ed parties, and notices were made available on the 
tariff Commission's website as well.  The tariff comm ission also conducted a public hearing regarding 
the extension of the measure, held from 19-23 Oc tober 2009. In addition,  on 13 January 2010 the 
Department of Trade and Industry sent a letter to the ASEAN Secretariat requesting their assistance to facilitate the required notification in consultation with other ASEAN countries.  She indicated that 
these responses would be submitted in writing in due course.
5  
107. The representative of Thailand  provided the following preliminary reaction to the Philippines' 
oral responses, while requesting that this item be kept on the agenda for the next meeting of the 
Committee.  She stated that Thailand was disappoint ed that the measure had been extended, and was 
not convinced that the domestic industry was expe riencing injury.  With respect to Philippines' 
statement regarding low prices, she noted that no  mention had been made of a sudden or sharp 
increase in imports, and would like to hear further clar ification in this regard.  She also stated that 
Thailand was closely examining the situa tion, and might have further questions. 
108. The representative of the Philippines  requested that the questions be put in writing. 
29. Philippines – Figured Glass 
109. The Chairperson noted that the Philippines had ma de a notification regarding an investigation 
on figured glass in document G/SG/N/14/PHL/5, and that questions concerning this notification had 
been received from Thailand in document G/SG/Q2/PHL/8. 
110. The representative of the Philippines stated that  the investigating authorities had determined 
that the safeguard measure on figured glass continued to be necessary to prevent recurrence of serious 
injury to the domestic industry.  The extension woul d also allow the domestic industry to fully adjust 
to import competition.  The duty was suspended in December 2007, and would remain suspended 
until such time as another order was issued. Res ponding to the questions from Thailand she stated, 
inter alia , that the suspension of the measure should be considered as being progressively liberalized 
because once lifted, the applicable safeguard duty will be lower compared to its level during the initial 
period of imposition.  She stated that the written responses would be circulated in due course.6 
111. The representative of Thailand provided a prel iminary reaction to the Philippines' oral 
response to the questions as follows, while requesting that this item be kept on the agenda for the next 
meeting of the Committee.  She stated that Tha iland was perplexed at the Philippines' notification 
which was in effect an extension of a suspension of a measure, which the Safeguards Agreement did 
not seem to provide a basis for.  Furthermore, as mentioned in several previous meetings, the 
suspension of a measure essentially indicated that the domestic industry was not seriously injured by imports, and that the measure was unnecessary.  That the domestic industry appears to have 
independently decided to produce a different product furt her supported the lack of injury in this case. 
Thailand therefore did not understand why the measure was extended at all, and would like to ask the 
Philippines to provide justification on the WTO-co nsistency of this measure.  Although suspension 
might have the effect of providing some temporar y relief to exporters, its uncertainty still posed 
disruption to trade.  Thailand therefore continued to  urge the Philippines to terminate this measure 
                                                     
 
5 See document G/SG/Q2/PHL/12.  
6 See document G/SG/Q2/PHL/12. G/SG/M/37 
Page 16  
 
immediately.  Finally, she posed further specific questions concerning the Philippines notification, 
and indicated that it would submit these questions in writing in due course.
7 
112. The representative of the Philippines indicated  that it would wait for Thailand's written 
questions.   
113. The representative of the United States indicated  that as far as the United States was aware, 
the petitioner in this investigation had yet to i ndicate whether it had resumed production of figured 
glass since November 2007, and would appreciate it if the Philippines delegation could clarify the 
basis by which the Tariff Commission was authorized to extend the measure for another four years.  
114. The representative of the Philippines indicated th at it would wait for the United States' written 
questions so that they could be forwarded to capital. 
30. Philippines – Ceramic Floor and Wall Tiles 
115. The Chairperson noted that the Philippines had ma de a notification regarding an investigation 
on ceramic floor and wall tiles in document G/ SG/N/11/PHL/1/Suppl.4–G/SG/N/14/PHL/1/Suppl.4. 
116. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
31. Philippines – Testliner Board 
117. The Chairperson noted that the Philippines had ma de a notification regarding an investigation 
on testliner board in document G/SG/N/6/PHL/8. 
118. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
32. Philippines – Glass Mirrors 
119. The Chairperson  noted that the Philippines had made a notification regarding an investigation 
on glass mirrors in document G/SG/N/14/PHL/4/Suppl. 3, that follow-up questions had been received 
from Thailand in document G/SG/Q2/PHL/6, that th e replies had been received from the Philippines 
in document G/SG/Q2/PHL/9, and that additiona l questions from Thaila nd were submitted in 
document G/SG/Q2/PHL/7. 
120. The representative of the Philippines  informed the Committee that  the safeguard measure on 
glass mirrors expired on 8 December 2009, and that the notification had recently been submitted to 
the Committee.8   
121. The representative of Thailand  thanked the Philippines for its notification, and indicated that 
it had no further questions on this investigation.  
33. Turkey – Footwear  
122. The Chairperson  noted that Turkey had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
footwear in document G/SG/N/11/TUR/6/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/14/TUR/2 and Corr.1. 
123. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
                                                      
7 Subsequently circulated as document G/SG/Q2/PHL/10.  
8 See document G/SG/N/14/PHL/Suppl.4.  This notification was submitted too late to be included in the 
agenda.    G/SG/M/37 
 Page 17 
 
 
34. Turkey – Vacuum Cleaners  
124. The Chairperson  noted that Turkey had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
vacuum cleaners in document G/SG/N/11/TUR/3/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/14/TUR/3. 
125. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
35. Turkey – Motorcycles  
126. The Chairperson  noted that Turkey had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
motorcycles in document G/SG/N/11/TUR/7/Suppl.2–G/SG/N/14/TUR/4. 
127. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
36. Turkey – Smoothing Irons  
128. The Chairperson  noted that Turkey had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
smoothing irons in document G/SG/N/11/TUR/4/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/14/TUR/1. 
129. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
37. Turkey – Matches  
130. The Chairperson  noted that Turkey had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
matches in document G/SG/N/8/TUR/12–G/SG/N/10/TUR/12–G/SG/N/11/TUR/13/Suppl.1. 
131. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
38. Ukraine – Ferro-Manganese and Ferro-Silico-Manganese  
132. The Chairperson  noted that Ukraine had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
ferro-manganese and ferro-silico-manga nese in document G/SG/N/6/UKR/6. 
133. The representative of the European Union  stated that Ukraine had become one of the most 
prominent users of the safeguard instrument.  This  was the third safeguard investigation initiated in 
the last six months.  He pointed out that it had been stated several times during the present meeting 
that this instrument should be used only in excep tional circumstances, and stated that unfortunately 
this did not seem to be the case with Ukraine.  A high standard should be applied at the initiation 
stage, and an objective analysis should be based on y early figures, ideally for a period of three years.  
However, in this case import figures and the various injury indicators were disclosed only for a period 
of one year and one quarter, which was not enough.  Furthermore, a strict causal link analysis with a 
clear separation of factors other than imports  was required. Indeed, the period considered 
corresponded to the beginning of the global crisis, and the difficult situation of Ukrainian industry 
seemed to have been temporary and not linked to  imports.  He found it remarkable that production 
rose by almost 300% for silico-manganese and by more  than 700% for ferro-manganese.  Finally, 
during the period of investigation, the export pric e seemed to have been 30% lower than their 
domestic prices. Therefore, the European Union wished  to express the view that this investigation be 
terminated forthwith.  
39. Ukraine – Mineral Fertilisers  
134. The Chairperson  noted that Ukraine had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
mineral fertilisers in document G/SG/N/6/UKR/5. G/SG/M/37 
Page 18  
 
135. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
40. Ukraine – Liquid Chlorine  
136. The Chairperson
 noted that Ukraine had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
liquid chlorine in document G/SG/N/9/UKR/2. 
137. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
41. Ukraine – Sheet Glass  
138. The Chairperson  noted that Ukraine had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
sheet glass in document G/SG/N/7/UKR/1. 
139. The representative of the European Union  stated that the first problem in this investigation 
was that the requirement that the increase in impo rts be sharp, recent and sudden in absolute or 
relative terms was not met.  This appeared clearly after figures were corrected during the 
investigation.  Moreover, the causality analysis w as almost non-existent, and the authority failed to 
separate factors other than imports, such as the increase of raw materials prices, and business 
decisions by the applicants.  He wished to remi nd Ukraine that if safeguard measures were taken 
solely on the basis of a relative increase in impor ts rather than an absolute increase in imports, 
Ukraine was obliged to compensat e for the measure in accordance w ith Article 8 of the Safeguards 
Agreement.    
42. Ukraine – Matches  
140. The Chairperson  noted that Ukraine had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
matches in document G/SG/N/8/UKR/2–G/SG/N/10/UKR/2. 
141. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
43. Viet Nam – Float Glass 
142. The Chairperson  noted that Viet Nam had made notifi cations regarding an investigation on 
float glass in documents G/SG/N/8/VNM/1 and G/SG /N/9/VNM/1, that written questions had been 
received from Thailand in document G/SG/Q2/VNM/1, and that the replies from Viet Nam had been 
received in document G/SG/Q2/VNM/2. 
143. The representative of Viet Nam  informed the Committee that following the investigation, 
Viet Nam had decided not to apply a safeguard measure for float glass.   
144. The representative of Thailand  thanked Viet Nam for its notification.  
145. The Chairperson  thanked all delegations for their statements, questions and answers 
concerning the various notifications of actions related to safeguard measures.  She reminded 
delegations once again that any questions for which written responses were requested should be 
submitted to the Member concerned and to the Secr etariat no later than 17 May 2010.  She reminded 
delegations once again that written responses to qu estions, including questions submitted in writing 
prior to this meeting, should be submitted to the Se cretariat no later than 7 June 2010. 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. 
146. The Committee took note  of the statements made.  G/SG/M/37 
 Page 19 
 
 
C. TIME-FRAME TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSES OF ARTICLE  9.1 (PROPOSAL BY 
CHINESE TAIPEI9) 
147. After hearing the views of Chinese Taipei and other Members in informal mode, the 
Chairperson  stated that she noted that more discussion on this issue was needed, and that she would 
ask the incoming Chairperson to hold more in formal consultations on this issue.   
D. OTHER BUSINESS  
1. Statement by Ecuador 
148. The representative of Ecuador  made a statement concerning its  initiation of an investigation 
on windshields.10   
149. There were no comments or questions regarding this statement. 
2. Statement by the United States 
150. The representative of the United States  stated that there were two investigations initiated in 
November 2009 by the Gulf Cooperation Council ("GCC" ), one on coated paper and paper board, the 
other on steel angles, channels and beams.  She no ted that neither of these investigations had been 
notified to the Committee.  She reminded the GCC of  the critical importance of timely notifications, 
and stated that absent such transpar ency, Members would be denied the right to defend their interests.   
151. The representative of the United Arab Emirates  stated that responses would be provided once 
the question was submitted in writing.     
3. Statement by Egypt 
152. The representative of Egypt  stated that in the notification G/SG/N/7/TUR/7 dated 
21 July 2009, Turkey indicated that it would impose a provisional safeguard measure on imports.  
Given the absence of further notification from Turkey  in the last six months, Egypt requested that 
Turkey confirm that the provisional measure imposed  had lapsed, and that the safeguard proceeding 
had been terminated.  
153. The representative of Turkey  informed the Committee that th e provisional safeguard measure 
on salt had been revoked by Communiqué 2010/5.   The communiqué had been published in the 
official gazette, dated 13 February No. 27492.  The decision of the Board of Ministers concerning the 
drawback of the deposits taken as a provisional me asure had been published in the gazette dated 
26 February 2010, No. 27505.  He stated that all information regarding the investigation and the 
current status of the measure were available on the website of the Under-Secretary for Foreign Trade.  
4. Statement by the Chairperson 
154. The Chairperson  indicated that she wished to prov ide some observations concerning the 
implementation of the new formats wh ich the Committee adopted at the 19 October 2009 meeting, as   
circulated in document G/SG/1/Rev.1–G/SG/N/6/Re v.1–G/SG/89.  One of the revisions made was 
that Members were encouraged to submit, together with their notifications, an electronic version of 
the publicly available document containing the relevant  decisions made by the competent authority.  
She was happy to report that several Members had al ready made use of this new method, and invited 
                                                      
9 The Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu. Same throughout these 
minutes.  
10 See document G/SG/N/6/ECU/8 for detail. This notif ication was submitted too late to be included in 
the agenda.   G/SG/M/37 
Page 20  
 
Members to look at, for example, document G/SG/N /7/DOM/1 or G/SG/N/6/IDN/9.  Referring to the 
new format for notification regarding the cessation of  a measure, she stated that she was happy to 
report that there were already some good examples,  and invited Members to look at, for example, 
document G/SG/N/7/CHL/9/Suppl.1 or G/SG/N/10/JOR/ 6/Suppl.1.  She also stated that overall, many 
notifications were now submitted in line with the ne w formats.  She stated that she was well aware 
that it may be that some Members needed some ti me for their capitals to get acquainted to the new 
formats, but hoped that all Members would continue their efforts and try to follow the good examples 
set thus far.  She stated that the Secretariat would be happy to offer any necessary assistance to 
Members with respect to the new notification formats.  
E. D
ATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING  
155. The Chairperson  suggested that the Committee meet in  the week of 25 October 2010.  She 
stated that the exact date would be confirmed in due course.  
156. The Committee so decided . 
F. ELECTION OF OFFICERS  
157. 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 nomina tion of Mr. Tobias Lorentzsen from Sweden.  She 
therefore proposed that the Committee el ect Mr. Lorentzsen as Chairperson.   
158. The Committee so decided . 
159. 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 Mr. Do-yeon Wo n of Korea as Vice-Chair of the Committee.  
160. The Committee so decided . 
__________