WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION   
WT/DS428/1 
G/L/979 
G/SG/D41/1 
15 February 2012 
 
 (12-0871) 
 Original:   English 
 
 
 
TURKEY – SAFEGUARD MEASURES ON IMPORTS OF COTTON YARN  
(OTHER THAN SEWING THREAD) 
 
Request for Consultations by India 
  
 The following communication, dated 13 February  2012, from the delegation of India to the 
delegation of Turkey and to the Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in 
accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU. 
 
_______________ 
 
  My authorities have instructed me to request  consultations with the Republic of Turkey 
("Turkey") pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the 
Settlement of Disputes  (the "DSU"), Article XXII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 
1994 (the "GATT 1994") and Article 14 of the Agreement on Safeguards  [hereinafter "AoS"] with 
respect to, but not limited to, the following measures of Turkey:   
(a) Definitive Safeguard Measures on imports of cott on yarn (other than sewing thread) from all 
origins classified under heading 52.05 of the Harmonised System (HS) Codes imposed by 
Turkey with effect from 15 July 2008 for a peri od of three years in pur suance to investigation 
report published in the Turkish Official Gaze tte on 11 August 2008 and the related Decree of 
the Council of Ministers;
1  
 
(b) Provisional Safeguard Measures imposed by Turkey as per Decree /notification No. 
2011/2041 dated 4 August 2011 retroactiv ely with effect from 15 July 2011;  2 
 
(c) Extension of the period of application of de finitive Safeguard Measures referred at (a) above 
on 28 January 2102 retroactively with effect fro m 15 July 2011 vide Council of Ministers' 
Decree No.2012/2721 dated 28 Janua ry 2012 pursuant to the definitive findings in a review 
vide Communique No.2012/2 published in Official Gazette No.28184 dated 
25 January 2012;3 
 
(d) As well as the underlying investigation, any amendments, replacements, related or 
implementing acts or measures to the above. 
 
                                                      
1 WTO Document No. G/SG/N/8/TUR/11,  G/SG/N/9/TUR/5, G/SG/N/10/TUR/11, 
G/SG/N/11/TUR/12 dated 22 August 2008. 
2 WTO Document G/SG/N/6/TUR/14/Suppl.1, G/ SG/N/7/TUR/10 and G/SG/N/11/TUR/17 dated 
24 June, 2011. 
3 WTO Document No. G/SG/N/11/TUR/17/Suppl.1 and G/SG/N/14/TUR/7 dated 31 January 2012. WT/DS428/1 
G/L/979 G/SG/D41/1 
Page 2 
  
  2. Turkey imposed definitive safeguard measures on imports of cotton yarn with effect from 
15 July 2008 for a period of 3 years. The said measures were to expire on 14 July 2011.   Turkey initiated a review on 11 June, 2011 to  consider extension of the period of application of the said 
measure.  Turkey imposed provisional safeguard measures on 4 August 2011 with retroactive effect 
from 15 July, 2011 without making the required determ ination in the said review. Upon conclusion of 
the review, Turkey issued the definitive finding s on 25 January 2012 recomme nding continuation of 
the measures. The safeguard measu res as recommended in the defin itive findings were imposed on 
28 January 2012 retroactively with effect from 14 July 2011.  
3. India considers that as Turkey initiated a review  to extend the safeguard measures, it is under 
an obligation as per the provision of Article 7.2 of  the AoS to make a determination before the 
extension of measures, in conformity with the pro cedures set out in Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the AoS 
that the safeguard measures continue to be necess ary to prevent or remedy serious injury to its 
domestic industry, that there is evidence that the in dustry is adjusting and the pertinent provisions of 
Articles 8 and 12 have been observed.  Without ma king a determination as re quired under Article 7.2, 
Turkey imposed provisional safeguard measures  on 4 August 2011 with retroactive effect from 
15 July, 2011 as per Decree /notification No.2011/20 41 dated 4 August 2011.  India considers that the 
extension of safeguard measures by imposing provisi onal measures is inconsistent with the AoS as 
Turkey cannot take recourse to provisional meas ures under Article 6 of the AoS while undertaking a 
review of existing measures.  At the time of appl ying initial safeguard measures in 2008, Turkey had 
also applied safeguard measures on provisional basis for 200 days which were followed by definitive 
safeguard measures.  India considers that impos ition of provisional safeguard measures is permitted 
under Article 6 of the AoS for a maximum period of 200 days only in an original investigation and not 
in a review for extension of existing measures. 
4. India considers that the measures in question ar e inconsistent with Turkey's obligations under 
the following provisions of  the GATT 1994 and th e AoS in, at least, the following aspects:   
(a) With regard to the definitive Safeguard M easures imposed with effect from 15 July 2008, 
Turkey acted inconsistently with the provisions of -  
(i) Article XIX:(1(a) of GATT 1994 and Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c) of the AoS as 
Turkey did not establish that increased imports causing serious injury to the 
domestic industry were as a result of  unforeseen developments and of the 
effect of GATT obligations; 
(ii) Articles 2.1, 3.1, 4.1(c), 4.2(c) of the AoS as Turkey did not consider data 
relating to domestic producers whose collective output constituted a 'major 
proportion' of total domestic producti on of like or directly competitive 
articles; 
(iii) Articles 2.1, 3.1, 4.2(b) and 4.2(c) of the AoS as Turkey failed to 
demonstrate, on the basis of objective evidence, the existence of causal link 
between increased imports and serious injury; 
(iv) Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994 and Articles 3.1, 4.2 (c), 5.1 and 7.1 of 
the AoS as Turkey failed to establish th at the measure was necessary for a 
period of three years to 'facilitate adjustment' as the investigation report did 
not consider this aspect at all;  WT/DS428/1 
 G/L/979 
 G/SG/D41/1 
 Page 3 
  
  (b) With regard to the provisional safeguard m easures imposed on 4 August 2011 retroactively 
with effect from 15 July 2011, Turkey ac ted inconsistently with the provisions of- 
 
(i) Articles 7.1 and 7.2 of the AoS by extending the period of initial application 
of measures after their expiry and by retroactively applying the provisional measures; 
(ii) Articles 3.1, 4.2(c), and 7.2 of the AoS as Turkey extended the measures on 
4 August 2011 with retroactive effect from 15 July 2011 without making any 
determination that the safeguard me asure continues to be necessary to 
prevent or remedy serious injury and that the domestic industry is adjusting; 
(iii) Article 7.2 of the AoS, read with Artic les 3.1, 4.2(a), (b) and (c), as Turkey 
did not make the required determination based on an evaluation of all relevant factors and Turkey did not demonstrate on the basis of objective 
evidence, the existence of causal link; 
(iv) Articles 3.1, 4.2(c) and 6 of the AoS as Turkey did not make a preliminary 
determination establishing the critical circumstances and that there was clear evidence of increased imports causing or threatening to cause serious injury, 
whereas Turkey imposed provisional safeguard measures by stating " …… 
provisional safeguard measure is proposed to eliminate uncertainty that 
could come out with the ongoing investigation on the necessity of the extension of the current measures"
4 ; 
(v) Article 6 of the AoS as Turkey impo sed provisional measures in excess of 
200 days by imposing these measure s on two occasions in 2008 and on 
4 August, 2011 for 200 days on each occasion; 
(vi) Article 6 of the AoS, read with Article 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3, as imposition of 
provisional measures is permitted only at the time of original investigation 
before initial application of definitive measures but not permitted in a review 
meant for extending the period of initial application of measures;  
(vii) Article 6 of the AoS, read with Ar ticle 7.2, as Turkey imposed the 
provisional measures retroactively and not prospectively; 
(viii) Article 7.5 of the AoS as the initial app lication period of safeguard measures 
expired on 14 July 2011 and Turkey made the fresh application of measures 
on the same product without waiting fo r the mandatory period as required 
under Article 7.5 of the AoS;  
(ix) Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c)  of the AoS as  Turkey neither made a determination 
nor published any report of its findings  as required under Article 6 or 7, as 
the case may be; 
                                                      
4 WTO Document G/SG/N/6/TUR/14/Suppl.1, G/ SG/N/7/TUR/10 and G/SG/N/11/TUR/17 dated 
24 June, 2011. WT/DS428/1 
G/L/979 G/SG/D41/1 
Page 4 
  
  (x) Article 5.1 of the AoS, read with Artic le 6 and 7.1,  which provides for the 
application of a safeguard measure only for remedying serious injury and to facilitate adjustment and not with a view to eliminate uncertainty;    
(xi) Article 12.1 (c) of the AoS, which provides for notifying the Committee on 
Safeguards upon taking a decision to appl y or extend a safeguard measure. 
(c) With regard to the definitive measures applied on 28 January 2012 retroactively with effect 
from 15 July 2011, Turkey acted inconsistently with the provisions of- 
 
(i) Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994 and Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c) of the AoS as 
Turkey did not establish that increased imports causing serious injury to the 
domestic industry were as a result of  unforeseen developments and of the 
effect of GATT obligations;   
(ii) Article 7.2 of the AoS as Turkey extended the period of application of 
measures on 28 January 2012 after the expiry of the measures on 
14 July 2011, and without making a prior determination  in conformity with 
the procedures set out in Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the AoS that the safeguard measures continue to be necessary to prev ent or remedy serious injury to its 
domestic industry, that there is evidence that the industry is adjusting, and provided that the pertinent provisions  of Articles 8 and 12 having been 
observed.   
(iii) Article 7.5 of the AoS as the initial app lication period of safeguard measures 
expired on 14 July 2011 and Turkey made the fresh application of measures 
on the same product on 28 January 20 12 without waiting for the mandatory 
period  as required under Article 7.5 of the AoS;  
(iv) Article 7.2 of AoS as the determinatio n made by Turkey did not meet the 
requirements of Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of AoS regarding determinations with 
respect to domestic industry, like or directly competitive articles, serious 
injury or threat thereof, causal link an d that the safeguard measures continued 
to be necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury and that there was 
evidence that the industry was adjusting.  
5. India considers further that the measures at issu e have a serious adverse impact on the export 
of cotton yarn from India to Turkey. India also rese rves its right to raise additional claims and legal 
matters that may arise during the consultations in relation to the measures at issue and their 
application under the Agreement on Safeguards and the GATT 1994. 
6. In view of the above, India looks forward to recei ving Turkey's reply to this request within the 
prescribed time limit.  India proposes that the date  and venue of these consultations may be mutually 
agreed. 
__________