. /.   WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SG/Q2/PHL/6 
1 October 2009 
 (09-4607) 
Committee on Safeguards Original:   English 
  
 
NOTIFICATION UNDER ARTICLE 12.1(C) OF THE  
AGREEMENT ON SAFEGUARDS  
 
Follow-up Questions on Replies from THAILAND
1 
Regarding Notifications of the PHILIPPINES2 
 
(Glass Mirrors ) 
   The following communication, dated 29 September 2009, is being circulated at the request of 
the Delegation of Thailand.   
 
_______________ 
 
  Thailand would like to present the below co mments and follow-up questions to the 
Philippines on its replies in document G/SG/Q2/PHL/5
 dated 1 May 2009.  These comments and 
questions were addressed to the Philippines during the May 2009 meeting of the Committee on Safeguards under agenda item 2B:  Notifications of Actions Related to Safeguard Measures:  (xviii) 
Philippines – Glass Mirrors.    Question 1 
 
 First, in its answer to question 1 on the effect  of the suspension, the Philippines states that 
importers are exempt from paying safeguard duties during the suspension.  We would also appreciate it if the Philippines could clarify whether gua rantees are required during the suspension.   
 Question 2 
 
 For the answer to question 2 about the duration of the measure, the Philippines states that the 
suspension will remain in place unless the local producer resumes normal operation before the 
measure expires.  Does this mean that the suspension and the underlying measure will both be 
terminated once and if the domestic producer r esumes normal operation?  How does the Philippines 
determine or define the term "normal operation"?  We note that the Philippines uses the term "normal 
operation" in its third answer as well.    
Question 3 
 
 The Philippines' third answer pertains to the po ssible reinstatement of the original measure.  
Thailand had asked whether the suspension could be  revoked and the suspended duty reinstated.  The 
Philippines answered that th e suspension "will be revoked once the industry resumes normal 
operations".  Does this mean that, if the domestic  industry were to resume normal operations, the 
                                                     
 
1 G/SG/Q2/PHL/5.   
2 G/SG/N/14/PHL/4/Suppl.2.   G/SG/Q2/PHL/6 
Page 2  
 
  suspension would be revoked and the underlying measur e also terminated?  We also note that, like in 
the Philippines' second answer, the term "normal op erations" is used here, but in conjunction with 
"industry" rather than the "local producer".  Our next question is therefore whether the Philippines determines or defines "normal operations" in both contexts in the same way?   
 Question 4 
 
 For answer four concerning duty reinstatemen t procedures, we hope that any procedures 
adopted by the Philippines are tran sparent and notified in a timely manner, in line with the current 
transparency improvements we are striving towards in this body.   
 
Question 5 
 
 Finally, on answer five, the Philippines notes that it is not aware of any intention on the part of domestic industry to petition for another extension.   If this does occur and the Philippines' decides 
to extend the measure, we hope the Philippines wo uld consider notifying its decision to the WTO 
under the new guidelines that might be adopted by th e Committee on Safeguards in the near future.   
  Because the Philippines' suspension was made on the basis of an Order by the Secretary of 
Trade and Industry dated 1 Septembe r 2008, we once again urge the Philippines to circulate a copy of 
that Order to the Committee on Safeguards for transp arency purposes.  The Philippines has previously 
notified a copy of a similar Order for the suspen sion of its duty on Figured Glass, in document 
G/SG/N/14/PHL/3/Suppl.1 dated 8 January 2008.     Finally, Thailand reiterates that the notificati on in question concerns a temporary suspension 
of a measure by the Philippines.  We would like to stress that although the suspension of a measure 
might have the effect of providing some temporar y relief to exporters, its uncertainty still poses 
possible disruption to trade.  In addition, the susp ension of the duty indicates to us that the domestic 
industry is no longer seriously injured by imports and the measure no longer necessary.  Therefore, we continue to urge the Philippines to te rminate the underlying measure altogether.   
 
__________