RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SG/M/29 
12 September 2006 
 (06-4336) 
Committee on Safeguards  
  
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING 
HELD ON 24 APRIL 2006   
 
Chairman:  Mr. Mirko Zambelli (Switzerland) 
  
1. The Committee on Safeguards (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 24 April 2006. 
2. Mr. Zambelli stated that he would chair the meeting as the acting chairman, since the former 
chair, Mrs. Ana Novik, had returned to Chile.  The following agenda was adopted: 
A.
 NATIONAL LEGISLATION .............................................................................................................2  
1. Australia - Review of New Legislative Notification ...............................................................2  
2. Ecuador - Review of New Legislative Notification.................................................................4  
3. China – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Legislative Notification ....................4  
B. NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RELATED TO SAFEGUARD MEASURES ............................................7  
1. Bulgaria – Crown Corks ......................................................................................................... .7 
2. Canada – Unmanufactured Bright Virginia Flue-Cured Tobacco.......................................7  
3. Chile – Wheat Flour............................................................................................................ ......7  
4. European Communities – Mandarins.....................................................................................7  
5. European Communities  – Strawberries..................................................................................7  
6. Indonesia – Lighters ........................................................................................................... ......8  
7. Indonesia – Cerami c Tableware ..............................................................................................8  
8. Indonesia – Cast Glass and Rolled Glass................................................................................8  
9. Morocco – Cera mic Tiles........................................................................................................ ..8 
10. Philippines – Sodium Tripolyphosphates ...............................................................................8  
11. Turkey – Footwear.............................................................................................................. ......8  
12. Turkey – Salt .................................................................................................................. ...........9  
13. Turkey – Vacuum Cleaners .....................................................................................................9  
14. Turkey – Steam Smoothing Irons............................................................................................9  
C. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 9.1......................................................................................................9  
D. OTHER BUSINESS .......................................................................................................................10  
E. DATE OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING ....................................................................................10  
F. ELECTION OF OFFICERS .............................................................................................................10  
 G/SG/M/29 
Page 2  
  A. N
ATIONAL LEGISLATION  
3. The Chairman  stated that the first item on the Committee's agenda was the review of 
notifications of national safeguard legislations and/or regulations, in accordance with the procedures 
adopted by the Committee at its special meeting in  April 1996.  The Chairman mentioned that as it 
had been indicated in the airgram convening th e meeting, the Committee had received legislative 
notifications from two Members.  As indicated in  the annotated draft agenda dated 20 March 2006, 
questions regarding these legislative notifications  were to have been submitted to the Member 
concerned and to the Secretariat no later than 3 April 2006. 
4. Concerning the procedure for this meeting, the Ch airman stated that he would first give the 
floor to the Member whose legislation was being revi ewed, to make any introductory statement that it 
wished.  He would then invite that Member to  present its answers to any written questions.  The 
Chairman reminded Members of the Committee that  in accordance with the procedures adopted by 
the Committee, a written version of those answers al so had to be provided after the meeting.  The 
Chairman also reminded Members that follow-up ques tions could be asked at this meeting.  Other 
delegations would also be given an opportunity to pr esent questions orally at this meeting.  After the 
meeting, there would be a period for the submi ssion of written questions concerning any of the 
legislations reviewed in the meeting. 
5. The Chairman mentioned that if Members wished  to have written answers to questions, they 
had to ensure that all questions were presented in writing to the Member whose legislation was 
concerned, and to the Secretariat, no later than th ree weeks after the meeting, i.e., no later than 
15 May 2006.  Written answers to all questions su bmitted in writing by that deadline had to be 
submitted to the Secretariat no later than three weeks later, i.e., no later than 6 June 2006. 
1. Australia - Review of New Legislative Notification  
6. The Chairman  noted that Australia's legislative notification was contained in document 
G/SG/N/1/AUS/2/Suppl.1.  He also noted that  in document G/SG/Q1/AUS/4, the European 
Communities had posed questions on this notification.  
7. The representative of Australia  stated that written responses had been distributed that day, and 
that he would not read the full text.  On question on e, he stated that WTO caselaw provided that if a 
Member complied with the principle of "paralle lism", then the non-application of the safeguard 
measure to the imports from a free trade agreement partner was compatible with the WTO Agreement 
on Safeguards.  An aspect of the principle of pa rallelism required that if a Member had excluded 
imports from a free trade agreement partner from th e scope of its safeguards measures, then that 
Member had to exclude those imports from the injury phase.    
8. In relation to question 2, he stated that WTO caselaw had clarified that if a Member had 
excluded certain imports from the application of the safeguard measure, that Member had to consider 
such imports as a factor "other than increased im ports" within the meaning of Article 4.2(b).  The 
words "from the inquiry" were deleted to ensure th at Australia's competent authority could apply the 
principle of parallelism in Articles 2 and 4 of the Agreement on Safeguards. 
9. In relation to question 3 of the European Commun ities, he stated that Australia would ensure 
that the obligations under Articles 2.1 and 4. 2 of the Agreement on Safeguards were met. 
10. In relation to question 4, the representative of  Australia stated that Australia had conducted 
only one safeguard investigation since the WTO Agre ements had come into force, that no safeguard 
actions had been initiated since Australia entered into a Free Trade Agreement with Singapore and 
that in the event of a safeguard investigation, Aust ralia would exclude products of Singapore origin in  G/SG/M/29 
 Page 3 
 
 
  the injury and remedy phases of the safeguards inves tigations, consistent with  Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of 
the Agreement on Safeguards. 
11. In relation to question 5 (1), he stated that the Productivity Commission would conduct injury 
investigations in the manner described in the res ponses to Questions 1 and 2 above.  In relation to 
question 5 (2), he stated that  new paragraphs 5(d)  and (e) of the Australian Gazette did not purport to 
conduct injury investigations cove ring imports originating in specific countries.  In relation to 
question 5 (3), he stated that Chapter 5 of th e Australia-Thailand Free Trade Agreement defined the 
term "serious damage" as "a significant overall impa irment in the position of the domestic industry" 
and that Article 4.1(a) of the WTO Agreement on Safeguards defined "serious injury" to mean 
"a significant overall impairment in the position of a domestic industry".  In relation to question 5 (4), 
he stated that the different terms used in paragr aphs 5(d) and (e) are simply a reflection of the 
different languages used in the two treaties, and that  Australia would take full account of its rights and 
obligations under these provisions of the two trea ties as well as its rights and obligations under the 
WTO Agreements in the application of these provisions.  In relation to question 5 (5), he stated that 
the treatment of imports from the United States or Thailand would be considered by Australia in its 
decision to initiate a safeguards investigation, an d that any decision would be consistent with 
Australia's rights and obligations under the WTO Agreements and the respective free trade 
agreements.  In relation to question 5 (6), he stated  that Australia's administrative procedures were in 
compliance with Australia's obligations under Ar ticle XIX of the GATT and the WTO Agreement on 
Safeguards, and that its applica tion of free trade agreements woul d be in compliance with the WTO 
Agreements, including Article 4.2 of  the Agreement on Safeguards.   
12. The representative of the European Communities  stated that he would like to react on a 
provisional basis to some of the replies.  In the r esponse to question 1, Austra lia had stated that there 
was a WTO caselaw concerning the exclusion of countries with which a Member has a Free Trade Agreement.  However, the representative of th e European Communities did not agree with the 
presentation of "parallelism" as summarized by Au stralia.  He recalled that the Appellate Body 
explicitly declined to examine the issue of the exclusion of the FTA Members from the scope of the 
safeguard measure, and actually went as far as sayi ng that any statements by the Panel on this issue 
were mute and had no legal effect.  He stated th at thus the principle of the exclusion and its 
compatibility with the Safeguards Agreement remained  very much an open question.  Concerning the 
response to question 5 (2), the representative of the European Communities stated that reading the 
amendments, he understood that Australia had to make a determination of whether imports from the 
United States were not a substantial cause of serious  injury or serious damage.  He could not  
understand how this determin ation could be reached without some kind of injury investigation in the 
first place.  He further commented on the use of different language in the amendments to define 
apparently the same concept and stated that this was another of their concerns.  While the European 
Communities understood very well that FTA negotiations with specific countries might lead to the 
adoption of specific language, to what extent that la nguage had to be reflected ad verbatim into the 
regulation implementing safeguards instruments was a matter of concern, because different languages 
apparently covered the same concepts.  
13. The representative of Australia
 stated that while he could go into a discussion of the 
interpretation of the WTO cases, he did not propose to  do so.  He stated that the best way to proceed 
was probably to see whether the European Commun ities had follow-up questions, and that Australia 
would be happy to respond accordingly.   
14. The Chairman  noted that in document G/SG/Q1/AUS/5, the Separate Customs Territory of 
Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu had also posed questions on this notification.  
15. The representative of Australia  stated that written responses had been distributed that day, and 
that he would not read the full text.  On question 1, he stated that Australia had conducted only one G/SG/M/29 
Page 4  
  safeguard action investigation since WTO Agreements  had come into force, and that no safeguard 
action had been initiated since Australia entered into  free trade agreements with the United States and 
Thailand.  In the event of a safeguards investiga tion, treatment of imports from the United States or 
Thailand would be considered by the authority in it s decision to initiate a safeguards investigation.  
Any decision would be consistent with Australia 's rights and obligations under the WTO Agreements 
and the respective free trade agreements.  He stated that if Australia decided to exclude imports from 
the United States and/or Thailand in that safeguard s investigation, Australia would exclude such 
imports in the injury and remedy phases of the safegu ards investigations, consistent with Articles 2.1 
and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards.  In rela tion to question 2, the representative of Australia 
stated that the respective free trade agreements ex clusively conferred origin on goods originating in 
Singapore, the United Stated and Thailand. 
16. The representative of the Separate Customs Te rritory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu
 
(Chinese Taipei ) stated that the answers pr ovided by Australia still left many questions unanswered, 
and it was difficult to reason how these exempti ons could be decided without any injury 
determinations.  It was  also not clear whether these provisions exempted imports from the particular FTA partners from the inquiry aspect or from the enti re procedure.  Regarding the second question, he 
stated that it was unclear how the implementing aut hority would decide where the imports originated 
from to begin with.  
17. The representative of Australia
 stated that as was mentioned in relation to the questions from 
the European Communities, Australia had an interp retation of the WTO caselaw which justified the 
legislation notified.  In relation to the exemption from the injury and remedy phase, he stated that 
under the parallelism approach, it was a justifiable approach for a Member to be excluded from both 
elements.  In relation to the rules of origin, he st ated that his preliminary response would be that the 
rules of origin provisions were contained in the Ag reements themselves and, therefore that issue could 
be determined under the Agreements.  
2. Ecuador - Review of New Legislative Notification 
18. The Chairman  noted that the next legislative no tification on the agenda was Ecuador's 
notification contained in document G/SG/N/1/ECU/4/Rev.1. 
19. The representative of Ecuador  stated that this notification of Resolution was made from the 
viewpoint of transparency and that thus far, the investigating authority in Ecuador had not taken any 
action based on this new Resolution.  He stated  that Ecuador had some initial contacts with the 
delegation of China, and explained the investigation process.  He  stated that Ecuador was ready to 
continue with the dialogue to deal with any c oncern or question from the delegation of China. 
3. China – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Legislative Notification  
20. The Chairman  recalled that this agenda item related to  notifications of legislation from China 
previously considered in the Committee.  He  noted that written questions concerning these 
notifications had been received from the Eur opean Communities in document G/SG/Q1/CHN/26 and 
from Japan in document G/SG/Q1/CHN/25/Rev.1. 
21. The representative of China  stated that written answers to all these questions had been 
submitted and would be circulat ed to all Members very soon1, and that he would provide brief 
answers orally.   
22. Regarding the first question from Japan, he stated that based on the provisions of the Dispute 
Settlement Understanding, China was entitled to reso rt to the multilateral dispute settlement as a 
                                                      
1  Subsequently circulated as G/SG/Q1/CHN/27 and G/SG/Q1/CHN/28.  G/SG/M/29 
 Page 5 
 
 
  countermeasure against a discriminatory measure taken by a WTO Member, in order to bring it into 
conformity.  If a relevant measure was taken by  a non-WTO Member, China was free to take any 
action as a countermeasure.  In light of Article 6 and Article 7 of the Foreign Trade Law, Article 31 of 
the Regulation on Safeguards was the application of  the principle of reciprocity in the area of 
safeguard measures embodied in the Foreign Trade La w.  He stated that until now, China had not 
applied Article 31 of the Regula tion on Safeguards.  Regarding question 2 (1) from Japan, the 
representative of China stated that China would, in  the course of a safeguard investigation, take 
"unforeseen developments" into consideration and w ould give certain explanations in this regard. 
With respect to question 2 (2) from Japan, he pointed out that Article 12 of the Regulation stated that 
"the Ministry of Commerce shall provide opportuniti es for importers, exporters  and other interested 
parties to present their views and supporting argumen ts".  Regarding question 2 (3) from Japan, he 
stated that consultations under Article 24 of the Regulation included the consultation on the 
compensation measures, and if China took safeguard  measures, it would honour the obligations set by 
the WTO Agreement.  Regarding question 3 from Japan, he explained that Article 14 of the 
Regulation stipulated that "the explanations to the findings of an investigation on the increase in 
quantity of imports, injuries and the reasons thereof shall be published by the Ministry of Commerce" 
and that China would publish the relevant in formation in accordance with this Article. 
23. With respect to the question posed by the Eu ropean Communities, the representative of China 
stated that Article 7 of the Foreign Trade Law was an  article in the Chapter of General Provisions that 
remained unchanged in the 2004 amendment of the legislation.  The implementation of Article 7 
would be subject to more detaile d rules provided for in the following chapters of Foreign Trade Law 
including Article 47, which ensured that China would abide by the WTO rules where WTO Members 
were concerned. 
24. The representative of Japan  stated that she appreciated the promise by China to apply 
safeguard measures in conformity with WTO rules.   However, Japan still had some concerns about 
China's answers.  She stated that  Japan first wished to confirm that Article 31 was aimed only at non-
WTO Members, and that when China took releva nt measures against WTO Members, China would 
have recourse to the laws and procedures of the WTO rules.  In relation to unforeseen developments, 
she stated that the Appellate Body made clear in Argentina – Footwear that the unforeseen 
developments clause contained in GATT Article XIX had meaning and lega l effect and imposed 
obligations on Members, in addition to provisions co ntained in the Safeguards Agreement.  Therefore, 
Japan requested China to provide clearly the unf oreseen developments as one of the factors of 
safeguard investigations in its legislation or in  subordinate instruments.  On the issue of the 
opportunity for interested parties to submit views, she stated that Article 3 of the Safeguards Agreement required Member countries to provide a ll interested parties with a chance for a public 
hearing.  In particular, it provided that this shoul d include an opportunity to submit their views as to 
whether or not the application of a safeguard measu re would be in the public interest.  Based on the 
above, she asked whether Article 12 of Regulation pr ovided a related party the opportunity to submit 
its views on public interest.  Finally, on the issue of disclosure of data, she stated that she wanted to 
reconfirm her understanding that China would disclo se relevant data and analysis, including how 
many products of the total domes tic production were covered.  
25. The representative of the European Communities
 stated that he wished to confirm if China 
was in the process of adopting new rules which would further clarify the scope of application of 
Article 7 of the Foreign Trade Law.  The European  Communities believed that it would be clearer if 
Article 7 was clarified on its scope of application. 
26. The representative of China  stated that he would provide preliminary responses to the follow-
up questions by Japan and the European Communities.   Regarding Article 31 of the Regulation, he 
stated that the countermeasures had a very broad meaning, and China was entitled to resort to the 
multilateral dispute settlement as a countermeasure, in  conformity with the WTO rules, in order to G/SG/M/29 
Page 6  
  bring any discriminatory measure taken by a WTO Member.  Regarding the second question by 
Japan, he stated that China c onsidered that Article XIX of the GATT 1994 and the Safeguard 
Agreement should be applied cumulati vely.  He stated that in the c ourse of the investigation, China 
would provide the explanation of the requirement of an unforeseen development and, thus, China was 
in conformity with the WTO rules.  Regarding the third question from Japan, he stated that Article 12 
of the Regulation established very clearly that the Ministry of Commerce w ould provide opportunities 
for any interested parties to present their views and arguments.   
27. Regarding the question from the European Communities concerning Article 7 of the Foreign 
Trade Law, he stated that China currently did not have any plan for new legislation in the area of 
Foreign Trade.  He reiterated that Article 7 provi ded a very general principle of the Foreign Trade 
Law, and that it should be applied together with al l other provisions in the Foreign Trade Law.  He 
stated in closing that China welcomed  any follow-up questions in writing. 
28. The representative of Japan
 stated that he was concerned that there might have been a 
miscommunication.  Concerning Article 31, without prejudice to how China treated non-WTO Members, he wanted to confirm that China would not resort to any measures inconsistent with WTO 
Agreements, including the DSU, vis-à-vis  WTO Members.  On the issue of unforeseen developments, 
he stated that while Japan understood that it could expect China to proceed in conformity with WTO 
Agreement, it was still concerned how China woul d draft the wording in the legislations and 
subordinate instruments, and that Japan wished to se e as much as clarity as possible.  Finally, on the 
issues of proportion of domestic industry vis-à-vis  domestic total production and opportunities for 
interested parties to present views, he stated that  it was Japan's view that the Safeguard Agreement 
required more clarity in the legislations.  He stated  in closing that Japan would, at any rate, examine 
China's response closely and reve rt to the issues as necessary.  
29. The representative of China
 stated that all of the answers were clear in the written responses, 
that there should be no doubt that China would im plement all relevant WTO rules, and that until now 
China had only applied one safeguards measure, regarding steel products, in which China had 
considered all the WTO rules. 
30. The Chairman  stated that  the legislative review process was, as always, of benefit to the 
Committee.  He reminded Members that the d eadline for any written questions concerning the 
legislations reviewed at this  meeting was 15 May 2006.  The deadline for written answers to all 
questions posed in writing was 6 June 2006. 
31. Concerning these deadlines, he reminded the Committee of the importance of providing 
written answers to written questions.  Such excha nge constituted the Committee's only record of the 
review of legislations.  Thus, the Committee's reco rds were left incomplete when written questions 
were not answered, or were only answered long after the meeting at which the review took place.  In 
this context, the Chairman urged all Members to abide by the deadlines set by the Committee for the 
provision of written replies to written questions. 
32. Before proceeding to the next agenda item, th e Chairman informed th e Committee that there 
were still 31 Members that had not yet made a legi slative notification:  Angola, Antigua & Barbuda, 
Belize, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Centra l African Republic, Congo, Democratic Republic 
of the Congo, Djibouti, Gabon, the Gambia, Grenada, Guinea Bissau, Guyana, Kuwait, Mali, 
Mauritania, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Papua Ne w Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts & Nevis, Saint 
Vincent & Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone , Solomon Islands, Swazila nd, Tanzania and Togo. 
33. On this list, he added that he was aware th at Saudi Arabia had only recently acceded to the 
WTO, and that he looked forward to their notification in the near future.  The Chairman stated that he 
regretted that the number of Members that had failed to make any legislative notification remained so  G/SG/M/29 
 Page 7 
 
 
  high.  He urged these Members to make the required notification and reminded that in cases where no 
legislation existed, a simple notifi cation indicating "nil" was required. 
34. The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
B. NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RELATED TO SAFEGUARD MEASURES  
35. The Chairman  noted that various notifications had been  received since the last meeting.  In 
order to ensure that all of these could be review ed in the limited time available, the Chairman  
suggested that the Committee address the relevant safeguard investigations as separate agenda items, 
and review all of the notifications pertaining to each separate investigation at the same time.   
1. Bulgaria – Crown Corks  
36. The Chairman  noted that Bulgaria had made notifi cations regarding its investigation on 
crowned corks in document G/SG/N/10/ BGR/1/Suppl.1-G/SG/N/11/BGR/1/Suppl.1-
G/SG/N/13/BGR/1/Suppl.1.  
37. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.  
2. Canada – Unmanufactured Bright Virginia Flue-Cured Tobacco  
38. The Chairman  noted that Canada had made a notifi cation regarding its investigation on 
Unmanufactured Bright Virginia Flue-Cured  Tobacco in documents  G/SG/N/6/CAN/3, 
G/SG/N/9/CAN/2 and G/SG/N/9/CAN/2/Corr.1. 
39. There were no comments or questions regarding these notifications.  
3. Chile – Wheat Flour   
40. The Chairman  noted that Chile had made a notification regarding its investigation on wheat 
flour in document G/SG/N/10/CHL/6/Suppl.3-G/SG/N/11/CHL/5/Suppl.2.         
41. There were no comments or questions regarding these notifications.  
4. European Communities – Mandarins  
42. The Chairman  noted that the European Communities had made a notification regarding its 
investigation on mandarins in document G/SG/N/13/EEC/1. 
43. The representative of the European Communities  stated that this was a notification of the 
result of a mid-term review concerning the safegua rd measures imposed in April 2004 on imports of 
mandarins.  The outcome of the review was that ther e should be no change to the current measure and 
no change to the pace of liberalisation of the measure. 
5. European Communities – Strawberries  
44. The Chairman  noted that the next item was another notification from the European 
Communities, contained in document G/SG/N/9/EEC/1 regarding the terminatio n of investigation on 
strawberries.  
45. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.  G/SG/M/29 
Page 8  
  6. Indonesia – Lighters 
46. The Chairman
 noted that the next item was Indonesia's notification regarding the termination 
of an investigation on lighters, cont ained in document G/SG/N/9/IDN/1.  
47. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.  
7. Indonesia – Ceramic Tableware  
48. The Chairman  noted that the next item was another notification from Indonesia regarding its 
investigation on ceramic tableware, cont ained in document G/SG/N/8/IDN/1/Suppl.1–
G/SG/N/10/IDN/1/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/11/IDN/1/Suppl.1.  
49. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.  
8. Indonesia – Cast Glass and Rolled Glass  
50. The Chairman  noted that the next item was another notification from Indonesia regarding the 
initiation of an investigation on cast glass and rolled glass, contained in document G/SG/N/6/IDN/3.  
51. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.  
9. Morocco – Ceramic Tiles  
52. The Chairman  noted that the next item was Morocco's notification regarding its investigation 
on ceramic tiles, contained in document G/ SG/N/8/MAR/2/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/10/MAR/2/Suppl.1–
G/SG/N/11/MAR/1/Suppl.1.  
53. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.  
10. Philippines – Sodium Tripolyphosphates  
54. The Chairman  noted that the next item was the Philippines' notification, contained in 
document G/SG/N/6/PHL/6, regarding the initiation of an  investigation on sodium tripolyphosphates.   
55. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.  
11. Turkey – Footwear 
56. The Chairman  noted that the next item was Turkey's notification, contained in document 
G/SG/N/6/TUR/6, regarding the initiation of an investigation on footwear.  
57. The representative of the European Communities  stated that he would like to express concern 
about the fact that Turkey again had initiated several  cases at the same time.  He wished to reiterate 
that the European Communities considered the safeguards to be limited to truly exceptional 
circumstances and cases of emergency, and the European Communities w as concerned that the 
repeated initiation of many cases in Turkey did not s it well with that notion.  He stated that the 
European Communities had a significant trade interest in all of the cases, and would follow them very 
closely. 
58. The representative of Turkey  stated that these investigations were initiated after the 
application by the domestic industry, and so as long as the application was proper and qualified 
according to the legislation, Turkey could not refuse them.   G/SG/M/29 
 Page 9 
 
 
  12. Turkey – Salt 
59. The Chairman  noted that the next item was another notification from Turkey, contained in 
document G/SG/N/6/TUR/7, regarding the in itiation of an investigation on salt.  
60. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.  
13. Turkey – Vacuum Cleaners 
61. The Chairman  noted that the next item was another notification from Turkey, contained in 
document G/SG/N/6/TUR/8, regarding the initiation of an investigation on vacuum cleaners.  
62. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.  
14. Turkey – Steam Smoothing Irons 
63. The Chairman  noted that the next item was another notification from Turkey, contained in 
document G/SG/N/6/TUR/9, regarding the initiation of an investigation on steam smoothing irons.  
64. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.  
65. Finally, the Chairman  recalled that any questions concerni ng the notifications of actions taken 
for which written responses were requested had to be sent to the Member concerned and to the 
Secretariat no later than 15 May  2006.  Written an swers must be submitted to the Secretariat no later 
than 6 June 2006. 
66. The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
C. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 9.1 
67. The Chairman  recalled that following the discussions at the November 2005 regular meeting 
of the Committee, Members agreed to continue to di scuss this issue.  He stated that as requested at 
that meeting, the Secretariat had prepared an update  of the table of relevant notifications, which had 
been faxed to Members on 3 April 2006. 
68. The representative of Malaysia  stated that she found the updated version informative and 
useful.  She stated that while Malaysia had seve ral issues it wished to discuss further in the 
Committee, her capital was still considering the next s ubmission.  She stated that thus, she was not in 
a position to make any substantive comments. 
69. The delegate of Chinese Taipei  asked whether the table could be put on the WTO Website 
with a document number so that Members did not lose track of this compilation of useful information.  
He further stated that when looking at the table, esp ecially the fifth column (numbers of exclusions), 
the very different practices of Members became apparent.  There were at least three Members that had made exclusions of the developing countries in a num ber of less than 20, while for most of the others 
the exemption extended to many more than one hundre d.  He stated that Chinese Taipei was curious 
about these very different practices of the Me mbers, because accordin g to Chinese Taipei's 
interpretation of the Safeguard Agreement, all de veloping Members below the thresholds should be 
exempt, and they did not understand why, for exampl e, there could be one, two or three countries.  
There were other Members which did not notify th e list of the exemptions at all, and gave no 
explanation about how the exclusi ons were made.  According to Chinese Taipei's experience, in 
relation to interim reviews, some Members only inves tigated if there were some developing Members' 
import share of more than 2 per cent.  He stated  that all these issue were important, and that he G/SG/M/29 
Page 10  
  appreciated and welcomed the future work of Mala ysia and that Chinese Taipei would continue to 
work together with Malaysia on this subject. 
70. The Chairman
 stated that concerning the first question from Chinese Taipei, it would not be a 
problem to put the document on the WTO Website if  Members so agreed.  Seeing no objection, he 
stated that he would proceed accordingly.  
71. The representative of Argentina  requested that Members be given 24 hours before the 
document was placed on the website, in order to check the information.  
72. The Chairman  agreed with Argentina's request and st ated that the Secretariat would resend a 
new draft to all delegations providing time for c onfirmation, and then make the document available 
on-line.2 He then suggested that the Committee l eave this issue for the time being under the 
understanding that the Committee would take it up again if any Member requested to do so.  
73. The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
D. OTHER BUSINESS  
74. There were no issues raised under this agenda item. 
E. DATE OF THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING  
75. The Chairman  recalled that regular meetings would norm ally be held in April and October, in 
conjunction with the regular meetings of the Committees on Anti-Dumping Practices and Subsidies 
and Countervailing Measures.  Accordingly, he sugge sted that the Safeguards Committee meet either 
in the week of 23 October or 30 October 2006.  He stated that the exact date would be confirmed later. 
76. The Committee so agreed
. 
F. ELECTION OF OFFICERS  
77. The Chairman  stated that the Chairman 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.  He stated that con cerning this Committee, the Chairman of the Council 
for Trade in Goods proposed the nomination of Mr. Seung-ho Kim of Korea.  He therefore proposed 
that the Committee elect Mr. Se ung-ho Kim as Chairperson.   
78. The Committee so agreed . 
79. Regarding the position of Vice Chair of the Co mmittee, the Chairman stated that he had 
conducted consultations with a num ber of Members and, on the basi s of those consultations, he 
proposed that the Committee elect Ms. Jo McKeagg of New Zealand as Vice-Chair of the Committee.  
80. The Committee so agreed . 
__________ 
 
 
                                                      
2  The document was subsequently circulated as G/SG/W/204 on 22 May 2006.