RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SG/M/26 
14 March 2005 
 (05-1073) 
Committee on Safeguards  
  
 
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING 
HELD ON 25 OCTOBER 2004 
 
Chairman:  Mr. Hervé Drouet (France) 
 
 
1. The Committee on Safeguards (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 25 October 2004. 
2. The following agenda was adopted: 
Page
 
A. ELECTION  OF OFFICERS........................................................................................................2  
B. NATIONAL  LEGISLATION.....................................................................................................2  
1. Jamaica – Review of New Legislative Notification.................................................................2  
2. Jordan – Review of New Legislative Notification ..................................................................3  
3. Turkey – Review of New Legislative Notification ..................................................................3  
4. China – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Legislative Notification ....................4  
C. NOTIFICATIONS  OF ACTIONS  RELATED  TO SAFEGUARD  MEASURES ......................5  
1. Argentina – Colour Television Sets .........................................................................................5  
2. Bulgaria – Certain Steel Products ...........................................................................................5  
3. Ecuador – Smooth Ceramics....................................................................................................5  
4. European Communities – Salmon...........................................................................................6  
5. European Communities – Mandarins.....................................................................................7  
6. India – Starch ................................................................................................................. ...........8  
7. Jamaica – Cement............................................................................................................... ......8  
8. Moldova – Cosmetics and Perfumery Products .....................................................................8  
9. Peru – Textil es Arti cles....................................................................................................... ......9  
10. Philippines – Gl ass Mirrors .................................................................................................... .9 
11. Philippines – Figured Glass.................................................................................................... ..9 
12. Philippines – Float Glass ...................................................................................................... ..10 
13. Turkey – Th ermometers.........................................................................................................1 0 
14. Turkey – Active Earth and Clays..........................................................................................10  
15. Turkey – Certain Glassware..................................................................................................10  G/SG/M/26 
Page 2  
 
 16.
 Turkey – Unframed  Glass Mirrors .......................................................................................11  
17. Turkey – Certain Volt meters and Ammeters.......................................................................11  
D. TRANSITIONAL  REVIEW  UNDER  PARAGRAPH  18 OF THE  PROTOCOL  OF 
ACCESSION  OF THE  PEOPLE'  S REPUBLIC  OF CHINA  TO THE  WORLD  
TRADE  ORGANIZATION......................................................................................................11  
E. APPLICATION  OF ARTICLE  9.1...........................................................................................15  
F. OTHER  BUSINESS .................................................................................................................18  
1. Brazil – Toys.................................................................................................................. ..........18  
G. ANNUAL  REPORT  TO THE  COUNCIL  ON TRADE  IN GOODS ........................................19  
H. DATE  OF THE  NEXT  REGULAR  MEETING .......................................................................20  
 
A. ELECTION  OF OFFICERS 
3. The Committee elected Mr. Hervé Drouet of France as Chairman, and 
Mr. Ahmed Talaat El Libedy of Egypt as Vice-Chair of the Committee.  
B. NATIONAL  LEGISLATION 
4. 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 3 Members.  As indicated in the annotated draft agenda attached to the fax dated 
17 September 2004, questions regarding these legislativ e notifications were to have been submitted to 
the Member concerned and to the Secretariat no later than 4 October 2004. 
5. 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 ha d also 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. 
6. 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 November 2004.  Written answers to all questions submitted in writing by that deadline had to be 
submitted to the Secretariat no later than three w eeks later, i.e., no later than 6 December 2004. 
1. Jamaica – Review of New Legislative Notification  
7. The Chairman  noted that Jamaica's legislative notif ications were contained in documents 
G/SG/N/1/JAM/2 and Corr.1  G/SG/M/26 
 Page 3 
 
 
 8. The representative of Jamaica  briefly explained that  Jamaica's national la ws and regulations 
as regards safeguards measures were contained in  the Safeguard Act of 2001 and the Safeguard 
Regulations of 2003 and that the competent authority was the Anti-dumping and Subsidies Commission. 
9. The representative of the United States
 stated that they had prepared some questions which 
they were in the process of submitting to Jamaica. 
2. Jordan – Review of New Legislative Notification 
10. The Chairman  noted that Jordan's legislative notif ications were contained in documents 
G/SG/N/1/JOR/2/Corr.1 and Corr.2. 
11. The representative of Jordan  stated that there was nothing to add about the law but only that 
the title, as was indicated in corrigendum 2, had to read "Temporary National Production Protection 
Law number 50 for the year 2002". 
12. No other delegation took the floor for comment or question. 
3. Turkey – Review of New Legislative Notification 
13. The Chairman  noted that Turkey's legislative notification was contained in document 
G/SG/N/1/TUR/3. 
14. The representative of Chinese Taipei  stated that they had submitted questions on 9 August 
(see document G/SG/Q1/TUR/2), and that they expect ed responses in oral form in this meeting and 
subsequently in written form. 
15. The representative of Turkey  stated that they had no introductory statements, but that she 
would respond to the questions put by Chinese Taipei.  Concerning the questions concerning 
Articles 2(d) and 5 of the Decree, she stated th at Turkey's safeguards legislation covered the 
procedures and principles related to the implem entation of safeguards measures against both WTO 
Members and non-WTO Members.  Any provisional saf eguard measure that Turkey applied against 
WTO Member countries would be fully in conform ity with Article 6 of the WTO Agreement on 
Safeguards.  The scope of "other fi nancial charges" stipulated in Ar ticle 2 (d) and Article 5 were the 
same.  In practice, "other financial charges" were similar to custom duties in terms of their collection 
and refunding.  Goods that were impor ted into Turkey could be subject to 5 types of charges:  custom 
tariffs, excise duties, Mass Housing Fund levy, speci al consumption tax and value-added tax.  On the 
question concerning Article 7 of the Decree, she stated that Turkey was not envisaging potential 
conflict between this Decree and the application of re levant laws relating to th e items referred to in 
Article 7 paragraphs (a) through (d ).  What Article 7 of the Decree stated was that the provisions of 
the Decree did not rule out the provisions of other legislation relating to the import, and that any 
measures to be taken under this Decree shall not prevent the implementation of provisions of other 
legislation stated in the same article. 
16. Regarding the "international agreements" stipulated  in Article 7, the representative of Turkey 
stated that this expression referred to any kind of international conventions or agreements including 
free trade agreements ("FTAs") to which Turkey w as a signatory.  She stated that in this regard, 
Turkey's applications of safeguard measures under FTAs were consistent with Article 2.2 of the 
Agreement on Safeguards.  
17. She went on to state that they had also r ecently received a question from the United States 
(see document G/SG/Q1/TUR/3) and responded as fo llows.  Concerning the question on financial G/SG/M/26 
Page 4  
 
 charges, the representative of Turk ey stated that other financial charges in the Decree were like 
custom duties in terms of their collection and refu nding.  As was indicated to Chinese Taipei, goods 
that were imported into Turkey could be  subject to 5 types of charges.    
18. Concerning the question on domestic producer, th e representative of Turkey stated that the 
term "domestic producer" under the Turkish safeguard  legislation should be interpreted as having the 
same meaning as "domestic industry". 
19. Concerning the questions on the price of import, including significant price undercutting, the 
representative of Turkey stated that price was not expressly listed in the Article 4.2 of the Agreement 
on Safeguards as a relevant factor.  However, as was st ated in the relevant final report, this was not to 
say that price might not be a relevant factor in a given case.  She explained that an imported product 
could compete with a domestic product in various  ways, and relative price of the imported product 
was one of these ways to compete.  
20. She stated that she would provide written responses later. 
21. The representatives of Chinese Taipei
 and the United States  stated that they would look 
forward to receiving the written responses. 
4. China – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Legislative Notification  
22. The Chairman  recalled that this agenda related to a notification of legislation from China 
previously considered in the Committee (see docum ents G/SG/N/1/CHN/2/Suppl.1 and Suppl.2).  The 
Chairman noted that written questions concerning this notification had been received from Mexico 
(G/SG/Q1/CHN/17) and written answers had been received from China (G/SG/Q1/CHN/18). 
23. The representative of Mexico  stated that certain doubts persisted regarding business secrets.  
He posed the following questions to China: First, whether certain information had to meet a specific 
criteria to be considered as business secret.  If the r esponse was in the affirmative, what the applicable 
regulation was.  Second, if there was any administrative body enjoying discretional rights to determine whether or not an information was business secret.  In the case of an affirmative reply to 
this question, what body or bodies had this discretion. 
24. The representative of China
 stated that he wanted to receive the question in writing so that he 
could send it to their capital for responses. 
25. 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 Nove mber 2004.  The deadline for written answers to all 
questions posed in writing was 6 December 2004. 
26. 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. 
27. Before proceeding to the next agenda item, th e Chairman informed th e Committee that there 
were still 33 Members that had not yet made a legisl ative notification:  Albania, Angola, Antigua &  G/SG/M/26 
 Page 5 
 
 
 Barbuda, Barbados1, Belize, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cam bodia, Central African Republic, Congo, 
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Fo rmer Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, 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 and Togo. 
28. The Chairman stated that he regretted that the number of Members that had failed to make 
any legislative notification remained so high.  He urged these Members to make the required 
notification and reminded that in cases where no legisl ation existed, a simple notification indicating 
"nil" was required. 
29. The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
C. NOTIFICATIONS  OF ACTIONS  RELATED  TO SAFEGUARD  MEASURES 
30. 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. Argentina – Colour Television Sets 
31. The Chairman  noted that Argentina had made several notifications regarding its investigation 
on colour-television sets in documents G/ SG/N/6/ARG/5 and G/SG/N/7/ARG/3.   
32. The representative of the European Communities  stated that they wish ed to clarify the legal 
basis of this action.  He also asked whether Ar gentina could confirm that this was a bilateral 
safeguards applicable only to Brazil,  and if the answer was yes, the EC wished to ask why then it was 
notified to this Committee.  He also asked if Ar gentina could confirm that the measure they had 
adopted was simply to restore the general applicable MFN rate for this product. 
33. The representative of Argentina  stated that the notified measure only increased the tariff 
applied to TV sets from the Manaos free zone, to whic h a preferential tariff rate had been applied, to 
the MFN level.  The rate was below the bound leve l.  In other words, it only consisted of the 
elimination of the tariff preference that was applie d pursuant to the Mercosur Agreement.  He stated 
that the legal basis for this measure was Deci sion no. 8 of the Council of the Mercosur Common 
Market.  Argentina refrained from simply increasing its  tariffs, and considered the current way to be 
more transparent. 
2. Bulgaria – Certain Steel Products 
34. The Chairman  noted that in document G/SG/N/9/BGR /3, Bulgaria had made a notification 
regarding the termination of an investigation on certain steel products.   
35. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
3. Ecuador – Smooth Ceramics 
36. The Chairman  noted that in document G/SG/Q2/ECU/11, the European Communities had 
posed questions regarding Ecuador's notifica tion contained in document G/SG/N/8/ECU/2– 
G/SG/N/10/ECU/3 concerning its inv estigation on smooth ceramics.   
                                                      
1  Barbados submitted their notification (G/SG/N/1/BRB/1) immediately after the meeting. G/SG/M/26 
Page 6  
 
 37. The representative of Ecuador
 first noted that the question was, unfortunately, available only 
in English up until Thursday.  In reply to the questions from the European Communities, he 
responded as follows.  Question 1:  After the measure  had been approved by the External Trade and 
Investments Committee, the decision was published in the Official Gazette which determined the date 
of entry into force.  This required a certain numbe r of days.  Ecuador would proceed to notification 
only when the decision was published.  Question 2:  The investigating authority, prior to wrapping up 
the report, provided appropriate opportunities for the interested parties to submit all relevant 
information, and carried out prior consultations  before the measures were finally adopted.  
Furthermore, COMEXI, if it deems necessary or if it was requested from one of the interested parties, would hold hearings on the advisability of applying the measures.  Question 3:  The investigating 
authority could only make recommendations.  Once COMEXI had taken its decision, it was 
published.  Question 4:  Executive Decree 3497, published in the Official Gazette no. 744 on 
14 January 2003, contained the text of the le gislation, which included Resolution No. 052 of 
COMEXI unamended, unmodified.  Question 5:  The report of the investigating authority contained 
the analysis of the meaningful increase of imports.   
38. The representative of the European Communities
, while stating that they looked forward to 
receiving a written version of the replies, stated that  the oral response did not dispel their doubts.  He 
stated that he had taken note, in particular, of th e fact that Ecuador's law mandated the notification to 
this Committee of the adoption of a provisional meas ure only after the measure had entered into force, 
which seemed to be contrary to the provision of Ar ticle 12.4 of the Safeguards Agreement.  He also 
stated that they might have follow-up questions .  For now, he wanted to raise another question 
separate for the ones they have received replies.  The EC was aware that the authorities of Ecuador 
were examining whether or not the imports of smooth ceramics from members of the Andean Community should be subject to the measure, and that pending this procedure, application of the 
safeguard measure to imports from members of th e Andean Community had been suspended.  He 
asked if Ecuador could clarify what was the state of play in this procedure, and when a decision could 
be expected.  If it was true that the measures were  currently not in appli cation on imports from the 
Andean Community members, he asked if Ecuador could explain how this was compatible with a 
finding of injury concerning imports from all origins including Andean Community members. 
39. The representative of Ecuador
 stated that a number of studies were ongoing in order to 
determine whether the measure shoul d stand.  All of this was under analysis, and the final decision 
had not yet been taken.  He stated that as s oon as anything new happened, his authorities would notify 
the European Communities. 
40. The representative of the United States  stated that he would appreciate it if such notification 
were made to the Committee generally so that they  could also see it.  He also queried whether the 
measure was currently in force or not. 
41. The representative of  Ecuador , in reply to the question of th e United States, stated that the 
measure was in force, but several studies were ongo ing regarding the advisability of reviewing the 
measure.  He stated that no final decision had been taken, but a series of analysis were being carried out at that very moment. 
4. European Communities – Salmon 
42. The Chairman
 noted that the European Communities had made notifications regarding its 
investigation on certain salmon in doc ument G/SG/N/7/EEC/3–G/SG/N/11/EEC/3. 
43. The representative of th e European Communities  reminded the Committee that this was a 
notification concerning the adoption of provisional measures, and that the investigation had since 
advanced but still not concluded.  He stated that if and when there was a decision to adopt definitive  G/SG/M/26 
 Page 7 
 
 
 measures or to terminate the investigation, that w ould be notified to the Committee.  He also stated 
that on 23 October, the European Communities initiate d an anti-dumping investigation on imports of 
salmon from Norway, following the receipt of a complaint from the industry, and that this investigation was ongoing. 
44. The representative of the United States
 stated that they had looked at the notification with 
great interest.  He recalled that on the issue of  "unforeseen developments", the EC had strongly 
advocated in a dispute settlement context that  an unforeseen developments provision should be 
imposed.  In this context, the representative of th e United States stated that  they wanted to see how 
the EC had tried to comply with this provision in this case.  He stated that while he saw statements about developments that were unf oreseen, they did not quite unders tand from the notification by whom 
the European Communities found these developments to be unforeseen. 
45. The representative of the European Communities
 stated that he was not sure if the issue of 
whether the development must be unforeseen by so meone had been addressed in recent jurisprudence 
or in the Committee.  He stated that the EC preferre d to receive the question in writing.  At that stage, 
what he could say was that they noted that Artic le XIX of the GATT did not seem to provide clearly 
to whom the "unforeseeability" of the developments must be attributed.  
46. The representative of the United States  stated that they  would provide the question in writing 
subsequent to the meeting.  He explained that  the question was posed in part because the EC's 
notification went into great length with respect to why this development was unforeseen, but entirely 
failed to notify by whom such decision had been made.  He stated that he was also curious as to when 
the EC believed that the unforeseen development test  should have been decided: if it was dating back 
to the time of the Uruguay Round, or from 2002 when  it decided to eliminate this minimum import 
price on salmon.   
47. The representative of the European Communities  stated that they preferred to look at these 
questions in writing.  He would not venture into this issue which, as the United States described, was 
a grey area, without first checking what the question exactly was.  He stated that they had managed 
through jurisprudence to fix certain limits, and that they welcomed any effort to clarify further this 
concept.  He stated that the EC was ready to di scuss this issue more thoroughly following the receipt 
of the United States' questions. 
48. The Chairman  noted that Norway had earlier posed a question (see document 
G/SG/Q2/EEC/1) regarding EC's notification c ontained in document G/SG/N/6/EEC/3 concerning 
this same product.   
49. The representative of th e European Communities  stated that he was slightly taken by surprise 
when he looked through the agenda this morning.  He observed that the replies that had been sent to 
Norway on those questions did not appear in the ag enda and did not seem to have been circulated.2  
He stated that he was more than happy to read the reply they gave. 
50. The Chairman  noted that the representative of Norw ay was not in the room, and suggested 
that they follow a written procedure. 
5. European Communities – Mandarins 
51. The Chairman  noted that the European Communities ha d made several notifications regarding 
its investigation on mandarins in documen t G/SG/N/8/EEC/2/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/10/Suppl.1–
G/SG/N/11/Suppl.2. 
                                                      
2  This document was subsequently circulated as G/SG/Q2/EEC/2. G/SG/M/26 
Page 8  
 
 52. The representative of the European Communities
 reminded the Committee that this 
notification concerned the final adoption of safegua rd measure in this case.  He stated that the 
European Communities had previously notified the findi ngs of the investigation, and that notification 
had been discussed in the previous meeting of the Committee.  He also explained that the findings 
contained in the present notification were exactly  the same as the ones notified previously and 
discussed during the previous meeting of the Committee. 
53. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification 
6. India – Starch 
54. The Chairman  noted that in document G/SG/N/6/IND/16, India had made a notification 
regarding the  initiation of an investigation on "s tarch, modified starches and manioc based sago". 
55. The representative of the European Communities  stated that he wanted to put on record their 
interest and concern on this proceeding.  He al so stated that he wished to obtain additional 
information from India and a full opportunity for c onsultations prior to any step forward or any 
particular adoption of measures. 
56. The representative of the United States  stated that they also had a commercial interest in this 
proceeding and would also be watching it closely. 
57. The representative of India  stated that he noted the interests and concerns of the 
European Communities and the United States,  and would convey them to his capital. 
7. Jamaica – Cement  
58. The Chairman  noted that Jamaica had made several no tifications regarding its investigation 
on cement in documents G/SG/N/8/JAM/1–G/SG/ N/10/JAM/1–G/SG/N/11/JAM/1, a corrigendum of 
this document and G/SG/N/9/JAM/1.   
59. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
8. Moldova – Cosmetics and Perfumery Products  
60. The Chairman  noted that Moldova had made notifications regarding the initiation of an 
investigation on cosmetics and perfumery produc ts in documents G/SG/N/6/MDA/2 and Corr.1. 
61. The representative of Romania  stated that Romanian producers and exporters of cosmetics 
and perfumery products coul d be affected by the result of the investigation, and that was the reason 
why they asked for bilateral consultations dur ing the entire process of investigation.  On 
21 October 2004 the first round of consultations  with the Moldavian authorities took place in 
Bucharest.  The representative of Ro mania stated that the information they received from Moldova at 
that time did not satisfy them, and he urged Moldova  to provide the missing data requested during that 
meeting.  He stated that he was hopeful that the spirit of this consultation in search of a commonly 
acceptable solution would continue and that their e xporters and producers would not be subject to the 
measures. 
62. The representative of Moldova  took note of the concerns of Romania and asked them to put 
their request in writing.   G/SG/M/26 
 Page 9 
 
 
 9. Peru – Textiles Articles 
63. The Chairman  noted that Peru had made a notification regarding the initiation of an 
investigation on textile articles  in document G/SG/N/6/PER/1. 
64. The representative of the European Communities  stated that he would, first of all, express a 
general concern as to the use of ergo omnes  safeguards in the textile sector.  He pointed out that it was 
well known how sensitive this sector was, just a few w eeks ahead of full liberalization, and that it was 
well known that ergo omnes  safeguards were dangerous because they could lead to a domino effect 
and adoption of similar measures by many other Memb ers.  He stated that as regards the case itself, 
the EC appreciated that as of th at day the case was still at the prov isional measure stage, but the EC 
would like to put on record their serious reservations about the findings.  He stated that the EC would 
continue the bilateral consultation with Peru and that they reserved the right to request consultations 
on the imposition of definitive measures.  At this stag e, he wished to underline their belief that this 
provisional measure was imposed selectively on certain subcategories of products.  He believed that 
this was in contrast to the analysis made on a much  broader basis, and this did not seem to conform to 
the WTO rules on safeguards.  He also noted th at certain countries had been excluded from the 
measures, but there was no justification for that exclusion.  Certain countries with a share of imports 
under 3 per cent were excluded according to Article 9, but the EC was doubtful if some of these countries could be qualified as developing countries.  He stated that the EC wished to understand the 
legal basis for these exclusions.  He also stated that there was very little information available, 
especially the explanation regarding the establishment of the minimum import price.   
65. The representative of Peru
 stated that after having notified th e initiation of investigation,  Peru 
had made 2 notifications concerning the decision to adopt a provisional safeguard measure.  She 
stated that these notifications did not appear on th e agenda because they were  submitted very recently, 
and that they could be discussed in detail at the next  meeting of the Committee.  She stated that Peru 
had taken due note of the EC's request for more inform ation.  She stated that this was the first time 
that Peru had adopted a safeguard measure in th e framework of the WTO, and that there could 
therefore be some imprecision.  If that was the case,  they would be rectified in due course.  She hoped 
that the answers would be provided in the informal c onsultation to be held that Thursday.  She stated 
that if necessary, the EC could send the questions in writing.  She stated that EC or any other Member 
interested could consult a technical report which Ind ecopi, Peru's investigating authority, had prepared 
and which was available at "www.indecopi.gob.pe /tribunal/cds/resoluciones2004.asp".  This report 
only existed in Spanish.  She stated  that Peru was willing to hold co nsultations with Members that had 
substantial interest as exporters of the products subject to the measure. 
10. Philippines – Glass Mirrors  
66. The Chairman  noted that Philippines had made several notifications regarding its 
investigation on glass mirrors in documen t G/SG/N/8/PHL/3/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/10/PHL/5–
G/SG/N/11/PHL/3/Suppl.1. 
67. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
11. Philippines – Figured Glass 
68. The Chairman  noted that Philippines had made several notifications regarding its 
investigation on figured glass in documen t G/SG/N/8/PHL/4/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/10/PHL/4–
G/SG/N/11/PHL/4/Suppl.1. 
69. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. G/SG/M/26 
Page 10  
 
 12. Philippines – Float Glass 
70. The Chairman
 noted that Philippines had made several notifications regarding its 
investigation on float glass in document G/SG/N/8/PHL/5/Suppl.1–G/SG/N/10/PHL/3–G/SG/N/11/PHL/5/Suppl.1 and its corrige ndum. 
71. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
13. Turkey – Thermometers 
72. The Chairman
 noted that Turkey had made a notification regarding the initiation of an 
investigation on thermometers in document G/SG/N/6/TUR/1. 
73. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
14. Turkey – Active Earth and Clays  
74. The Chairman  noted that Turkey had made a notification regarding the initiation of 
investigation on active earth and clays in document G/SG/N/6/TUR/2. 
75. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
15. Turkey – Certain Glassware 
76. The Chairman  noted that Turkey had made a notification regarding the initiation of 
investigation on certain glassware in document G/SG/N/6/TUR/3.  
77. The representative of Romania  stated that the investigation started on 17 July 2004 according 
to the notification.  At the same time, Turkey had imposed a surveillance mechanism on imports of 
glassware based on an import certificate and price lim it.  In this respect Romania wanted to know the 
legislation on which the Turkish authorities had base d the above investigation.  The representative of 
Romania also stated that he wanted to know the legislation by which Turkish authorities had imposed 
the surveillance regime.  He  stated that as Romanian producers a nd exporters had a s ubstantial interest 
in this subject, Romania was asking for bilateral cons ultations with Turkey with a view to clarifying 
the matter and identifying a mutually acceptable solution. 
78. The representative of Turkey  stated that she had taken note of the question but that she would 
appreciate it if these questions were provided in writing so that they could reply in writing. 
79. The representative of the United States  stated that he was not sure if he fully understood the 
question from Romania and would like some clarification.  According to Romania, there was a price limit imposed.  He asked if the price limit was merely  a surveillance mechanism or if there was some 
kind of limit imposed on the prices of imports to be sold in Turkey.   
80. The representative of Romania
 stated that according to thei r understanding, the mechanism of 
surveillance was imposed by Turkey under whic h imported glassware had to be accompanied by 
certificates that their prices were under a certain pri ce limit.  Without that type of import certificate, 
the products could not enter into Turkey.  He stated  that as a result of this, the transport of glassware 
coming from Romania was held up at the Turkish border for about one month.   
  G/SG/M/26 
 Page 11 
 
 
 16. Turkey – Unframed Glass Mirrors 
81. The Chairman  noted that Turkey had made a notification regarding the initiation of  
investigation on unframed glass mirrors in document G/SG/N/6/TUR/4. 
82. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
17. Turkey – Certain Voltmeters and Ammeters  
83. The Chairman  noted that Turkey had made a notification regarding the initiation of an 
investigation on certain voltmeters and a mmeters in document G/SG/N/6/TUR/5.   
84. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
85. The representative of th e European Communities  stated that he had waited for the end of the 
series of Turkish initiations of new investigations.  He stated that he wanted to put on record the EC's 
concern at the initiation of as many as 5 new investig ations by Turkey at the same time.  The EC 
thought that this high number of investigati on dilutes the exceptional nature of safeguards 
instruments.  The EC wondered whether so many i nvestigations at the same time were appropriate 
and whether all of them reflected the exceptiona l character that was required under the Safeguards 
Agreement. 
86. The representative of Turkey  stated that the initiation of safeguard investigations could not 
mean that some provisions regarding the exceptional nature of safeguard measures were violated.  All 
the initiation proceedings by Turkey were rule-ba sed and adequate.  She stated that the Turkish 
safeguard legislation clearly stated what c onditions were necessary to initiate a safeguard 
investigation, and  the domestic  producers concerned had submitted proper application for safeguard 
investigations. 
87. 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 November 2004.  Written answers must be submitted to the Secretariat no 
later than 6 December 2004. 
88. The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
D. TRANSITIONAL  REVIEW  UNDER  PARAGRAPH  18 OF THE  PROTOCOL  OF 
ACCESSION  OF THE  PEOPLE'  S REPUBLIC  OF CHINA  TO THE  WORLD  TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  
89. The Chairman  noted that Paragraph 18 of China's Protocol of Accession provided that all 
subsidiary bodies, including the Safeguards Comm ittee, "which have a mandate covering China's 
commitments under the WTO Agreement or [the] Prot ocol shall, within one year after accession, 
review, as appropriate to their mandate, the implem entation by China of the WTO Agreement and of 
the related provisions of [the] Protocol."  China was to provide relevant information in advance of the 
review, including information specified in Annex 1A to the Protocol.  China could also raise issues 
relating to any reservations under Section 17 or to  any other specific commitments made by other 
Members in the Protocol, in subsidia ry bodies which had a relevant mandate. 
90. The Chairman stated that the Committee must repor t the results of the review promptly to the 
Council for Trade in Goods.  The review was to take  place after accession in each year for eight years, 
with a final review in year 10 or at an earlier da te decided by the General Council.  He added that 
there were no procedures set out for the conduct of th e transitional review in the Protocol, except that G/SG/M/26 
Page 12  
 
 China was to provide relevant information in advan ce of the review.  In accordance with section IV.6 
of Annex 1A to the Protocol, China was required to  notify the Committee of its implementation of its 
Regulation on Safeguards.  The Chairman informed  the Committee that China had recently submitted 
a notification, circulated as G/SG/W/198. 
91. The representative of China
 stated that in terms of China's legislation on safeguards, since the 
review of last year, the Chinese Government had ma de persistent efforts to improve the Chinese legal 
system on safeguards.  The State Counsel of China issued Decree number 403 of the year 2004, which amended the Regulations of the People's Re public of China on Safeguards, issued on 
26 November 2001. 
92. This amendment reflected WTO rules in regard  to implementation of safeguard measures.  
For example, Article 19 was added with the requ irement that application of safeguard measures 
should be in the public interest.  This amended Re gulation came into effect on 1 June 2004, and the 
full text of it had been notified to the Comm ittee on Safeguards on 18 October 2004.  The new 
provisions published in the form of a Ministry Decree were one of the implementing rules for the 
Regulations of the People's Republic of China on Safe guards.  The representative of China stated that 
China would notify the provisions to the Sa feguards Committee once its translation was 
accomplished. 
93. With regard to China's implementation of saf eguard measures, the representative of China 
stated that no new safeguard investigations had been  initiated by China since the review of last year, 
and so far China had initiated one safeguard inv estigation in total.  On 26 December 2003 the 
Ministry of Commerce issued Decree number (2003)76 , which conveyed the decision to terminate the 
definitive safeguard measures and to stop levying additional duty on steel products.  China had 
notified details to the Committee on Safeguards. 
94. In conclusion, the representative of China stat ed that its legislation and implementation of 
safeguard measures were consistent with the Safeguards Agreement, as well as its relevant 
commitments.   
95. The representative of Chinese Taipei
 noted that their submission of questions was delayed, 
and that they were afraid that they would not be able to receive a full reply, but that they would 
appreciate if China would be able to address some of  the questions.  He stated that their questions 
were basically regarding the notifications of the amended Foreign Trade Law and the two other 
regulations on which they had just heard the e xplanation from the representative of China.  In 
addition, he stated that they did have substan tive questions on the revised Foreign Trade Law, as it 
adapted a trade diversions provision, and they were quite interested in knowin g more details about it. 
96. The representative of China  stated that with regard to th e questions under the transitional 
review, as far as he knew, China only had questions from  Japan, and that he was surprised to hear that 
the representative of Chinese Taipei also had ques tions for China.  He understood that questions 
should be delivered to the Member concerned with copies to the Secret ariat, and in this regard, up to 
now his delegation had not receive d any questions from Chinese Taipei, nor had China been reminded 
in anyway that there was a question.  With that sai d, he responded to the questions raised by Japan as 
follows. 
97. On the question regarding "unforeseen developm ents", when dealing with safeguard cases, 
the competent authorities in China did consider wh ether there were unforeseen developments.  China 
believed that these practices, which were conducte d according to the Regulations of the People's 
Republic of China on Safeguards, were in line with  the requirement of the Agreement on Safeguards.  G/SG/M/26 
 Page 13 
 
 
 98. On the question relating to "public interest", Article 19 of the newly amended Regulations of 
the People's Republic of China on Safeguards stipulat ed that adoption of a safeguard measure should 
be in line with public interest.  Article 12 stipulated that the Ministry of Commerce of China shall 
provide opportunities for importers, exporters and ot her interested parties to present their views and 
supporting arguments.  In the implementing regula tions, there were also provisions according to 
which interested parties could provide the in formation and submit comments.  These were the 
channels through which public inte rest could be fully reflected.  
99. On the question of "other appropriate means" as contained in Article 12 of the Regulations on 
Safeguards of China, the representative of China explai ned that they included on-the-spot verification, 
consulting experts, investigating and collecting evidence from other government or departments or 
institutes, etc. 
100. On the question relating to the "domestic industry", Article 10 of the newly amended 
Regulations of the People's Republic of China on Sa feguards provided a clear definition to "domestic 
industry", which was the producers as a whole of the like or directly competitive products within the 
territory of the People's Republic of China, or was those of them whose collective output of the like or 
directly competitive products constitute a major pr oportion of the total dome stic production of those 
products.  When investigating specific cases, the co mpetent authorities would determine that certain 
firms could represent domestic industry only when th eir total output made up a major proportion of 
the total domestic production. 
101. On the issue of "compensation", Article 24 of the newly amended Regulations of the People's 
Republic of China on Safeguards stipulated that prio r to the application of a safeguard measure, the 
Ministry of Commerce of China should provide ad equate opportunities for consultations with those 
governments of countries or regi ons having substantial interest  as exporters of the products 
concerned.  In these consultations, relevant WTO prov isions would be referred to, and they were also 
the basis for specific compensation measures.  Therefore, the compensation to other Members as a 
result of safeguard measures was, in practice, de alt with through consultations according to WTO 
Rules and Practices. 
102. On the question regarding "provisional measur es", although Article 16 of the newly revised 
Regulations of the People's Republic  of China on Safeguards and Artic le 6 of the WTO Agreement on 
Safeguards were different in wording, they were  not conflicting with each other.  In fact, the 
competent authorities would consider both the incr ease in imports and injury when determining to 
take provisional safeguard measures.  Article 8 of the Regulations on Safeguards and relevant 
provisions of the Provisions on Investigation of Industry Injury  in Safeguard Measures provided 
details or factors to be considered in de termining injury or threat of injury.   
103. On the question regarding Article 16 of China’ s Regulations on Safeguards and Article 6 of 
the WTO Agreement on Safeguards, they meant th e same thing.  The “critical circumstances” 
contained in Article 16 of China’s Regulations on Safeguards was the same as the one contained in 
Article 6 of the WTO Agreement on Safeguards. 
104. On the question regarding Article 31 of China’ s Regulations on Safeguards, "discriminatory 
safeguards" meant unfair and discriminatory safegua rd practices/measures not consistent with WTO 
rules and principles, taken by others against China.   According to Article 31 of China’s Regulations 
on Safeguards, China could take a ppropriate measure against such practice to uphold its right or 
interest.  That being said, the representative of Chin a emphasised, it should be clarified that there had 
not been any invocation of Article 31 of China’s Regulations on Safeguards up to now. 
105. On the question regarding corresponding measure s in Article 31 of China’s Regulations on 
Safeguards, it was different from the rebalancing measures in the WTO Agreement on Safeguards.  G/SG/M/26 
Page 14  
 
 These corresponding measures in China’s Regulations on Safeguards were targeted at discriminatory 
safeguards applied by others against China, as mentioned earlier. 
106. The representative of Japan
 stated that his delegation put great importance in this process 
because it enhanced the transpar ency and predictability of th e implementation of Members' 
commitments. 
107. He clarified that Japan's questions were based  on the latest regulations as amended by the 
Chinese authorities at the end of March which, at th e time of the submission of the questions, had not 
yet been notified. 
108. He stated that he had listened to the respon ses by the Chinese delegation with great interest 
and he would basically report back these responses to his capital.  One follow-up question he had was 
about the last two items, which were related to Article 31 of the Chinese Regulations.  The response 
by the Chinese delegation was that it was different from the rebalancing measures, but he wanted to 
clarify: if this was not the same as rebalancing measures, what did these measures correspond to in the 
Safeguards Agreement or any Ag reements in the WTO?   
109. The representative of China  responded that with regard to Article 31 of China’s Regulations 
on Safeguards, he had made it very clear that un til now there had not been any invocation of this 
Article, and therefore, there were no practices which he could refer to.  But, he stated, when taking 
safeguard measures, the WTO rules and practices w ould be taken into consideration and in this 
regard, China would be WTO-consistent when taki ng safeguard measures according Article 31 of the 
Regulations on Safeguards. 
110. The representative of Korea  asked one follow-up question regarding the "discriminatory 
safeguards".  As the Chinese delegation's answer was very quick, he was not su re if he understood 
correctly.  He asked the Chinese delegation to clarif y if China could take unilateral retaliation action 
against other countries' discriminatory safeguard meas ures.  That is, without referring the matter to the 
DSB. 
111. The representative of Japan  stated that the Chinese delegation made it clear that China would 
adhere to the WTO Rules.  He also stated that he  would like to hear more explanation about this 
specific issue -- how it was related to the re balancing measures sanctioned by the Safeguards 
Agreement and so on.  He also stated that he w ould very much appreciate it if the Chinese delegation 
could provide some form of written version of its responses, so that he could report the responses to 
his capital as accurately as possible. 
112. The representative of the United States  thanked the Chinese delegation for the written 
information they provided last week as well as for th e information they provided at this meeting, and 
that they welcomed this TRM Annual Review.  He stated that the United States would be looking at 
this legislation very closely, and would be fo llowing up as part of the regular committee process 
regarding legislative notification in the next meeting. 
113. The representative of the United States stated  that given the absence of new safeguard 
investigations since the review last year, there was not  really a whole lot to discuss, but he did want to 
reiterate in general terms some of the concerns the United States raised last year that would remain 
concerns as things go forward.  He stated that the United States would obviously be continuing to 
look at any further safeguard proceedings by China with respect to these kinds of issues.  As the 
United States had noted in the past, they had so me concerns about the transparency of China's 
decision-making process with respect to steel safeguard  measures and with respect to some aspects of 
the implementation of those measures, for example,  how quotas for the measures were allocated.  
Some of their exporters had raised some concerns about that.    G/SG/M/26 
 Page 15 
 
 
 114. The United States also had a concern about the criteria China had used in determining which 
WTO Members would be accorded the status of a developing country or region for purposes of 
Article 9.1 of the Safeguards Agreement, partic ularly whether those criteria were clear and 
transparent.  The United States had concern a bout China's treatment of non-WTO Members under 
Article 9.1, which provides for non-application of  safeguard measures to developing-country-WTO-
Members where the import share criteria was met, but it did not provide for exclusion of countries 
that were not WTO Members. 
115. The United States had a concern about how confid ential data submitted during the course of a 
safeguard investigation would be protected, especial ly when outside experts were employed.  There 
were also concerns regarding access to non-confidentia l information from safeguard investigations by 
interested parties, by the general public, in terms of  the procedural requirement s for and limitations on 
that access.  The United States raised the concern earlier about the issue of refunding of safeguard 
duties collected for provisional measures, when  definitive measures were not imposed.  The 
United States was also interested in the issue regarding the terms and conditions governing the 
extension of a safeguard measure. 
116. These were the concerns that the United States ha d raised in the past and he was just noting 
them again, and the United States would be lookin g at these issues as there were any developments 
going forward.   
117. The representative of the European Communities  stated that they also might come back on 
some of the issues discussed today with further questions.  He would simply for the moment like to express the EC’s particular interest in the issue of Article 31, which was discussed earlier, and the 
possibility that China adopts some kind of counter-mea sure or however they can be called, in the case 
they were subject to discriminatory safeguards.  This was an issue of concern, and he thought that this 
was an issue that required to be clarified, even in the absence of specific actions taken by China.  The 
mere existence of a law allowing for these measures to be invoked was in itself a matter of concern, 
and the EC wished that further discussion take pl ace to clarify exactly under what circumstances and 
based on which conditions such measures would be po ssible.  The EC intended, therefore, to come 
back on these issues with more questions in the future.   
118. The representative of China
 took note of the comments made by other delegations, and 
thanked them for all the comments.  He stated th at China was also looking forward to exchanging 
views with Members within the frame of this Committee, and that he would rather encourage 
Members to exchange views with China through the normal procedures of exchange of views, rather 
than TRM, because China’s position with regard to TRM was very clear:  China was not in a position 
to provide written documents or responses to  the questions raised by Members.   
119. The Chairman  noted that China's Protocol of Accession contained no guidelines for reporting 
to the Council for Trade in Goods on the Committee' s transitional review of China's implementation 
of the Agreement.  He proposed that the Committe e follow the same reporting procedure as last year, 
whereby the Chairman, acting on his own responsibility,  would prepare a brief, factual report, with 
references to the documents concerned, and attachi ng the portion of the Minutes of the meeting which 
relate to the transition review. 
120. The Committee agreed  that the Chairman should prepare the same type of report in respect of 
the 2004 transitional review.  
E. APPLICATION
 OF ARTICLE  9.1 
121. The Chairman  recalled that this item had been incl uded in the agenda at the request of 
Malaysia which had recently submitted a document that had been circulated as JOB(04)/158.   G/SG/M/26 
Page 16  
 
 122. The representative of Malaysia
 stated that they had circulated a room document on the 
application of Article 9.1 at the meeting of 20 October 2003, and another document JOB(04)/44, 
dated 13 April 2004, at the meeting of 19 April 2004 .  She recalled that several Members had made 
comments or queries at these meetings.  Malaysia had subsequently circulated replies to these 
comments and queries, and she stated that these r esponses were contained in JOB(04)/158 distributed 
at the current meeting.  She stated that the commen ts and questions received could be categorised into 
the following four issues: (a) the use of a represen tative period, (b) the time-period for the calculation 
of the negligible volume and post-safeguards re-d etermination under Article 9.1 – the term “as long 
as” (c) parallelism – symmetry between the safeguard investigation and the scope  of application, and 
(d) the application of Article 9.1 to developing countries.  
123. On the use of the representativ e period, she noted that a uniform representative period in 
making a determination of injury and a de minimis  calculation would lend more predictability and 
transparency to Safeguard investigations.  She also  stated that regarding the issue of time-period for 
the calculation of negligible volume and the issue of  post determination, Malaysia was of the view 
that the time-period for the calculation of neglig ible volume should be the same as that of the 
investigation period for injury.  The basis for imposing a safeguard measure was premised, among 
others, on a finding of serious injury and on the establishment of a causal link between serious injury and a surge in imports.  The period used in these dete rminations was based on data collected prior to 
the imposition of the measure.  This would inherent ly require that the representative period used for 
the Article 9.1 calculation be based on a period pr ior to the imposition.  Hence, she stated, there 
should not be any re-determination after imposition.  She noted that the Anti-Dumping Committee 
adopted on 27 November 2002 recommendations (G/ADP/ 10) on the time-period to be considered in 
making a determination of the negligible import volumes for the purpose of excluding countries from AD investigations.  She noted that this could be a good reference for any future discussions of this 
Committee on the issue of the representative period.  Regarding the phrase "as long as" in Article 9.1, 
she stated that although some may argue that it coul d denote the possibility of an inherent requirement 
or justification for re-determination, Malaysia was of  the view that this should not be interpreted as an 
open-ended timeframe.  According to Malaysia, it ju st denoted a condition for eligibility of exemption 
based on the outcome of the investigation. 
124. On parallelism between the scope of the investig ation and the scope of the application, she 
stated that Malaysia saw this as not relevant in the application of Article 9.1.  On the issue of 
application to developing countries, she stated that  the application of this article to developing 
countries had been discriminatory, with unilatera l and arbitrary exclusion of some developing 
countries from each application.  Criteria such as the GSP list or GDP  had been unilaterally used as 
the basis for this exclusion.  She stated that Malaysia was of the view that there should be no 
unilateral attempts to remove the rights of developing  countries.  If each Member chose to reinterpret 
what rights were applicable or what obligations were to be undertaken, this could lead to an 
unpredictable situation.  In this context Malaysia  proposed that the Committee exchange views and 
experiences on the following issues: First, use of  a standard representative period in safeguard 
investigations, and what would c onstitute an appropriate uniform representative period.  Second, a 
standard representative period to be applicable for the de minimis  criteria under Article 9.1, and that 
there should be no re-determination once the safe guard measure was in place.  And third, the 
application of Article 9.1 to developing countries.     
125. The representative of Australia
 acknowledged that Malaysia's  paper seeks to respond to 
questions raised by a number of WTO Members, including Australia, on the proposals contained in JOB(04)/44.  He stated that in raising questions at the previous meeting, Australia was seeking to 
clarify some points without necessarily expressing a de finitive view, in order to encourage Malaysia 
to elaborate on its earlier paper and to highlight th at there may be alternative views on how safeguards 
should be applied.  He noted that Malaysia was seeking greater clarity on the representative period 
used in safeguard investigations for the purposes of  determining injury and stated that Australia  G/SG/M/26 
 Page 17 
 
 
 agreed that there was lack of clarity and specific guidance in the Agreement on this issue.  He also 
noted that Malaysia proposed areas for future di scussion on these issues and stated that Australia 
could support a further exchange of views on the experiences in the use of a representative period and 
recourse to re-determination of the calculation of de minimis  import levels following the application 
of a safeguard measure.   
126. The representative of Colombia  stated that they, for the time being, were satisfied with the 
responses and could support the future work that Mala ysia suggested.  She stated that Colombia could 
support continuing to work on this issue, specifically on the application of Article 9.1 for developing countries, which was an issue of great interest to Colombia.   
127. The representative of China
 stated that China thought it very  important and useful to discuss 
this issue.  He stated that the discussion coul d improve the transparency and efficiency of the 
application of the Safeguards Agreement and that Ch ina thus supported Malaysia's suggestion to have 
further exchange of views and experiences at a future meeting.   
128. The representative of the European Communities  stated that because the paper had been 
circulated only recently, the EC did not believe that   progress could be achieved on that same day.  He 
stated that the EC would be happy to look at some  of these issues further, although there were one or 
two points in the paper that, in their view, went beyond the likely future scope of action of the 
Committee.  He also wished to clarify the form of discussion to be held and the timing of it.  
129. The representative of Egypt  stated that the responses from Malaysia provided a good 
clarification to the questions and comments rai sed by several delegations, including Egypt.  He 
recalled that in order to stimulate further discussi on, Egypt had proposed at the last meeting that it 
would be extremely useful if the Committee had e nough data regarding the experience of Members on 
how to implement Article 9.1. 
130. The representative of Malaysia  noted that several delegations had expressed interest in 
continuing the discussions.  She stated that Malays ia was open to having further discussions based on 
the present agenda, and suggested that the discussion could be in informal mode. She stated that 
although Malaysia was open as to which of the three issues to take up in the next meeting, they 
proposed discussing the first two points at the next meeting.   
131. The representative of the United States  stated that although the US did not have a problem 
with continuing the discussion on these items or any ot her items, they did not think it appropriate for 
the Committee to take any decision on this item t oday as there was no formal agenda item suggesting 
that there could be a decision taken on this proposal at this meeting.  He stated that the US would be 
willing to engage in consultations with the Chairman to identify issues to be taken up at the spring 
meeting in an informal context.  He stated that  in such discussions, Members should be free to raise 
any items that they might have, and that the discussi ons should not to be limited to the proposals from 
Malaysia.  
132. The Chairman  stated that it seemed that the Committ ee needed to continue the discussion on 
this issue, and proposed that informal consultations be held on the issue proposed  by Malaysia as well 
as any other issue Members wished to take up.   
133. The representative of Malaysia  stated that she agreed with th e Chairman's proposal.  She then 
responded to the last comment by the US and pointed  out that this item was on today's formal agenda. 
She also stated that Malaysia would welcome discussion on issues which other Members wished to 
raise.  G/SG/M/26 
Page 18  
 
 134. The representative of the United States
 stated that he could agree to proceed with 
consultations, but that that consultations should involve the opportunity of Members to propose any 
topics, not limited solely to Article 9, with respect to the discussion in informal mode in the future.   
135. The Chairman  proposed that he would hold informal  consultations, unde r his responsibility, 
on this question of Article 9.1 or on any other ma tter that delegations wished to raise.   
136. The representative of th e European Communities  asked how they could find out what other 
subjects Members put forward. 
137. The Chairman  stated that the best way would be to allow Members to approach the Chairman 
to raise any issue which they considered should be  discussed, and that the Ch airman then put before 
the Members, for reflection, all the topics that ha d been suggested.  The Committee would then agree 
on the way to proceed and have informal c onsultations before the April meeting.   
138. The Committee so agreed . 
F. OTHER  BUSINESS 
139. The Chairman noted that the United States ha d asked an issue to be included under this 
agenda item.     
1. Brazil – Toys 
140. The representative of the United States  recalled that at the April 2004 meeting, the 
United States raised a question concerning a notificati on by Brazil, with respect to the extension of its 
measure on toys.  He recalled further that the notific ation of Brazil had indicated a proposed extension 
of the measure for two and a half years through 30  June 2006, and that the delegate of Brazil had 
stated in that meeting that a decision had been take n to extend the safeguard measure by one year.  He 
stated that he wanted to know if there was a notifi cation reflecting what the actual terms of any such 
extension were.  He also recalled that the delegate  of Brazil had indicated in the same meeting that 
there were ongoing consultations and that there w as a possibility of further notifications to the 
Committee.  He stated that he wanted to clarify wh at the status of the measure was in terms of the 
length of the extension and if and when a notificati on would be made to reflect the accurate status of 
their extension.   
141. The representative of Brazil  stated that the measure was currently in force according to 
Resolution No. 47 of the Chamber of Foreign Trade of Brazil.  This resolution stated that the measure 
would be in place for the year 2004.  He stated that the reason was an internal administrative practice.  
According to Brazilian laws, the purpose of this was to give the Chamber of Foreign Trade the 
opportunity to reassess whether the safeguard measure was still needed for the year 2005 and the first 
six months of 2006.   
142. The representative of the United States  asked whether the Chamber had the ability to modify 
the measure when it re-evaluated whet her or not to continue the measure. 
143.  The representative of Brazil  stated that it was difficult to forecast the details of a future 
measure.  He reiterated that the Chamber would reassess the need of the safeguard as a whole – as it 
was currently notified.  He emphasized that should there be any decision not to utilise the full period, 
Brazil would certainly notify.   
144. The representative of the United States  stated that their concern was that the notification made 
in December did not completely reflect what the decision was with respect to the extension of the  G/SG/M/26 
 Page 19 
 
 
 measure.  He stated that  the US thought it was important that a no tification correctly stated the status 
of the measure and the extension to be made.  Further notifications could be made based on 
subsequent decisions, but the US was concerned th at the current outstanding notification did not 
accurately describe the state of the measure.   
145. The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
G. ANNUAL  REPORT  TO THE  COUNCIL  ON TRADE  IN GOODS 
146. The Chairman  noted that pursuant to Article 13.1(a) of the Agreement, the Committee was to 
monitor the general implementation of the Agreem ent, and report on this annually and make any 
recommendations towards its improvement  to the Council for Trade in Goods. 
147. Concerning the preparation and adoption of the Committee's annual report, at its meeting of 
24 February 1995, the Committee decided to follow  the same procedure as in the Tokyo Round 
Committees on Anti-Dumping Practices and Subsidi es and Countervailing Measures.  In accordance 
with this procedure, a draft of the report, in the form of a factual summary of the Committee's 
activities during 2004, had been prepared by the Secret ariat.  A preliminary draft of this report was 
made available to Members by fax on 19 October. 
148. The Chairman recalled that the Committee had ma de certain changes to the format of the 
Annexes last year, and that he had basically follow ed that model for this year.  The only further 
change was in relation to Annex I.  At the request  of one Member, he had asked the Secretariat to 
identify, by an asterisk, Members that had made a "nil" notification, that is, those that had notified that there were no laws or regulations rele vant to the Safeguards Agreement.  
149. The Chairman suggested that the Committee cons ider the draft report paragraph by paragraph 
and then review the Annexes.  The Chairman suggest ed that the Committee pro ceed with this work in 
informal mode, although he would c onfirm the final version formally. 
150. The Chairman confirmed that the following in formation had been provided by the Members 
in relation to Annex 2 and Annex 3: 
 - With the accession of Hungary into the Eu ropean Union, the definitive safeguard 
measure on white sugar, notified in document G/SG/N/10/HUN/3, had been 
terminated at the end of April 2004,   
  -  With the accession of Poland into the Eu ropean Union, the definitive safeguard 
measure on matches, notified in document G/ SG/N/10/POL/4, had been terminated at 
the end of April 2004,   
 
 -  With their accession into the Europ ean Union, all measures taken by the 
Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Slovak Republic 
and Slovenia were terminated, and all pending investigations  were terminated without 
measure.  
 
 -  With regard to Argentina, all safegua rd measures previously listed in Annex 3
3 had 
been terminated.  
 151. The Committee adopted
 the annual report as amended. 
                                                      
3  Definitive measures on motorcycles (notified as G/SG/N/10/ARG/2) and peaches (notified as 
G/SG/N/10/ARG/3).   G/SG/M/26 
Page 20  
 
 H. DATE
 OF THE  NEXT  REGULAR  MEETING 
152. The Chairman recalled that regular meetings norma lly would be held in April and October, in 
conjunction with the regular meetings of the Committees on Anti-Dumping Practices and Subsidies 
and Countervailing Measures.  The Committee on An ti-Dumping Practices and subsidiary bodies 
would meet between 19 and 22 April 20054, and the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing 
Measures would meet in the following week along  with the Negotiating Group on Rules.  
Accordingly, the Chairman suggested that  the Safeguards Committee meet on Monday, 
18 April 2005.5 
153. The Committee so agreed . 
__________ 
 
 
                                                      
4  These dates were subsequently changed to 5-8 April 2005. (See document G/ADP/W/444, 
G/SCM/W/531, G/SG/W/199.)  
5  This date was subsequently changed to Monday, 4 April 2005. (See document G/ADP/W/444, 
G/SCM/W/531, G/SG/W/199.)