RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SG/M/28 
13 March 2006 
 (06-1113) 
Committee on Safeguards  
  
 
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING 
HELD ON 3 NOVEMBER 2005   
 
Chairperson:  Mrs. Ana Novik (Chile) 
 
 
1. The Committee on Safeguards (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 
3 November 2005. 
2. The Chairperson
 stated that she had an announcement to make under "other business".  The 
following agenda was adopted: 
A. NATIONAL  LEGISLATION.....................................................................................................2  
1. Albania - Review of New Legislative Notification..................................................................3  
2. Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu  - Review of 
New Legislative Notification ................................................................................................... .3 
3. Jordan – Review of New  Legislative Notification .................................................................3  
4. Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia – Review of New Legislative 
Notification ................................................................................................................... .............3  
5. China – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Legislative Notification ....................4  
6. South Africa – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Legislative 
Notification ................................................................................................................... .............4  
B. NOTIFICATIONS  OF ACTIONS  RELATED  TO SAFEGUARD  MEASURES ......................6  
1. Brazil – Grated Coconut ........................................................................................................ ..6 
2. Bulgaria – Crown Corks ......................................................................................................... .6 
3. Canada – Bicycles .............................................................................................................. .......6  
4. Chile – Wheat Flour............................................................................................................ ......6  
5. Colombia – Electric Motor...................................................................................................... .6 
6. Colombia – Electric Smoothing Irons .....................................................................................7  
7. European Communities – Citrus Fruits..................................................................................7  
8. European Communities - Salmon............................................................................................7  
9. European Communities  – Strawberries..................................................................................7  
10. Indonesia – Cerami c Tableware ..............................................................................................8  
11. Indonesia – Lighters ........................................................................................................... ......8  
12. Jordan – Insecticides.......................................................................................................... .......8  G/SG/M/28 
Page 2  
 
  13.
 Morocco – Cera mic Tiles........................................................................................................ ..8 
14. Pakistan – Footwear ............................................................................................................ .....8 
15. Peru – Made-Up Textile Articles .............................................................................................8  
16. Turkey – Active Earth And Clays ...........................................................................................9  
17. Turkey – Th ermometers.......................................................................................................... .9 
18. Turkey – Unframed  Glass Mirrors .........................................................................................9  
19. Turkey – Voltmete rs And Ammeters......................................................................................9  
C. TRANSITIONAL  REVIEW  UNDER  PARAGRAPH  18 OF THE  PROTOCOL  OF 
ACCESSION  OF THE  PEOPLE'  S REPUBLIC  OF CHINA  TO THE  WORLD  
TRADE  ORGANIZATION........................................................................................................9  
D. APPLICATION  OF ARTICLE  9.1...........................................................................................11  
E. OTHER  BUSINESS .................................................................................................................13  
1. Matters raised by the Chairperson .......................................................................................13  
F. ANNUAL  REPORT  TO THE  COUNCIL  ON TRADE  IN GOODS ........................................14  
G. DATE  OF THE  NEXT  REGULAR  MEETING .......................................................................14  
 
 
A. NATIONAL  LEGISLATION 
3. The Chairperson  stated that the first item on the Co mmittee'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 Chairperson mentioned that as it 
had been indicated in the airgram convening th e meeting, the Committee had received legislative 
notifications from 4 Members.  As indicated in the annotated draft agenda attached to the fax dated 
23 September 2005, questions regarding these legislativ e notifications were to have been submitted to 
the Member concerned and to the Secr etariat no later than 13 October 2005. 
4. Concerning the procedure for this meeting, the Chairperson stated that she would first give 
the floor to the Member whose legislation was be ing reviewed, to make any introductory statement 
that it wished.  She would then i nvite that Member to present its answers to any written questions.  
The Chairperson reminded Members of the Comm ittee that in accordance with the procedures 
adopted by the Committee, a written version of th ose answers also had to be provided after the 
meeting.  The Chairperson also reminded Members that follow-up questions could be asked at this 
meeting.  Other delegations would also be given an opportunity to present questions orally at this 
meeting.  After the meeting, there would be a period for the submission of written questions 
concerning any of the legislati ons reviewed in the meeting. 
5. The Chairperson mentioned that if Members wi shed to have written answers to questions, 
they had to ensure that all questions were presen ted 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 
24 November 2005.  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 15 December 2005.  G/SG/M/28 
 Page 3 
 
 
  1. Albania - Review of New Legislative Notification 
6. The Chairperson  noted that the first legislative notification on the agenda was Albania's nil 
notification contained in document G/SG/N/1/ALB/1. 
7. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.  
2. Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Peng hu, Kinmen and Matsu  - Review of New 
Legislative Notification  
8. The Chairperson  noted that Chinese Taipei's legisl ative notification was contained in 
document G/SG/N/1/TPKM/2/Suppl.2.  She also noted that in document G/SG/Q1/TPKM/5, the 
European Communities had posed questions on this notification. 
9. The representative of  Chinese Taipei  stated that they were still in the process of finalizing the 
written replies, and that in the present meeting th ey would provide oral response to some of the 
questions raised by the European Communities.   
10. Regarding the questions from the European Comm unities, he first clarified that paragraphs 2 
and 3 of Article 8 of the Rules set out the list of  information the petitioner was required to submit for 
the purpose of initiating an investigation.  However,  the petitioner could have difficulties in providing 
a certain item, or items, of information, such as "a  complete list of foreign exporters".  Under certain 
circumstances, the investigating authority could exempt the petitioner from providing the information 
that was not reasonably available to them.  Hence, a safeguard investigation could be initiated based 
on the remainder of information contained in the petition documents. 
11. Regarding the last question on Article 28, he stat ed that while it was generally correct that the 
focus of a safeguard investigation was on injury to  the domestic industry, as investigations involved 
collection of relevant information from a wide range  of sources, it was possible that some information 
indicated instances of subsidization or dumping.  This was the reason the legislation foresaw such 
possibility.  He further explained that Chinese Taip ei had never come across such a situation before. 
12. The representative of the European Communities  thanked Chinese Taipei for the answers and 
stated that he was looking forward to receiving answers in writing. 
3. Jordan – Review of New  Legislative Notification   
13. The Chairperson  noted that Jordan's legislative no tification was contained in document 
G/SG/N/1/JOR/3.  She also noted that in docum ent G/SG/Q1/JOR/9, the European Communities had 
posed questions on this notification. 
14. The representative of Jordan  stated that the responses had been submitted in document 
G/SG/Q1/JOR/10. 
15. The representative of the European Communities  took note of the responses and stated that 
they might have further questions after examining the responses closely.   
4. Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia – Review of New Legislative Notification 
16. The Chairperson
 noted that the legislative notifica tions from the Former Yugoslav Republic 
of Macedonia were contained in documents G/SG /N/1/MKD/1/Corr.1 and Suppl.1.  She also noted 
that in document G/SG/Q1/MKD/1, the Eur opean Communities had posed questions on these 
notifications.  G/SG/M/28 
Page 4  
 
  17. She noted that there was no one to represent Macedonia at the meeting and that no written 
answers had been received.  
5. China – Continuing Review of Previously Reviewed Legislative Notification  
18. The Chairperson
 recalled that this agenda related to notifications of legislation from China 
previously considered in the Committee.  Sh e noted that written questions concerning these 
notifications had been received from the Eur opean Communities in document G/SG/Q1/CHN/23 and 
that written answers had been received from China in document G/SG/Q1/CHN/24. 
19. The representative of the European Communities  stated that responses to some questions 
were still somewhat unclear.  He referred in particul ar to two provisions which were of concern to the 
European Communities – Article 7 of the Forei gn Trade Law and Article 31 of the Regulation on 
Safeguards.  He stated that while these two provisi ons had been the subject of a number of questions 
from the European Communities as well as from other delegations, China's answers were still not 
fully satisfactory.  He stated that the Eu ropean Communities would probably submit follow-up 
questions, particularly on these two issues.  He fu rther noted the questions posed by Japan which 
related to the same issues, and stated that the European Communities might pose further questions in 
light of China's responses to the questions from Japan.   
20. The representative of China  stated that China had provided responses in document 
G/SG/NQ1/CHN/24 and was looking forward to further questions, if any.  With regard to questions from Japan, he stated that as the questions were r eceived just the day before, China could not provide 
an immediate response.  He stated that he had refe rred them to the capital, and would provide all the 
responses to the questions hopefully before the ne xt session of the meeting, together with the 
responses to the follow-up questions, if any, from the European Communities. 
21. The Chairperson
 clarified that questions from Japan  would be taken up under Agenda H.1 
6. South Africa – Continuing Review of Previo usly Reviewed Legislative Notification  
22. The Chairperson  recalled that this agenda related to a notification of legislation from South 
Africa previously considered in the Committee.  She noted that written questions concerning this 
notification had been received from the European  Communities in document G/SG/Q1/ZAF/1 and its 
corrigendum. 
23. The representative of South Africa provided the answers orally as follows, and stated that 
written answers would follow. 
24. On question 1, she stated that consistent with  Article 2.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, the 
Regulations required the application of safegua rd measures to all imports of the product under 
investigation.  She added that safeguard measures would not be imposed against products originating 
in a developing country as long as its share of im ports of the product concerned in SACU did not 
exceed 3 per cent and provided that those developing countries with less than 3 per cent import share collectively accounted for not more than 9 per cen t of total imports of the product concerned. 
25. On questions 2 and 3, she stated that under th e Regulations, the concept of "related parties" 
was directly linked to the definition of the "SACU i ndustry" and, as a consequence, to considerations 
of standing and injury.  Where relevant, the Regul ations, through the concep t of related parties, 
granted the Commission the discretion to modify th e identity of the SACU (domestic) producers who 
constituted the SACU (domestic) indus try.  On the issue a group constituting less than "producers as a 
                                                     
 
1 Section C infra  in this document.  G/SG/M/28 
 Page 5 
 
 
  whole", the representative of South Africa pointed out that Article 4.1(c) of the Agreement on 
Safeguards required only that this group's output of the like or direc tly competitive products constitute 
"a major proportion". 
26. On question 4, she stated that section 8.5 provid es, consistent with Article 4 of the Agreement 
on Safeguards, that in determining injury to th e domestic industry, the focus was on domestic 
products that were "like" or "directly competitive".  The purpose of the qualification in this section of 
the Regulations – the focus on the narrowest group of  products – was to manage potential data issues. 
She explained that in evaluating the performance  of the domestic industry, section 8.3 of the 
Regulations set forth a list of potential injury factors.   In obtaining information on these injury factors, 
domestic producers of the like or directly competitiv e product may be unable to provide the authority 
with data at, among other things, the required produc t level.  The Commission may then request data 
for the narrowest group of products.  She explai ned that the qualification in section 8.5 of the 
Regulations took into consideration the data li mitations frequently encountered in anti-dumping 
investigations, with an aim to make safeguard investigation as thorough as possible. 
27. On question 5, while explaining that the Commission had not conducted a safeguard 
investigation to date, the representative of South Af rica stated that the Regulations spelled out two 
avenues for obtaining information on "factors other than  imports of the product concerned".  As in the 
trade remedies area, the Commission may obtain information from interested parties, or the 
Commission may gather information by making its own research. 
28. On question 6, she stated that Article 5. 2(b) of the Agreemen t on Safeguards permitted 
departure from the requirements set forth in subparagr aph (a) if certain conditions were met.  Among 
these conditions was the requirement that such a depa rture be "equitable to all suppliers of the product 
concerned".  Section 21.14 also provided for such a departure where, among other factors, this was 
"equitable", but expounds upon consid erations of equity by adding the notion of non-cooperation.  
She stated that where a supplying country refused to cooperate and thereby impeded an investigation 
by, for example, failing to provide relevant info rmation, departing from the proportionate allocation 
set forth in section 21.13 could be equitable. 
29. The representative of th e European Communities  stated that there were some points which 
remained of some concern, in par ticular the answer to question 6.  He explained that the issue of non-
cooperation was a very delicate one and that the European Communities would certainly follow up on that matter.  He also pointed out that the Euro pean Communities was also not satisfied with the 
responses to questions 4 and 5.  
30. The Chairperson
 stated that  the legislative review process was, as always, of benefit to the 
Committee.  She reminded Members that the deadline for any written questions concerning the legislations reviewed at this meeting was 24 Nove mber 2005.  The deadline for written answers to all 
questions posed in writing was 15 December 2005. 
31. Concerning these deadlines, she 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 Chairperson 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, the Chairperson informed the Committee that 
there were still 30 Members that had not yet made a legislative notification:  Angola, Antigua & 
Barbuda, Belize, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Camer oon, Central African Republic, Congo, Democratic 
Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Gabon, the Ga mbia, Grenada, Guinea Bissau, Guyana, Kuwait, G/SG/M/28 
Page 6  
 
  Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Pa pua New Guinea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts & Nevis, 
Saint Vincent & Grenadines, Sierra Leone, So lomon Islands, Swaziland, Tanzania and Togo. 
33. The Chairperson stated that she regretted that the number of Members that had failed to make 
any legislative notification remained so high.  She 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. 
34. The Committee took note
 of the statements made. 
B. NOTIFICATIONS  OF ACTIONS  RELATED  TO SAFEGUARD  MEASURES 
35. The Chairperson  noted that various notifications had been received since the last meeting.  In 
order to ensure that all of these could be reviewed  in the limited time available, the Chairperson  
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. Brazil – Grated Coconut  
36. The Chairperson  noted that Brazil had made notifications  regarding its investigation on grated 
coconut in documents G/SG/N/10/BRA/3/Suppl.3 and Suppl.4.     
37. There were no comments or questions regarding these notifications.  
2. Bulgaria – Crown Corks 
38. The Chairperson  noted that Bulgaria had made a notification in document G/SG/N/13/BGR/1 
regarding its mid-term review on crown corks.     
39. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.  
3. Canada – Bicycles 
40. The Chairperson  noted that Canada had made a notifi cation regarding its investigation on 
bicycles in document G/SG/N/8/CAN/2.     
41. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.  
4. Chile – Wheat Flour 
42. The Chairperson  noted that Chile had made several notif ications regarding its investigation on 
wheat flour in various documents including G/SG/N/10/CHL/6/Suppl.2.  She further noted that this 
item was discussed in the meeting of April 2005, a nd was under review again at this meeting at the 
request of the United States.       
43. There were no comments or questions regarding these notifications.  
5. Colombia – Electric Motor 
44. The Chairperson  noted that Colombia had made several notifications regarding its 
investigation on electric motor in documen ts G/SG/N/6/COL/3 and G/SG/N/9/COL/3. 
45. There were no comments or questions regarding these notifications.   G/SG/M/28 
 Page 7 
 
 
  6.  Colombia – Electric Smoothing Irons 
46. The Chairperson  noted that Colombia had made several notifications regarding the 
termination of its investigation on electric smoothing irons in document G/SG/N/9/COL/2. 
47. There were no comments or questions regarding these notifications.  
7. European Communities – Citrus Fruits 
48. The Chairperson  noted that the European Communiti es had made several notifications 
regarding its investigation on citrus fruits in documents G/SG/N/6/EEC/2/Suppl.1 and its 
corrigendum. 
49. The representative of th e European Communities  stated that the review notified was almost 
concluded.  He added that the conclusion would be published and relevant information would be 
submitted to the Committee when it became available.  
8. European Communities - Salmon 
50. The Chairperson  noted that the European Communiti es had made several notifications 
regarding its investigation on salmon in docum ents G/SG/N/10/EEC/3/Suppl.2 and Suppl.3.  
51. The representative of Norway  noted that the European Communities repealed the safeguard 
measures on imports of farmed salmon in Apri l 2005 after Norway and Chile had held DSU 
consultations with the European Communities in Marc h 2005.  He stated that Norway maintained the 
view that there had been no basis for the safeguard  measure.  He further noted that following the 
termination of the safeguard measure, the Eur opean Communities had introduced provisional anti-
dumping measures against Norwegian farmed sa lmon.  He understood that the European 
Communities was now about to impose definitive anti-dumping measures.  He stated that there was 
no basis for the imposition of anti-dumping measures against farmed salmon from Norway.  He noted 
with deep regret that when the European Communities, when it had co me to a dead end with the use 
of safeguard measure against farmed salmon, it imme diately applied another trade remedy measure on 
the same product. 
52. The representative of the European Communities  stated that he took note of the comments of 
the representative of Norway.  While noting that this was the Committee on Safeguards and thus not 
the right forum to review the application of anti-dumping rules, he stated that he would report the statement by the representative of Norway to  his colleagues dealing with Anti-Dumping. 
9. European Communities – Strawberries 
53. The Chairperson
 noted that the European Communities had made a notification regarding the 
initiation of investigation on strawberries in doc ument G/SG/N/6/EEC/4 and its corrigendum.   
54. The representative of th e European Communities  clarified that the investigation was ongoing 
and no decision had been taken yet.  He confirmed th at if and when a decision was taken, it would be 
published and notified to the Committee. 
55. The representative of Morocco stated that Morocco had a substa ntial interest in the export of 
frozen strawberries to the European  Communities, and was concerned about the investigation.  He 
stated that Morocco wished to reserved the right to  revert to this matter depending on the development 
of the investigation. G/SG/M/28 
Page 8  
 
  10. Indonesia – Ceramic Tableware 
56. The Chairperson
 noted that Indonesia had made a notifi cation regarding the investigation on 
ceramic tableware in document G/SG/N/8/I DN/1–G/SG/N/10/IDN/1– G/SG/N/11/IDN/1.   
57. The representative of Indonesia stated that the proposed measure, described in page 4 of the 
notification, was still under review by the Minister of Finance. 
11. Indonesia – Lighters 
58. The Chairperson  noted that Indonesia had made a notification regarding the initiation of 
investigation on lighters in document G/SG/N/6/IDN/2.   
59. The representative of Indonesia clarified that the investigation was ongoing. 
12. Jordan – Insecticides  
60. The Chairperson  noted that Jordan had made notifi cations regarding the investigation on 
insecticides in document G/SG/N/8/JOR/5–G/SG/ N/10/JOR/5–G/SG/N/11/JOR/1 and supplement 1 
to this document.   
61. There were no comments or questions regarding these notifications.  
13. Morocco – Ceramic Tiles 
62. The Chairperson  noted that Morocco had made a notification regarding the investigation on 
ceramic tiles in document G/SG/N/8/MAR/2–G/SG/N/10/MAR/2–G/SG/N/11/MAR/1.   
63. The representative of Morocco stated that the safeguard measu re would come into force in 
September.  He explained that this measure wa s not yet applied, as the European Communities had 
requested consultations under Article 12.3 of the Safeguard Agreement, and Morocco had delayed the 
imposition of the measure in view of this request.  He stated that consultations took place in Rabat on 
14 October and that Morocco would keep the Committee updated concerning subsequent 
developments.  
14. Pakistan – Footwear  
64. The Chairperson  noted that Pakistan had made several notifications regarding the 
investigation on footwear in documents  G/SG/N/6/PAK/1 and G/SG/N/9/PAK/1. 
65. There were no comments or questions regarding these notifications.  
15. Peru – Made-Up Textile Articles  
66. The Chairperson  noted that Peru had made a notifica tion regarding the termination of its 
investigation on ceramic tiles in document G/SG/N/9/PER/1. 
67. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.   G/SG/M/28 
 Page 9 
 
 
  16. Turkey – Active Earth And Clays  
68. The Chairperson  noted that Turkey had made a notification regarding the investigation on 
earth and clays in document G/SG/N/8/TUR/1 -G/SG/N/10/TUR/1-G/SG/N/11/TUR/1 and its 
corrigendum.  
69. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.  
17. Turkey – Thermometers  
70. The Chairperson  noted that Turkey had made a notifi cation regarding the termination of its 
investigation on thermometers in document G/SG/N/9/TUR/2. 
71. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.  
18. Turkey – Unframed Glass Mirrors  
72. The Chairperson  noted that Turkey had made a notifi cation regarding the termination of its 
investigation on ceramic tiles in document G/SG/N/9/TUR/3. 
73. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.  
19. Turkey – Voltmeters And Ammeters  
74. The Chairperson  noted that Turkey had made a notification regarding the investigation on 
voltmeters and ammeters in document G/SG/N /8/TUR/2-G/SG/N/10/TUR/2-G/SG/N/11/TUR/2. 
75. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.  
76. Finally, the Chairperson  recalled that any questions concerning 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 24 November 2005.  Written answers must be submitted to the Secretariat no 
later than 15 December 2005. 
77. The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
C. TRANSITIONAL  REVIEW  UNDER  PARAGRAPH  18 OF THE  PROTOCOL  OF 
ACCESSION  OF THE  PEOPLE'  S REPUBLIC  OF CHINA  TO THE  WORLD  TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  
78. The Chairperson  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 subsidiary  bodies which have a relevant mandate. 
79. The Chairperson stated that th e Committee must report the results of the review promptly to 
the Council for Trade in Goods.  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.  She added that 
there were no procedures set out for the conduct of th e transitional review in the Protocol, except that G/SG/M/28 
Page 10  
 
  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 Chairperson info rmed the Committee that China had very recently 
submitted a notification, which would be circulated  as document G/SG/W/201.  She also stated that 
Japan had recently submitted questio ns in the context of the transiti onal review, contained in document 
G/SG/Q1/CHN/25.
 
80. The representative of China  stated that they did not have mu ch to say since, as was noted in 
the submitted "Annex1A" information, China had neither new legislation nor new action taken 
concerning safeguards during the previous year.  C oncerning the questions from Japan, he stated that 
China took it that the questions were  raised under agenda item 2E – revi ew of legislative notifications 
– and so he was not sure whether these questions ha d to be taken up under the current agenda item.  
81. The representative of Japan  stated that he had noted that under agenda item 2E2, China had 
expressed preparedness to submit responses at a later stag e.  He stated that if that was the case, Japan 
appreciated it very much and was looking forwar d to consulting further with China based on the 
responses. 
82. The representative of China  clarified that the title of the document submitted from Japan – 
document G/SG/Q1/CHN/25 – read "Notification of Laws and Regulations under Article 12.6 of the 
Agreement", and that it did not refer to the Transitio nal Review.  He stated that therefore he was very 
much puzzled to see that this document had been  picked up under the current agenda item.  
83. The representative of Japan  clarified that Japan's intention w as to take this issue up under the 
agenda item of Transitional Review.  He stated th at if the title or form of the document were not 
appropriate, he would consult with his colleagues on the matter.  
84. The representative of China  stated that China's position on th is issue was clear, that is, to 
avoid repetition, or the situation where same kind of questions were raised under different agenda 
items.  He stated that he noted Japan's clarificati on that the questions were raised under this agenda. 
He added that as was indicated in the document recently submitted by China (G/SG/W/201), China 
had not adopted new legislations nor  taken any new action in the past year.  He explained that China 
did not receive any questions prior to this meeting except from Japan.  He stat ed that as the questions 
from Japan were received only the da y before, he could not respond in detail.  He further stated that 
the exchange of views with Members on the safeguard  regime and actions of China in the past years 
had reinforced China's understanding that Chin a was acting consistently with the Safeguards 
Agreement.  He stated that in this respect Chin a wanted other Members to be also as strictly 
consistent with the WTO Agreements as China, both in  their regimes as well as in their legislation and 
actions.  The representative of China thanked other Members for not burdening them by posing 
questions under this agenda item simply for the sake of posing questions.  He stated that in China's 
point of view, that was a constructive approach, and China appreciated that. 
85. The Chairperson  noted that China's Protocol of Accession contained no guidelines for 
reporting to the Council for Trade in Goods on th e Committee's transitional review of China's 
implementation of the Agreement.  She proposed  that the Committee foll ow the same reporting 
procedure as last year, whereby the Chairperson, acting on her own responsibility, would prepare a 
brief, factual report, with references to the doc uments concerned, and a ttaching the portion of the 
minutes of the meeting which relate to the transition review. 
86. The Committee agreed  that the Chairperson should prepare the same type of report in respect 
of this year's review. 
                                                      
2 Item A5 supra  in this document.  G/SG/M/28 
 Page 11 
 
 
  D. APPLICATION  OF ARTICLE  9.1 
87. The Chairperson  recalled that at the regular meeting of April 2005, the Committee agreed to 
revert to this matter in the November meeting.  She explained that the Secretariat had made a 
compilation of relevant information building on Mala ysia's work, as requested by the Members, and 
reminded that she had sent that compilation by fax to  Members on 4 October.  She further noted that a 
room document concerning this agenda item had been placed at the back of the room at the request of 
Malaysia.    88. The representative of Malaysia
 thanked the Secretariat for the compilation and stated that 
Malaysia, unfortunately, had little time to work on its fo rmal submission.  Thus, she stated, for today,  
in order to further the discussion, Malaysia ha d prepared questions which were based on the 
Secretariat's compilation.  She first stated that Ma laysia's previous submissions had highlighted that 
the practices on the application of Article 9.1 di ffered quite significantly from Member to Member.  
Although notification in the form of a list of excluded countries was rather common, as evidenced in the Secretariat's compilation, some Members provided a short "reverse" list – that is, a list of 
developing countries not exempted.  She stated that Malaysia would be most interested to hear from 
Members the reasons for this varying practices, and would like to propose to consider a common 
approach in the interest of predictability and transp arency.  She clarified that one option was to notify 
with a positive list – a list specifying countries ex empted from the measure – together with the 
information on the import shares of those countries individually and collectively.  Another option was to adopt a kind of reverse list approach.  She stat ed that Malaysia believe d this would clarify the 
current confusion.   
89. Secondly, she stated that Malaysia was wonde ring whether the Committee could consider the 
inclusion of trade volume figures and data on import shares in the notification.  She noted that such data was sometimes missing in notifications.  She be lieved that such data would enhance transparency 
and facilitate affected Members to respond accordingly.   
90. Thirdly, she observed that some countries di d not provide information on period of data 
collection.  She stated that the Committee could co nsider to have the notifications provide the time 
period for data collection.  As was highlighted in Malaysia's previous submissions, one of the 
drawbacks in the current application of Article 9.1 was the lack of consistency in the investigation 
period.  She stated that full disclosure could alle viate this problem, as Members could continue to 
consider what constitutes the appropria te period in determining injury or threat of injury.  As for the 
period for determining de minimis , she pointed out that as Malaysia had highlighted earlier, and 
confirmed in the Secretariat's compilation, this pe riod differed from the period of investigation for 
most Members.  She stated that Members would su rely agree that there was need to address this 
unpredictability.  She noted that the Committee on Anti-Dumping had adopted a recommendation that 
Members notify, in relation to all investigations, which of the three possible time periods was used for 
the determination of negligible import volumes in the specific case.  She stated that a similar approach 
could be useful here.   
91. Finally, on the issue of the revision of the excl usion list, she stated that Malaysia would like 
to invite Members to consider the necessity of such  revision.  She observed that most countries do not 
revise their list, but stated that it would still be interesting to hear from those who do – why they revise the list, and when and under what circumstances they revise the list.   
92. The representative of Malaysia stated that she looked forward to hearing Members' views on 
the issues she had highlighted or on any ot her pertinent issues she may have missed. 
93. The representative of Chinese Taipei
 stated that this issue was important, as Chinese Taipei 
was sometimes unsure whether it was excluded or not from a specific safeguard measure.  He stated G/SG/M/28 
Page 12  
 
  that it was also very important for the exporters and importers to have a clear understanding of the 
measure.  He stated that Chinese Taipei supported many parts of Malaysia's proposal and shared the 
concerns.  He stated that it was important that th e notifications included the period used to determine 
negligible imports.  On the issues of positive and ne gative lists, he stated that a positive list approach 
was better, as it was clearer.  He explained that Chinese Taipei had noted that a certain Member had 
imposed several safeguard measures a ll with different lists without o ffering any rationale why the lists 
varied from case to case.  He hoped that this discu ssion would result in more transparency in the 
safeguard notifications. 
94. The representative of the United States
 stated that the Secretar iat's compilation provided a 
good basis for the consideration of the questions posed by Malaysia.  He stated that as the room 
document was only recently made available, his comme nts would be preliminary.  He first agreed 
with Malaysia that the compilation contained inte resting information regarding the diverging of 
practices of various Members.  He stated that ther e would be enhanced transparency for all Members 
if all Members were to follow the existing guideli nes provided in G/SG/1 formats, which required the 
use of a positive list.  The United States also believe d that the provision of the information in this 
agreed format would allow the S ecretariat to include a column in  its annual report, perhaps in 
Annex 2, the number of developing countries that  were excluded from a particular measure pursuant 
to Article 9.1.  With respect to the room document submitted by Malaysia, he stated that it was not clear what was meant by an approach that would clarify the "status of developing countries".  He 
asked whether Malaysia was contemplating a gradua tion criteria to be used for determining when a 
WTO Member should no longer be considered a de veloping country Member for the purposes of 
applying Article 9.1.  He further stated that the United States was doubtful that the Committee would 
be able to reach a consensus on such a decisi on due to the cross-cutting issues involved.  On 
Malaysia's idea of providing trade volume figures, the United States was willing to discuss it further.  
However, he understood that this  information was already routinely provided by authorities making 
safeguards notifications.  Perhaps a more pragmatic a pproach would be to provide in the notification a 
link to the investigation report web page where the in formation could be found.  He further stated that 
the issue of period of data collection involved i ssues that go far beyond Article 9.1, and so was not 
convinced that a discussion of this topic made sense w ithin this particular contex t.  He stated that the 
United States, however, would be willing to discuss the period used for determining de minimus,  
although he suspected that the discussion would lead to the conclusion that there was no single period 
that would be appropriate in all safeguard cases.  On the issue of revision of the list, he asked 
Malaysia to elaborate further on what it expects to learn from such discussi on.  The United States 
reading of Article 9.1 was that the safeguard measure shall not be applied against the product 
originating in a developing country Member, as long as its share of the imports of the product concerned did not exceed 3 per cent.  For the United  States, lists were revised as a result of the 
application of this provision.  He stated that if  a Member did not revise the list and continued to 
exclude Members whose share subsequently exceeded  3 per cent, that would seem to disadvantage 
other developing country Members.   
95. The representative of the European Communities
 stated that the European Communities 
shared most of the comments made by the United St ates.  He stated that as it was difficult to make a 
comprehensive analysis of the paper circulated by Malaysia only that day, he would revert to the 
matter in the future in detail.  He then stated th at two types of issues should be distinguished.  One 
was transparency and the other was the criteria to be used to determine exclusions.  The questions 
which appear in Malaysia's room document as  Q1, Q2  and Q3 were all about transparency.  On this 
issue, he stated that if Members were to respect  the standard format for notifications, all such 
information were covered by the notification obligat ion established by Article 12.2.  As regards the 
other set of issues – that is, the basis on which c ountries can be qualified as developing countries, the 
period for determining de minimis,  and the revision of the list of exempted countries – he stated that 
the European Communities was intere sted in further discussing these point s.  He also stated that the 
European Communities was interested in hearing Malaysia's views on how to proceed further.  G/SG/M/28 
 Page 13 
 
 
  96. The representative of Argentina  stated that Argentina was inte rested in the improvement of 
transparency and predictability of safeguard measures.   On the issue of whether or not to clarify the 
status of developing countries in relation to Article 9.1, he stated that Argentina agreed with the 
comments made by the United States in the sense th at he did not think it would be easy to reach 
consensus on this issue of graduation.  He furthe r noted that this issue w as previously discussed in 
different occasions in the context of a possible reco mmendation for the application of Article 9.1.  He 
stated that there should be a way to take the di scussion forward while avoiding repetition of the same 
discussion.   
97. The representative of Mexico  stated that Mexico agreed with the United States that the 
discussion of criterion for graduation would be difficu lt.  He also stated that Mexico was open to 
discussing ways and means to achieve greater tran sparency and certainty in the application of 
Article 9.1.  
98. The representative of Turkey  stated that Malaysia's interest in this issue would contribute to 
increased transparency with regard to implementati on of S&D elements of the Safeguard Agreement.  
With respect to the options presented by Malaysia concerning the list of countries, he stated that 
Turkey definitely preferred the positive approach, as  the aim of the list was to indicate to the 
countries receiving special and differential treatment , and not to point out the countries which were 
subject to the measure.  He stated that Turkey agreed  with the United States that the issue of period of 
data collection was not an appropriate topic to be discuss in the current context, but stated that it 
would be useful to discuss the period for de minimis  determination.  He stated that these were 
preliminary remarks, and that he would like to revert to this matter la ter with more detailed 
comments. 
99. The representative of Malaysia  thanked Members for the comments and stated that she would 
briefly respond to some of the questions posed.  On the query by the United States whether Malaysia 
had an objective of working towards a "graduation" of developing countries for the purpose of Article 9.1, she stated that Malaysia did not have su ch an objective.  What Malaysia wanted was to try 
and find a solution to the arbitrary listing of develo ping countries.  As Chinese Taipei mentioned, 
some Members had different list of developing coun tries for different safeguard measures, and there 
was no explanation why the list varied.  She stated that Malaysia agreed with all the comments made 
that Members should work to achieve a transpar ent and uniform notification in order to secure 
predictability and certainty in the app lication of the safeguard measures.   
100. The Chairperson
 asked Members whether they agreed with  her view that it would be useful to 
continue the discussion at the April 2006 meeting.   
101. The representative of the United States  agreed with the Chairperson and asked that the 
Secretariat update the compilation list for the April m eeting so that Members could have the most up-
to-date list. 
102. The Chairperson  agreed to proceed as suggested.  
103. The Committee took note  of the statements made. 
E. OTHER  BUSINESS 
1. Matters raised by the Chairperson 
104. The Chairperson  explained that the Secretariat had b een working for some years to build a 
database on safeguard notifications.  She stated  that although it still needed some technical 
adjustments, she was happy to an nounce that this database was virt ually completed.  As with the G/SG/M/28 
Page 14  
 
  database for anti-dumping and countervailing duties, due to technical and budgetary restraints, the 
database could not be made available on-line.  She stated, however, that the Secretariat would be happy to run the database for any Member that wanted  to use it.  She invited such Members to contact 
Mr. Yano, the secretary to the Safeguards Committee.  
105. The Committee took note
 of the statement made. 
F. ANNUAL  REPORT  TO THE  COUNCIL  ON TRADE  IN GOODS 
106. The Chairperson  noted that pursuant to Article 13.1(a)  of the Agreement, the Committee was 
to monitor the general implementation of the Agr eement, and report on this annually and make any 
recommendations towards its improvement  to the Council for Trade in Goods. 
107. 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 2005, had been prepared by the Secret ariat.  A preliminary draft of this report was 
made available to Members by fax on 28 October. 
108. The Chairperson suggested that the Committe e consider the draft report paragraph by 
paragraph and then review the Annexes.  The Chai rperson suggested that the Committee proceed with 
this work in informal mode. 
109. After correcting several technical  matters, the Committee adopted  its annual report to the 
Council for Trade in Goods for 2005 (see document G/L/761). 
G. DATE  OF THE  NEXT  REGULAR  MEETING 
110. The Chairperson recalled that regular meetings normally would be held in April and October, 
in conjunction with the regular meetings of th e Committees on Anti-Dumping Practices and Subsidies 
and Countervailing Measures.  Accordingly, she sugg ested that the Safeguards Committee meet in the 
week of 24 April 2006.  She stated that the exact date would be confirmed later. 
111. The Committee so agreed . 
__________