WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
G/SG/M/40 
20 January 2012 
 (12-0382) 
Committee on Safeguards  
 
  
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING 
HELD ON 27 OCTOBER 2011 
 
Chairperson:  Ms Lillian Bwalya 
 
 
1. The Committee on Safeguards (the "Committee") held a regular meeting on 27 October 2011. 
2. Regarding "Other Business", Costa Rica indicated  that together with the delegations of 
Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras, it wished to  make statements concerning an investigation by 
the Dominican Republic on tubular fabric and polyp ropylene bags. The Chairperson stated that she 
wished to make a statement concerning notifications. 
3. With this, the following agenda was adopted: 
A.  NATIONAL LEGISLATION  ............................................................................................................. 2  
1.  Chile – Review of New Legi slative Notification ...................................................................... 2  
2.  Kuwait – Review of New Le gislative Notification .................................................................. 2  
3.  Ecuador – Review of New Legislative Notification ................................................................ 2  
B.  NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RELATED TO SAFEGUARD MEASURES  ............................................ 3  
1.  India - N1, 3-Dimethyl Butyl-N Phenyl Paraphenylenediamine ........................................... 3  
2.  India - Phthalic Anhydride .................................................................................................... .. 4 
3.  Indonesia – Articles of Iron or Steel Wire under HS Code 7326.20.90 ................................ 4  
4.  Indonesia – Tarpaulins, Awnings and Sunblinds of Synthetic Fibres.................................. 4  
5.  Indonesia - Polypropylene in Granule Form .......................................................................... 4  
6.  Indonesia – Cotton Yarn other than Sewing Thread ............................................................. 4  
7.  Malaysia - Hot-Rolled Coils ................................................................................................... .. 4 
8.  Philippines - T estliner Board ................................................................................................. .. 5 
9.  Thailand – Glass Block ........................................................................................................ ..... 5 
10.  Turkey – Polyethylene Terephthalate ..................................................................................... 5  
11.  Turkey – Cotton Yarn .......................................................................................................... .... 6 
12.  Ukraine – Mo tor Cars .......................................................................................................... .... 6 
13.  Ukraine – Ferro-Manganese and Ferro-Silico-Manganese ................................................... 7  
C.  TRANSITIONAL REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 18 OF THE PROTOCOL OF ACCESSION OF 
THE PEOPLE 'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA TO THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION  ................................ 7  G/SG/M/40 
Page 2  
 
  D. 
REQUEST UNDER ARTICLE 13.1( B) OF THE AGREEMENT ON SAFEGUARDS (REQUEST 
FROM COLOMBIA ) ........................................................................................................................ 8  
E.  REQUEST UNDER ARTICLE 13.1( B) OF THE AGREEMENT ON SAFEGUARDS (REQUEST 
FROM INDIA ) ............................................................................................................................. . 13 
F.  OTHER BUSINESS  ....................................................................................................................... 17  
1.  Statements by Costa Rica, Guatemal a, El Salvador and Honduras ................................... 17  
2.  Statement by the Chairperson ............................................................................................... 18  
G.  ANNUAL REPORT  ....................................................................................................................... 19  
H.  DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING ............................................................................................ 19  
 
 
A. NATIONAL LEGISLATION  
1. Chile – Review of New Legislative Notification 
4. The Chairperson noted that the legislative no tification from Chile was contained in document 
G/SG/N/1/CHL/2/Suppl.1.  She noted that written qu estions concerning this notification had been 
received from the United States ("US") in document G/SG/Q1/CHL/1.  
5. Chile provided the responses orally.1 
6. There were no further comments or qu estions regarding th is notification. 
2. Kuwait – Review of New Legislative Notification 
7. The Chairperson noted that the legislativ e notification from Kuwait was contained in 
document G/SG/N/1/KWT/1.  She noted that written questions concerning this notification had been 
received from the US in document G/SG/Q1/KWT/1.  
8. The Chairperson noted that the delegation of Kuwait was not present in the room.2 
3. Ecuador – Review of New Legislative Notification 
9. The Chairperson noted that the legislative notification from Ecuador was contained in 
document G/SG/N/1/ECU/5. She noted that written qu estions concerning this notification had been 
received from the US in document G/SG/Q1/ECU/5.  
10. Ecuador provided the responses orally.3   
11. The Chairperson reminded Members that the deadline for written questions concerning any 
legislation reviewed at this meeting was 17 Nove mber 2011.  The deadline for written answers to all 
written questions, including questions submitte d in writing prior to this meeting, was 
8 December 2011. She reminded the Committee of th e importance of providing written answers to 
written questions posed, since the exchange of written questions and answers constituted the 
Committee's only record of the review of legislation.  The Committee's records we re left incomplete if 
                                                      
1 Subsequently provided in writing. See document G/SG/Q1/CHL/2.  
2 Written responses were submitted in document G/SG/Q1/KWT/2.  
3 Subsequently provided in writing. See document G/SG/Q1/ECU/6.  G/SG/M/40 
 Page 3 
 
 
  written questions were not answered, or only answer ed long after the meeting where the review took 
place.  She stated that, in order to help Members keep track of the questions posed and the responses 
submitted, any unanswered questions would be indicated in the draft annotated agenda of the next 
Committee meeting. 
12. Before proceeding to the next agenda item, the Chairperson informed the Committee that 
there were still 27 Members that had not yet made a legislative notification.4  She stated that she 
would not read out the names of those Members, but  emphasized that this was one of the important 
obligations of the Safeguards Agre ement ("Agreement").  Members that did not yet have legislation 
need only submit a very simple "nil" notification.  She stated that if delegations had any questions 
regarding the procedures for notifications, they s hould feel free to contact the Secretariat or the 
Chairperson. 
B. NOTIFICATIONS OF ACTIONS RELATED TO SAFEGUARD MEASURES  
1. India - N1, 3-Dimethyl Butyl-N Phenyl Paraphenylenediamine 
13. The Chairperson noted that India had made two notifications regarding an investigation on 
N1, 3-Dimethyl Butyl-N Phenyl Paraphenylenediamine – also known as Px-13 or 6-Ppd – in 
documents G/SG/N/8/IND/21-G/SG/N/10/IND/12- G/SG/N/11/IND/7 and G/SG/N/8/IND/21/Suppl.1-
G/SG/N/10/IND/12/Suppl.1-G/SG/N/11/IND/7/Suppl.1. 
14. The US explained that it had sent a letter to  India on 3 July 2011 requesting consultation 
regarding this investigation. However, India had not acknowledged the request of the US. The 
measure was imposed on 30 August 2011. The US wished to hear explanation from India on this issue.   
15. India stated that it would refer the question to the capital.  
16. The European Union ("EU") made three observati ons regarding this investigation. First, the 
EU appreciated the fact that some of its previ ous remarks had been take n into account in this 
investigation, in particular concerning the non- cumulation of anti-dumping and safeguard duties. 
Second, it noted that this safeguard measure re placed the existing anti-dumping measure. It was 
apparently because the AD measure was not effectiv e. The EU was of the view that is it was not 
necessary to use the safeguard inst rument in this case. Anti-dumping measures that were absorbed or 
circumvented and proved ineffective should be re viewed, not replaced by a safeguard duty as seems 
to have been the case here. Thirdly, regarding the findings themselves, the EU had four comments: (a) 
India did not disclose the methodology it used to calculate the level of the safeguard duty recommended, (b) not all the injury factors mentione d in the Agreement have been analysed, (c) the 
causal link analysis was not convincing, due to l ack of coincidence in time between the increase in 
imports and the serious injury allegedly suffered by the petitioner, and (d) the impact of other factors 
having a bearing on the situation of the domestic industry had not been sufficiently analysed. 
17. India requested that the ques tions be submitted in writing. 
                                                      
4 These Members were: Angola, Antigua & Barbuda, Belize, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African 
Republic, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo,  Djibouti, the Gambia, Grenada, Guinea Bissau, Mali, 
Mauritania, Mozambique, Nepal, Niger, Papua New Guin ea, Rwanda, Saint Kitts & Nevis, Saint Vincent & 
Grenadines, Sierra Leone, Solomon Island s, Swaziland, Tanzania , Togo, and Tonga. G/SG/M/40 
Page 4  
 
  2. India - Phthalic Anhydride 
18. The Chairperson noted that India had made two notifications regarding an investigation on 
Phthalic Anhydride in documents G/SG/N/6 /IND/29 and G/SG/N/7/IND/9-G/SG/N/8/IND/22. 
19. There were no questions or comments regarding this notification.  
3. Indonesia – Articles of Iron or Steel Wire under HS Code 7326.20.90 
20. The Chairperson noted that Indonesia had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
articles of iron or steel wire under HS c ode 7326.20.90 in document G/SG/N/6/IDN/15. 
21. There were no questions or comments regarding this notification.  
4. Indonesia – Tarpaulins, Awnings and Sunblinds of Synthetic Fibres 
22. The Chairperson noted that Indonesia had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
tarpaulins, awnings and sunblinds of synthe tic fibres in document G/SG/N/8/IDN/10.   
23. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
5. Indonesia - Polypropylene in Granule Form 
24. The Chairperson noted that Indonesia had made two notifications regarding an investigation 
on polypropylene in granule form in documen ts G/SG/N/6/IDN/14 and G/SG/N/9/IDN/9-G/SG/4. 
25. Japan welcomed the fact that the investigation was terminated without any measure, but 
stated that the mere act of initiating a safeguard i nvestigation disrupted the market and requested care 
in initiating an investigation.      
6. Indonesia – Cotton Yarn other than Sewing Thread 
26. The Chairperson noted that Indonesia had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
cotton yarn other than sewing thread in document G/SG/N/10/IDN/4/Suppl.2-G/SG/N/11/IDN/9. 
27.  The EU made a general statement regarding all the notifications from Indonesia on the 
agenda. First, the EU was concerned about th e number of safeguard proceedings initiated by 
Indonesia recently. The EU made this point repeatedly  in the past. It wished to invite the Indonesian 
authorities to proceed with utmost caution, fully complying with WTO rules. Safeguards were not 
meant to address an unfair behaviour but only a surg e in imports. As such, it should not be used in 
situations where it was apparent that problems to the domestic industry were caused merely by 
imports from selected countries.  
28. Indonesia stated that it was complying with WT O rules. The increase in the investigations 
was due to the fact that the domestic industry was fully  aware of the availability of this instrument.    
7. Malaysia - Hot-Rolled Coils 
29. The Chairperson noted that Malaysia had made two notifications regarding hot-rolled coils in 
documents G/SG/N/6/MYS/1, including its corrigenda, and G/SG/N/9/MYS/1. 
30. Japan welcomed the fact that the investiga tion was terminated without any measure, and 
stated that that was the reasonable course of action.   G/SG/M/40 
 Page 5 
 
 
  8. Philippines - Testliner Board 
31. The Chairperson noted that the Philippines had ma de a notification regarding an investigation 
on testliner board in document G/SG/N/8/PHL/8/Suppl.1-G/SG/N/10/PHL/7-
G/SG/N/11/PHL/9/Suppl.1.  
32. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification. 
9. Thailand – Glass Block 
33. The Chairperson noted that Thailand had made two notifications regarding an investigation 
on glass block in documents G/SG/N/8/THA/1/Suppl.2-G/SG/N/10/THA/1-
G/SG/N/11/THA/1/Suppl.2 and G/SG/N/8/THA/1/Suppl.3-G/SG/N/10/THA/1/Suppl.1-G/SG/N/11/THA/1/Suppl.3. 
34. The EU noted that Thailand cumulated the saf eguard duty with the already existing anti-
dumping duty on imports of glass block from the C zech Republic. Exports already subject to the AD 
duty were consequently subject to a combined duty level of almost 90%. In the view of the EU, this was not only excessive but also legally unwarranted. The EU recalled that Thailand had imposed an AD duty at a level of 54.33%, which was equal to th e injury margin. Conceptually, it did not make 
any sense to add another 35% of duties as a safegua rd duty, because according to Article 5 of the 
Agreement, the level of the safeguard duty should correspond to what was necessary to remove injury. 
The EU urged Thailand to follow other countries th at were much more cautious with cumulation of 
safeguard measures and antidumping measures. The EU urged the Thai authorities to urgently review 
the level of the measures. 
35. Thailand requested that the ques tions be submitted in writing. 
10. Turkey – Polyethylene Terephthalate 
36. The Chairperson noted that Turkey had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
polyethylene terephthalate in document G/SG/N/8 /TUR/13-G/SG/N/10/TUR/13-G/SG/N/11/TUR/16.  
37. India expressed concerns over the finding of th e investigating authority that the domestic 
industry was exposed to threat of serious injury.  This threat was not borne out by the statistics 
provided in the notification.  As per the figures in the notification, the production, capacity utilisation 
and domestic sales had increased over the period 20 06 – 2010.  The figures for production, capacity 
utilisation and domestic sales for 2010 were more th an the corresponding figures for 2006. Only for 
the first quarter of 2011 was there a decline.  Indi a stated that it may not be correct to assess injury 
based on one quarter year alone when Turkey had chosen a period of investigation from 2006 to 2010.  
The profitability of the domestic industry had al so improved over this period.  Therefore it was 
difficult for India to understand how Turkey had claimed that their domestic industry was faced with 
the threat of serious injury.  India requested  an explanation from the Turkish delegation.  
38. Turkey pointed out that this measure was based on "threat of serious injury".  In order to 
clarify that there was a "threat of serious injury", data for the first quarter of 2011 and 2010 were also 
analysed, in addition to data duri ng the injury period that covered 2006-2010.  Turkey stressed that 
the injury figures and the import figures clearly showed  that there was a "threat of serious injury".  In 
terms of injury figures, Turkey clearly identifie d that production of the domestic industry decreased 
significantly in the first quarter of 2011 compared to the same period of the previous year.  Inventories of the domestic industry increased significantly in the first quarter of the 2011 compared to the same period of the 2010.  Citing the figures in  the notification, Turkey further explained that 
imports had increased between 2006 and 2010, and be tween the first quarter of 2010 and the first G/SG/M/40 
Page 6  
 
  quarter of 2011. The ratio of imports to domest ic production and the market share of imports 
increased between 2006 and 2010 as well as between th e first quarter of 2010 and the first quarter 
2011.  The monthly absolute import figures shown in the notification also clearly identified the significant rise in imports.  Turkey stated that in light  of this explanation, it was clear that there was a 
"threat of serious injury".  Finally, Turkey stated  that it appreciated if the questions were posed in 
writing. 
11. Turkey – Cotton Yarn 
39. The Chairperson noted that Turkey had made tw o notifications regarding an investigation on 
cotton yarn in document G/SG/N/6/TUR/14/Suppl .1-G/SG/N/7/TUR/10-G/SG/N/11/TUR/17 and its 
corrigendum. She also noted that written questions  concerning this notification had been received 
from India in document G/SG/Q2/TUR/3.  
40. Turkey wished to discuss this item under agenda item E.  
41. India stated that it looked forward to that discussion.   
42. The EU stated that the provisional measure was imposed to bridge the gap between the expiry 
of the definitive measures and the conclusion of th e new investigation. In the view of the EU, this 
approach was clearly at odds with WTO rules. Fi rstly, the determination of an extension of the 
measures should be made before the expiry. Secondl y, provisional measures may only be adopted in 
critical circumstances, where delay would cause dama ges difficult to repair. This was clearly not the 
case where a measure had already been in force. 
43. The US stated that while it did not have a large export interest on this issue, it took seriously 
its obligations as a Committee member to participat e in the discussions on this issue, and looked 
forward to the discussion. The US al so requested that the original finding, or the so-called underlying 
determination, be submitted by Turkey.  
44. Responding to the comment from the US, Turkey st ated that the non-confidential summary of 
the determination appeared in the Official Gazette  of Turkey, and that a summary was accessible via 
the internet.  
12. Ukraine – Motor Cars 
45. The Chairperson noted that Ukraine had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
motor cars in document G/SG/N/6/UKR/9. 
46. The EU stated that basic WTO standards were not  met in this investigation. First, concerning 
imports, even assuming that there was indeed an increase between 2009 and 2010, this was marginal 
compared to the decline that occurred earlier due to the economic crisis. According to the EU, the 
level of imports in 2010 was still far below that of 2008. That did not meet the criteria of Article 2.1 
of the Agreement. Second, in the view of the EU, the difficult situation of the Ukrainian car producers 
was related to the sudden consumption collapse af ter 2008 as a result of the general economic crisis. 
If this factor was analysed properly, Ukraine coul d not escape the conclusion that the conditions of the 
Agreement were not met. The EU requested that the investigation be terminated.  
47. Japan stated that it agreed with the EU, in pa rticular that imports had not increased in a 
meaningful manner.  
48. Ukraine requested that the questi ons be posed in writing.     G/SG/M/40 
 Page 7 
 
 
  13. Ukraine – Ferro-Manganese and Ferro-Silico-Manganese  
49. The Chairperson noted that Ukraine had made a notification regarding an investigation on 
ferro-manganese and ferro-silico-manga nese in document G/SG/N/9/UKR/5. 
50. There were no comments or questions regarding this notification.  
51. The Chairperson thanked all delegations fo r their statements, questions and answers 
concerning the various notifications of actions related to safeguard measures.  She reminded 
delegations that any questions for which written r esponses were requested should be submitted to the 
Member concerned and to the Secretariat no la ter than 17 November 2011.  Written responses to 
questions, including questions subm itted in writing prior to this mee ting, should be submitted to the 
Secretariat no later than 8 December 2011.  As with  the legislative notifications, if there were any 
unanswered questions, they would be indicated in the draft annotated agenda of the next Committee 
meeting. 
52. 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  
53. The Chairperson noted that Paragraph 18 of Ch ina'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. 
54. The Chairperson stated that th e Committee must report the results of the review promptly to 
the Council for Trade in Goods.  The review has taken place after China's accession each year for 
eight years, and this being year 10, this was the fi nal review. She added that there were no procedures 
set out for the conduct of the transitional review in  the Protocol, except that China was to provide 
relevant information in advance of the review.  In accordance with section IV.6 of Annex 1A to the 
Protocol, China was required to notify the Commi ttee of its implementati on of its Regulation on 
Safeguards.  The Chairperson informed the Committ ee that China had submitted the information on 
20 October 2011, and was circulated as document G/SG/W/217. 
55. There was no Member that took the floor to comment on the information submitted by China. 
56. The representative of China, at the occasion of th is final review, thanke d all delegations for 
their constant attention and interest throughout th e TRM discussions. She stated that China has made 
tremendous efforts to fulfil its commitments unde r China's Accession Protocol, and that China has 
gradually developed the legal framework of the safeguards instrument in compliance with the 
Accession Protocol as well as the Safeguards Agreemen t, as was described in the latest information 
circulated in document G/SG/W/217. China has been serious and prudent in the use of safeguards, as 
with other trade remedy instruments. China has initiated only one safeguards investigation which was 
duly notified to the Committee. China would continue  to actively engage in the activity of this 
Committee, and looked forward to exchanging vi ews on safeguards measures of various Members 
under the regular agenda items.   G/SG/M/40 
Page 8  
 
  57. The Chairperson noted that China's Protoc ol 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 time, 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 transitional review. 
58. The Committee agreed that  the Chairperson should prepare the same type of report in respect 
of this year's review. 
D. REQUEST UNDER ARTICLE 13.1( B) OF THE AGREEMENT ON SAFEGUARDS (REQUEST FROM 
COLOMBIA ) 
59. The Chairperson noted that the next item on th e agenda was a request from Colombia made 
under Article 13.1(b) of the Agreement, concerning the investigation by Ecuador on windshields. She 
recalled that while Colombia made an oral request at the last Committee meeting held in May, this 
was the first meeting held after the request was offici ally circulated. She also recalled that this was the 
first request made under Article 13.1(b).  
60. Colombia reminded the Committee that Colombia requests, pursuant to Article 13.1(b) of the 
Agreement, that the Committee make a finding whether or not the procedural requirements set forth in 
the Agreement, in particular that under Article 12 concerning the need to hold prior consultations, 
were complied with by Ecuador in relation to the establishment of a definitive safeguard measure on 
the subject goods. Colombia explained as follows:  
61. Colombia wished to take this opportunity to r eaffirm its systemic interest in protecting the 
institutional framework and rules of this Organiza tion. Colombia noted with concern the increased 
number of trade defence measures taken by Ec uador and wondered whether this was not an 
expression of the protectionist tendencies that had emerged recently. Colombia called for any 
measures adopted to be truly in consonance with th e reasons for which they were established and to 
meet the procedural requirements of the WTO. Colo mbia was of the view that the specific measure 
subject to its 13.1(b) request was not in full complia nce with the substantive requirements.  However, 
given that Article 13.1(b) refers only to procedural aspects, Colombia would focus on this point. 
62. On 8 March 2010, Ecuador initiate d an investigation concerning imports of the subject goods 
to determine whether such imports had caused or th reatened to cause serious injury to the domestic 
industry producing like or directly competitive pr oducts. On 11 October 2010 , Ecuador ordered the 
application for a period of three calendar years of  a definitive safeguard measure consisting of "an 
additional specific duty of US$12.72 on imports of windshields classified under NANDINA national 
import tariff subheading 7007.21.00.00". On 15 October 2010, following the imposition of this 
safeguard, Ecuador notified the WTO of its finding of  serious injury or thr eat thereof caused by 
increased imports.  This notification is set fort h in document G/SG/N/8/ECU/3–G/SG/N/10/ECU/4. 
On 25 October 2010, after the imposition of the defi nitive measure, Ecuador he ld consultations with 
Colombia to discuss the safeguard.  A further meetin g was held on 23 November 2010.  At neither of 
these meetings did Ecuador seek to review the inform ation on the application of the safeguard or to 
exchange views on an agreement on any adequate m eans of trade compensation for the measure, with 
a view to reaching an understanding on ways to ach ieve the objective set out in Article 8.1 of the 
Agreement. At neither of the two meetings was th ere an exchange of views on this measure or a 
review of the pertinent information in accord ance with Article 12.3 of the Agreement.  
63. Ecuador's failure to hold consultations prio r to imposing the safeguard was a flagrant 
violation of the procedure established in Article 12 of the Agreement. As noted by the panel in Korea 
– Dairy , consultations must take place before a safegua rd measure is applied, i.e. when it is still  G/SG/M/40 
 Page 9 
 
 
  simply a proposal.  This did not happen in this case since the consultations with Colombia were held 
after the imposition of the definitive safeguard. Ecua dor also failed to provide "adequate opportunity" 
for prior consultations in so far as the information on the finding of the existence of serious injury or 
threat thereof caused by increased imports was not notified prior to the imposition of the definitive 
safeguard, which is inconsistent w ith Article 12.2 of the Agreement. 
64. In fact, as noted in the Report of the Appellate Body in US – Wheat Gluten , the information 
referred to in Article 12.2 of the Agreement, i.e.  the evidence of serious injury, should have been 
provided prior to holding consulta tions and, in any case, before the imposition of the definitive 
safeguard, which did not happen, thus further affect ing Colombia's rights. Ecuador's actions in this 
process violated the international commitments undertaken by Ecuador under the GATT 1994 and the 
covered agreements, in particular the Safeguards Agreement. In view of the foregoing, Colombia 
insisted on its request that the Committee carry out the mandate assi gned to under Article 13.1(b) of 
the Agreement and report without de lay to the Council for Trade in Goods. Colombia would continue 
to make every effort, bilaterally and multilaterally, to ensure that Ecuador terminates this measure. 
65. Colombia concluded by stating that Colomb ia and Ecuador were friendly neighbours bound 
by strong ties, which they constantly strove to deepen. Colombia therefore sought to maintain good 
relations with Ecuador as well as to  protect its own domestic industry,  and the two objectives were not 
necessarily incompatible. Colombia requested that this statement be  incorporated in full in the 
minutes of this meeting.5 
66. Ecuador stated that it strongly disagreed with  the facts presented by Colombia in its request. 
Ecuador explained that the facts were as follo ws: On 24 February 2010, the domestic industry 
requested the initiation of an investigation. On 19 April, the Investigating Authority, by means of 
Resolution No. 10061 published in Offi cial Journal No. 174, decided to initiate an investigation.  The 
Resolution established, inter alia , that the Investigating Authority: "will gather information relating to 
the investigation up to 45 days from the date of in itiation of the investigation"; "… will hold a hearing 
for all interested parties within a period of 45 days  of the date of initiation of the investigation, … 
(and) may hold separate hearings, of which the pa rties will be previously informed"; and "will assess 
all the information and documentation submitted by the interested parties". The purpose of these 
provisions was to guarantee the central role that interested parties are called upon to play in the 
investigation process, in addition to making them the primary source of information. On 22 April 
Ecuador notified the Committee of the initiation of an investigation on the subject goods. The 
notification stated that Ecuador had recorded a massive increase of imports, calculated at 209% in 
volume terms and at 174% in CIF value terms, whic h had adversely affected the domestic industry, 
whose domestic market share had declined in spite of an increase in domestic demand for 
windshields. On 27 May, through Resolution 565 publis hed in Official Journal No. 214, the Foreign 
Trade and Investment Council rejected the domestic  industry's request for the application of a 
provisional safeguard measure, in the absence of a determination of the existence of "critical 
circumstances" that could cause da mage that it would be difficult to repair. On 4 June, upon prior 
notice issued on 26 May, a public hearing was held  in order that, pursuant to Article 3.1 of the 
Agreement, "the importers, exporte rs, and other interested parties could present evidence and their 
views, including the opportunity to respond to the presentations of other parties and to submit their 
views, inter alia…" Representatives of the followi ng entities took part in the public hearing:  the 
Colombian Ministry of Industry and Tourism, the Chilean Embassy, the Peruvian Embassy, the 
Colombian Association of Auto Parts Producers (ACOLFA), the Ecuadorian companies CRILAMYT 
S.A., Quito Motors SACI, VITEMCO Ecuador and CRISTALAUTOS, and the Ecuadorian Chamber 
of Automotive Industry (CINAE). They were given ample and sufficient opportunities to present their 
views, as well as to respond to the evidence and ar guments put forward by the other participants. At 
this hearing, the representatives of the Chil ean and Peruvian Embassies requested, among other 
                                                      
5 The statement of Colombia is reproduced in full in document G/SG/W/219. G/SG/M/40 
Page 10  
 
  issues, that imports from their respective countries be  excluded from the application of the safeguard 
measure, pursuant to Article 9.1 of the Agreement.  Furthermore, the representative of the Colombian 
Ministry of Industry and Tourism requested that imports of "armoured windshields" be excluded from 
the application of the safeguard measure. At the end of the public hearing, under the understanding 
that the interested parties should be the primary source of information, the Investigating Authority 
invited them to provide additional comments and/or  supplementary information within the following 
15 days. On 11 October, through Resolution 587 publis hed in Official Journal No. 297, the Foreign 
Trade and Investment Council, determined, inter alia , that: (a) there was a clear threat of injury 
caused by increasing imports; and (b) the increase in these imports had already led to a decline in the 
sales, production, utilized capacity and productivity of the domestic industry and its share of the 
domestic market. In the light of Resolution 587, it was consequently decided to apply a definitive 
safeguard measure on imports of goods classified under NANDINA subheading 7007.21.00, irrespective of their origin. Resolution 587 did no t establish the date of entry into force of the 
safeguard measure, but Article 7 of the Resolution expressly provided that the Investigating Authority 
would subsequently determine the date of entr y into force and the timetable for progressive 
liberalization of the measure. Resolution 587 also provided for the following: (a) to exclude imports 
of "armoured windshields" from the application of th e safeguard measure; and (b) to exclude imports 
from Chile and Peru from the application of the saf eguard measure, pursuant to Article 9.1 of the 
Agreement. Article 6 of Resolution 587 expressly pr ovided that "the Colombian Government to be 
invited to take part" in the consultations on the pr oposed measures, in accordance with Article 12.3 of 
the Agreement. This Resolution was notified to the Committee in document G/SG/N/8/ECU/3-
G/SG/N/10/ECU/4 of 15 October and circulated on 21 October. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the document 
provided a precise description of the proposed m easure ("the application of a specific tariff of 
US$12.72 per windshield") and specified the proposed date of introduction of the measure ("1 November 2010"). Paragraph 8 of the document al so indicated the expected timetable for the 
progressive liberalization of the measure. No te Verbale No. 25734 of 18 October invited the 
Colombian Government to take part in consulta tions, proposing a reasonable range of dates.  
Moreover, several electronic communications on  this matter were immediately sent via the 
Ecuadorian Embassy in Bogota to the Directorate of Integration of the Colombian Ministry of 
Commerce, Industry and Tourism. Th e consultations finally took place  in Quito on 25 October, that 
is, several days after Resolution 587 had been publ ished in the Official Journal and, among other 
matters, details of the proposed measure had b een notified to the Committee.  During these 
consultations, information was pr ovided on the investigation, its conclusions, and the proposed 
measure. The aims of the consultations were to  review the information contained in document 
G/SG/N/8/ECU/3-G/SG/N/10/ECU/4, exchange vi ews on the measure, resolve any technical 
concerns, and try to reach an agreement. Given that the talks failed, it was decided that the originally 
proposed date of 1 November would be mainta ined, as notified to the Committee in document 
G/SG/N/8/ECU/3-G/SG/N/10/ECU/4. Ecuador notified the non-application of the measure to imports 
from Chile and Peru in accordance with Artic le 9.1 in document G/SG/N/8/ECU/3/Suppl.1-
G/SG/N/10/ECU/4/Suppl.1-G/SG/N/11/ECU/1. In order to pursue all avenues to reach an 
understanding, a new round of cons ultation was held on 23 November.  Although some points were 
clarified, diverging views remained on certain issues.  Neither in this consultation, nor in the previous 
round of consultations did the delegation of Colomb ia mention or call attention to any procedural 
deficiencies or failure to comply with procedural requirements.  Moreover, the consultations provided 
ample opportunity for Colombia to raise any relevant  concerns about matters relating to the measures 
as well as any possible trade compensation.  Therefore,  its interests and right to defence were always 
preserved. As a single text could not be agreed upon , the outcome of this r ound of consultations was 
unilaterally notified by Ecuador in document G/L/946-G/SG/92. 
67. Ecuador proceeded to explain the legal consider ations regarding the request made in G/L/957 
as follows: First, under Article 13.1(b) of the Ag reement, it was for the Committee to determine 
whether the procedural requirements of the Agreemen t have been complied with.  In Ecuador's view, 
the only way to do this was by properly establishi ng the facts and making an objective and impartial  G/SG/M/40 
 Page 11 
 
 
  assessment of them.  Establishing the facts and asse ssing them could only be properly achieved within 
the framework of a procedure.  So far, the Co mmittee had not agreed upon a specific procedure for 
examining the requests under Article 13.1(b) of the Ag reement. In order to perform this function, the 
Committee had to adopt the corresponding rules of pro cedure. In the absence of such rules, Ecuador 
considered that the due process guarantees necessary to  make adequate and reasoned findings in this 
case was lacking. Second, as regards the scope of  the function entrusted to the Committee under 
Article 13.1(b), it was quite clear that the findings may only relate to compliance with the procedural 
requirements. The Committee needed to be extremel y cautious to avoid running the risk of usurping 
the roles assigned to the WTO Dispute Settlement bodi es, i.e. panels and the Appellate Body, under 
Article 3.2 of the DSU. Strict observance of the scope of the Committee's function under 
Article 13.1(b) was also fundamental. This provision must not be invoked with a view to obtaining 
determinations of violation of th e substantive requirements of the Agreement. Such course of action 
would run directly counter to Article 23 of the DSU. Thirdly, the Committee in all its actions, 
including the establishment of the procedure referre d to above, had to proceed in accordance with the 
rule of consensus provide for in Rule 33 of  the Rules of Procedure of the Committee. 6 
68. In view of the foregoing, Ecuador concluded as follows: First, Ecuador has fully complied 
with the procedural obligations laid down in the Agreement.  All notifications were submitted in a 
timely fashion and in keeping with the formats adopted by the Committee, meaning that Ecuador 
ensured due transparency and prov ided the necessary information.  From the outset and during the 
course of the process, every effort was made to affo rd the interested parties effective and sufficient 
opportunities to provide information and present and de fend their interests.  Consultations regarding 
the issue were conducted before the safeguard measur e came into force.  Moreover, in line with the 
principle of good faith and in order to reduce the impact on Colombian exporters as much as possible, a new round of consultations took place on 23 November. Second, Ecuador considered that the 
request by Colombia lacked merit because it wa s based on inaccurate factual premises. Third, 
Ecuador considered that in order for the Committee to perform the function set out in Article 13.1(b) 
of the Agreement, the sine qua non  was that the corresponding rules of procedure were adopted by 
consensus. Ecuador concluded the statement by re iterating that it was essential to ensure strict 
adherence to the scope of the Comm ittee's function under Article 13.1(b).
 7 
69. Cuba supported the idea of initiating a process to enable Members to agree, beforehand, on 
procedures to be followed in this Article 13.1 (b ) process.  Cuba considered that this way of 
proceeding would allow the Committee to ensure the proper establishment of the facts and the 
objective  assessment of them.  Such procedures s hould be approved by consensus.  Finally, Cuba 
encouraged both parties to reach a favour able agreement on the matter at issue. 
70. Japan stated that it was prepared to participat e in any subsequent discussions on this issue.  
71. The US stated that it took seriously the responsibility as a member of this Committee to 
participate in the discussion concerning request s made under Article 13.1(b). While the US 
appreciated the additional information provided in th e oral statements of Colombia and Ecuador, it 
was difficult to immediately digest all those informa tion. The US requested that such information be 
provided in writing.  The US was prepared to pa rticipate in any subsequent discussions which the 
Chairperson deemed appropriate. Given the quick na ture of safeguard remedy, it wished that the 
Committee would deal with this issue rather quickly. As it stated in relation to India's investigation on 
"N1, 3-Dimethyl Butyl-N Phenyl Paraphenylenedi amine", the US deemed, in particular, that 
consultation was an important element of the investigating process.     
                                                      
6 G/SG/4.  
7 The statement of Ecuador is reproduced in full in document G/SG/W/220. G/SG/M/40 
Page 12  
 
  72. India stated that it had also submitted a request under Article 13.1(b), and that it deemed this 
provision to be an important provision. In India's view, this was a useful tool which could be an 
alternative to the Dispute Settleme nt mechanism. While India was open to discussions regarding the 
procedure of handling such requests, the procedur e should be transparent.  The procedure should 
allow for seeking more information, and the pro cedure should be time-bound. India did not want an 
endless discussion on procedure. While India preferre d a finding based on consensus, India noted that 
Rule 33 of the Rules of Procedure of the Committ ee provided that "[w]here a decision can not be 
arrived at by consensus, the matter at issue shall be referred to the Council for Trade in Goods."   
73. Norway stated that it welcomed the request s from Colombia as well as from India. Norway 
was prepared to participate in any discussions on this issue.  
74. Colombia reiterated that the problem was the fact that the consultation was held after the 
imposition of the measure. In the view of Colombia, there were two aspects to this problem. The first 
was to protect the interest of the domestic industry of Colombia subjected to this investigation. The 
second aspect was the systemic question of how the Committee should handle 13.1(b) requests. 
Colombia wished to continue the discussion, and requ ested that this item be included in the agenda of 
the spring 2012 regular meeting. Colombia also re quested that its statement made earlier at this 
meeting be officially circulated.  Colombia reite rated that Ecuador did not hold consultations in 
accordance with the Agreement, and stated in particular that it was not informed that the measure 
would enter into force on 1 November 2011. This shoul d have been a result of the fact that different 
authorities in Ecuador had different views.     
75. Canada stated that while different delegati ons apparently had different views on how to 
proceed, Canada wished to ensure that the integr ity of Article 13.1(b) be preserved. Canada was 
willing to participate in the discussions  on this issue with an open mind.  
76. The EU stated that it had no particular view re garding the exact factual situations over which 
Colombia and Ecuador were debating.  On the ot her hand, the EU agreed with Canada that the 
integrity of Article 13.1(b) should be preserved. The EU was ready to participate in any further 
discussions on this issue.  
77. Australia stated that it was ready to participate in any further discussions. At the same time, it 
pointed out the fact that the Committee decided in 1996 that "the Committee address these matters 
[i.e. establishing a procedure regarding inter alia  13.1(b)] on an ad hoc  basis, if and when a request 
for assistance in these matters is received."8   
78. China stated that it had a systemic interest in  this issue and wished to participate in the 
discussions on this issue. China furt her requested that the information provided orally that day be 
circulated in paper form.   
79. Ecuador stated that it agreed with those who spoke earlier that Article 13.1(b) was an 
important and useful tool. At the same time, est ablishing an appropriate procedure was important, 
since nothing could happen without a context. Such procedure needed to be objective, impartial and 
time-bound. As for the date of the imposition, Ecua dor explained that it was after the consultations 
with Colombia broke down that the authorities decided to proceed with the date originally planned.   
80. Brazil stated that dividing the discussions on th is issue between substance and procedure may 
be useful. 
                                                      
8 G/SG/M/3 para. 63.   G/SG/M/40 
 Page 13 
 
 
  81. The Chairperson thanked all the delegations th at took the floor, and confirmed that the 
statements by Colombia and Ecuador would be circulated in the G/SG/W… series.9  She stated that 
she wished to proceed to the next agenda item, and then revert to the issue of how to proceed on the 
two requests.  
E. REQUEST UNDER ARTICLE 13.1( B) OF THE AGREEMENT ON SAFEGUARDS (REQUEST FROM 
INDIA ) 
82. The Chairperson recalled that the next item on the agenda was a request from India made 
under Article 13.1(b) of the agreement on safeguard s, concerning Turkey's investigation on cotton 
yarn. She stated that as she did with the previous agenda item, she would first offer the floor to the 
delegation that made the request – that is, India in this case – to present its request. 
83. India stated that Turkey's continuation of saf eguard measures on cotton yarn raised serious 
issues of proper implementation of the provisions of  the Agreement. The measure was imposed with 
effect from 15 July 2008 for a period of three years.  The notification was dated 23 June 2011 (G/SG/N/6/TUR/14/Suppl.1). India held consulta tion with Turkey in Ankara on 18 August 2011. 
During the consultation, India was informed th at a provisional measure had been imposed on 
4 August 2011 with retrospective effect. India noted  that the original measures had expired by then. 
India regretted the fact that most of its concerns  had not been addressed in this consultation. During 
the consultation, India had asked Turkey 20 ques tions, majority of which were not answered, and 
therefore India had to submit questions to this Co mmittee. The questions were not still answered at 
this meeting. Had the questions been answered, I ndia could have focused more on specific points and 
with much more clarity. India believed that the meas ures taken by Turkey were inconsistent with its 
obligations under the Agreement on various grounds. India pointed out nine issues, without prejudice 
to each other. 
84. First, although Turkey initiated a review inves tigation before the expiry of the measures, it 
did not make any determination for extending the measures before such expiry and allowed the 
measures to lapse on 14 July 2011. Once a measure had lapsed, its period coul d not be extended under 
Article 7. In terms of Article 7.1, safeguard measu res may be applied only for such period of time as 
may be necessary to prevent or remedy serious inju ry and to facilitate adjustment.  The period 
mentioned in Article 7.1 may be "extended" in terms of Article 7.2.  The text of Article 7.2 uses the 
word "extended" and it does not use the word "reviv ed". The word "extend" refers to "continuation".  
The period of time of levy of a measure may be c ontinued or extended only when the measure is in 
force.  Once the measure had lapsed, it had to be  revived and could not be extended.  The review 
contemplated under Article 7 of the Agreement co uld not lead to imposition of a new measure.  
Therefore, if the duties were not extended before the expiry of the existing safeguard measures, it 
would not amount to "continuation" of the existin g measures as there were no measures in existence 
that need to be continued. In this case, Turkey di d not extend the measures when they were in force.  
Accordingly, any extension given after the expiry of  the duty was in violation of Article 7.2 of the 
Agreement. 
85. Second, if the duties were not extended before the expiry of the existing safeguard measures, 
any extension thereof from the date of expiry of orig inal measures would lead to a retroactive levy or 
retroactive extension.  Article 7.2 does not perm it extension of safeguard measure on a retroactive 
basis.  Therefore, safeguard measure could not be  extended in the garb of a provisional measure 
applied retroactively.  
86. Third, Turkey had not made any determinati on pursuant to Article 7.2 of the Agreement 
before extending the expired measure s. In India's view, as Turkey initiated a review to extend the 
                                                      
9 Subsequently circulated as document G/SG/W/219 and G/SG/W/220, respectively. G/SG/M/40 
Page 14  
 
  safeguard measures beyond 3 years, Turkey was under the obligation as per provision of Article 7.2 to 
make a determination, in conform ity with the procedures set out in Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5, that 
safeguard measure continued to be necessary to prev ent or remedy serious injury to its domestic 
industry and that there was evidence that the industry  was adjusting.  To date, Turkey had not made 
such a determination and therefore Turkey  could not extend the safeguard measures. 
87. Fourth, no provisional measure pursuant to Article 6 was provided for in a review 
investigation. In the extension of an existi ng safeguard measure, the question of imposition of 
provisional measures does not arise. The total period of application of safeguard measures, according to Article 7.3, includes "the period of applicati on of provisional measure" and "the period of initial 
application and any extension thereof". The sequen ce in which the Article is arranged gives a clear 
indication that a situation of applying provisional measures while considering extension of definitive 
measures is not contemplated at all under the Agre ement.  Thus, provisional measure in the form of 
preliminary determination can only occur in the origin al investigation and not in a review exercise. In 
view of the above, India considered that levy of pr ovisional measures in a review pursuant to Article 7 
is inconsistent with Turkey's obligations under the Agreement. 
88. Fifth, while proposing provisional measures, Turkey observed that "bearing in mind that the 
sudden and significant increase in the imports of  the product concerned in 2010 could negatively 
affect the recovery period of the domestic industry,  the provisional safeguard measure is proposed to 
eliminate uncertainty that could come out with the on-going investigation on the necessity of the 
extension of the current measure." In this regard , India noted that provisional safeguard measures 
were authorized under Article 6, which identifies th e conditions precedent that need to exist prior to 
the imposition of provisional safeguard measures i. e. in critical circumstances where delay would 
cause damage which it would be difficult to repair. Th e reason cited by Turkey – that is, to eliminate 
uncertainty that could come out with the on-going in vestigation – is not a valid reason for the levy of 
provisional measures under Article 6.  
89. Sixth, as per the documents made available so  far, Turkey did not make any preliminary 
determination pursuant to Article 6 before imposing the provisional measures.  Article 6 provides that 
a Member may take a provisional safeguard measure pursuant to a preliminary determination that there is clear evidence that increased imports have caused or are threatening to cause serious injury.  
India understood that Turkey did not make any su ch preliminary determination.  Turkey only 
undertook a preliminary investigati on regarding the need to initiate a review.  After initiating the 
review, Turkey did not make a preliminary determ ination that there is a need to put in place 
provisional safeguard measure.  The present measur es are therefore, without even a preliminary 
determination. However, at this meeting, Turkey  had apparently clarified that they made some 
preliminary determination. India request ed a copy of the determination.  
90. Seventh, Turkey applied the provisional measure on 4 August 2011 but with effect from 
15 July 2011 – the date on which the then exis ting measures lapsed.  Thus, Turkey applied the 
provisional measures retroactively from 15 July 2011. There is nothing in the text of Article 6 that 
permits retroactive levy of provisional measures. 
91. Eighth, a measure cannot be applied again befo re expiry of the cooling off period provided 
for under Article 7.5. As noted earlier, the original  safeguard measure expired on 15 July 2011.  If the 
measures were put in place with effect from 4 August 2011, it would amount to a new measure or at 
the least, it would amount to "applying the measur e again". In terms of Article 7.5, safeguard 
measures cannot be applied again to the same produc t for a period of time equal to that during which 
the measure had been previously applied subject to a mi nimum of 2 years.  In the light of the fact that 
the definitive safeguard measures imposed at the end of the original investigation expired on 15 July 
2011, imposition of any measure after that time wo uld amount to a fresh levy on the same product.  
This would be in violation of Article 7.5.    G/SG/M/40 
 Page 15 
 
 
  92. Finally, the ongoing review should be termin ated. Since the measures had already expired, 
ongoing review will lead to a determination only l ong after the expiry of the measures.  Such a 
determination may lead to either a retroactive le vy or a levying measure on the same product again. 
Article 7.2 does not permit a retroactive levy, no r does Article 7.5 permit levying a measure again on 
the same product before expiry of the minimum cooling off period of 2 years.  In such a situation, the 
determination, if any, made at the end of the revi ew to put in place any measure would be inconsistent 
with Turkey's obligations under the Agreement. A de cision to extend the duration of the then existing 
measures should have been taken before the expiry of  those measures.  As Turkey had failed to make 
any such determination before the expiry of the measures, the investigation was time barred and no 
purpose would be served by continuing the investigation.   
93. India concluded by stating as follows: There we re other substantive issues which India had 
raised during consultation with Turkey, and India r eserved the right to bring them at a later stage. 
India had focused only on the procedural issues k eeping in mind the character of Article 13.1(b) 
request. However, India was of the view that the ab ove arguments were sufficient to prove that there 
had been a grave violation of the procedural requi rements of the Agreement in this case. India hoped 
that the Committee would examine all the issues in an objective and unbiased manner, arrive at a fair 
decision, and report its finding to the Council for Trade in Goods as per the provisions of Article 13.1(b). India requested a prompt action so as not to render the provisions of Article 13.1(b) 
ineffective, keeping in mind that the safeguards measures continued to exist in violation of the 
Agreement, distorting underlying trade. India also  requested Turkey to dismantle the measures 
immediately as there were clear violations of the Agreement.
10   
94. Turkey stated that it was still in  the process of considering the 13.1(b) request from India, and 
so would not elaborate on the details at this meeti ng. Turkey had nothing to add to its notification 
which was addressed and discussed in the morning sessi on. Instead, it wished to clarify some points 
raised by India. Turkey announced the initiation of investigation on cotton yarn in its Official Gazette 
dated 11 June 2011. The preliminary determinati on and the imposition of provisional measure had 
also been announced in the same Communiqué. Th e provisional measure came into force on 
14 July 2011. Turkey's notification of the prelim inary determination was circulated on 24 June 2011. 
A non-confidential summary of the application was al so available at Ministry of Economy's website. 
All the rules and procedures of the Agreement had been taken into account in the course of 
investigation. Provisional measures were not definiti ve extensions of the initial safeguard measure. 
The investigation was still in progress. Provisional du ty was being collected as security, and will be 
refunded if the investigating authority determined  that there was no need to extend the measure. 
Turkey went on to comment on the issue of how to operationalize Article 13.1(b). Turkey recalled 
that the Committee had no experience in the past regarding implementation of Article 13.1(b), and 
that there was no rule, procedure or guideline on this  issue. Nor was there any similar provision in the 
Anti-dumping Agreement or the Subsidies Agreement.  Having carefully listened to the discussion in 
the morning regarding the request by Colombia, Turkey had three observations: Firstly, it was 
understood from the interventions that there was an  appetite in the Committee to address the issue and 
to fulfil the requirements of Article 13.1(b). Most of  the Members that spoke indicated their systemic 
interest and willingness to participate in the discu ssion. Turkey, like other Members, had systemic 
interest to establish rules and procedures to opera tionalize Article 13.1(b). Turkey was ready to work 
constructively with other Members to achieve this goal. Secondly, referring to the fact that some 
Members requested additional facts and informatio n in addition to statements of Colombia and 
Ecuador, Turkey stated that it was not sure about those requests, and asked the relevant Members to 
explain what kind of information and facts they were  seeking. Turkey further stated that it should be 
kept in mind that Article 13.1(b) only related with  "procedural requirements", and observed that there 
do not seem to be consensus among Members on the interpretation of the term "procedural 
requirements", Finally, referring to the statement by India regarding the relationship between the 
                                                      
10 India's statement is reproduced in full in document G/SG/W/221.  G/SG/M/40 
Page 16  
 
  Dispute Settlement mechanism and Article 13.1(b), Tu rkey stated that the Article 13.1(b) process was 
not a Dispute Settlement procedure, and it should not  substitute the Dispute Settlement mechanism. 
The delegates participating in the Committee were no t panelists or Appellate Body members. In this 
regard, Turkey noted that India stated that Article 13.1(b) was an alternative to the Dispute Settlement 
mechanism, and requested India to clarify. Turk ey closed the statement by reiterating Turkey's 
readiness to work with other Members to estab lish the rules and procedures to operationalize 
Article 13.1(b). 
95. El Salvador requested that the written version of the statements of India and Turkey be 
circulated. It also stated that a procedure for the handling of requests made under Article 13.1(b) 
needed to be developed.    
96. Argentina also requested that the written versi on of the statements of India and Turkey be 
circulated. Recalling that Brazil had earlier put forward the idea of dividing the discussions between 
substance and procedure, Argentina stat ed that it agreed with that idea. 
97. Japan stated that the question of how to handle 13.1(b) requests was "new territory", and that 
Japan was unsure whether there was any kind of one-s ize-fits all procedure. Japan noted, for example, 
that Colombia stated that it wished to continue th e discussion at the next regular meeting, while India 
requested prompt action. A procedure had to  be developed that suited each request. 
98. India stated that it was disappointed that the statement of Turkey did not contain any 
substantive rebuttal.  As for the question posed by  Turkey, India responded that what it meant by an 
"alternative to Dispute Settlement mechanism pro cedures" was that in cases such as this where the 
violations were so obvious, the Member concerned could be made aware of the same through the 
Committee and may like to reconsider the measures. 
99. Ecuador stated that Article 13.1(b) dealt with the question of "whether or not the procedural 
requirements of this Agreement have been complie d with", and that the subject was not limitless. 
Ecuador also pointed out that Article 23 of the DS U provided that when Members seek the redress of 
a violation of obligations under th e covered agreements, they "shall have recourse to, and abide by, 
the rules and procedures of" the DSU. The proce dure under Article 13.1(b) of the Agreement should 
not be confused with the DSU proceeding.     
100. Turkey agreed with Ecuador that Article 13.1(b) dealt with the question of "whether or not the 
procedural requirements of this Agreement have be en complied with", and that the subject was not 
limitless. Any "finding" by the Committee under Article 13.1(b) should be made by consensus.    
101. The Chairperson thanked Members for the comments made, and reminded that several 
Members have requested that the statements by In dia and Turkey be circulated in writing. She had 
taken good note of the comments made, and noted that the Committee did not have a common view 
either on substance or on procedur e with regard to either request. In light of this situation, she 
intended to convene, in the near future, informal c onsultations open to all Members in order to discuss 
these issues, and to report back to  the Committee at an appropriate time. In the meantime, if any 
Members wanted to contact her to offer views on the issue, they were welcome. 
102. Brazil stated that it supported the way forward described by the Chairperson, but made two 
additional observations. First, fact s were still lacking to enable the Committee to take a decision on 
the two requests. More fact s needed to be submitted in writing. Second, it might be useful to have the 
Secretariat produce some kind of document.       
103. Ecuador stated that the way forward described by the Chairperson was appropriate, but made 
two additional observations. First, go od preparation was necessary, and such preparation needed to be  G/SG/M/40 
 Page 17 
 
 
  transparent, inclusive, and Member-driven. S econd, regarding the comments made concerning the 
need for more information, a pro cedure should first be established.  
104. Colombia stated that it supported the Chairper son's idea of holding informal consultations, 
but clarified that Colombia still maintained its re quest that its 13.1(b) request be included in the 
agenda of the spring 2012 regular meeting. Concer ning Brazil's idea that the Secretariat produce some 
kind of document, Colombia needed to consider that idea further.  
105. India took the floor to request that India's 13.1(b)  request also be included in the agenda of the 
spring 2012 regular meeting. 
106. Turkey stated that what was necessary first was to establish a procedure, and that the rationale 
behind the idea that more information was necessary was unclear. 
107. The US stated that if the production of the minutes of this meeting would take time, some 
kind of a more rapid method needed to be considered  so that Members had a timely record of today's 
meeting.    
108. The Chairperson reconfirmed that the statemen ts of Colombia, Ecuador, India, and Turkey 
would be circulated in writing.11 The Chairperson thanked all delegations for their statements and 
stated that she would inform Members of the ex act timing of the consultations in due course.  
109. The Committee took note of the statements  made under agenda items D and E. 
F. OTHER BUSINESS  
1. Statements by Costa Rica, Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras 
110. The Chairperson recalled that Costa Rica, Guat emala, El Salvador and Honduras wished to 
make statements concerning an investigation by  the Dominican Republic on tubular fabric and 
polypropylene bags.  
111. Costa Rica referred to the discussions that took place in the autumn 2010 and spring 2011 
meetings of the Committee concerning an investig ation by the Dominican Republic on tubular fabric 
and polypropylene bags, and reported that the auth orities of Dominican Republic issued a resolution 
on 17 October 2011 indicating that it would not reduce the safeguard duties from 20 October as 
planned, but rather maintain the current safeguard  duty until 20 April 2012.  The same resolution also 
indicated that the authorities would determine, by 20 April 2012, whether or not to change the process 
of dismantling the measure.  Costa Rica was surprised  at this resolution, since what was notified 
earlier was the gradual dismantling of the measure by 20 April 2012. In Costa Rica's view, refusal of 
the gradual dismantling the measure constituted a viola tion of Article 7.4. In addition, such course of 
action added to the uncertainty surrounding this  measure. Costa Ricaexpected that the Dominican 
Republic dismantle the measure in  April 2012, as planned.    
112. Guatemala recalled that the specific measure at issue had a duration of 18 months, and that 
Article 7.1 of the Agreement provided that safegua rd measures shall be applied "only for such period 
of time as may be necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitate adjustment." 
Guatemala also recalled that Article 7.4 provided that  if the expected duration of a safeguard measure 
was over one year, the measure "shall progressively li beralize it at regular intervals during the period 
                                                      
11 The statements made by the delegations of Colombia, Ecuador and India were subsequently 
circulated in documents G/SG/W/219, 220 and 221, respectively. The statement made by the delegation of 
Turkey was sent to the Members by fax on 9 November 2011.   G/SG/M/40 
Page 18  
 
  of application." It also recalled that Article 12.3 ca lled for a consultation. The fact that the Dominican 
Republic announced in its resolution dated 17 Oct ober 2011 that it would maintain the current 
safeguard duty had two problems. First, such course of  action was inconsistent with Article 7.4 of the 
Agreement. Second, it did not explain the reason w hy it made such a decision.   Guatemala further 
noted that there was an ongoing dispute panel pro cedure concerning this investigation. If the panel 
found that the measure was inconsistent with the WTO Agreements, Guatemala wished that the 
measure would be terminated. Guatemala reserved all its rights in case the Dominican Republic did not respect its obligations.     
113. El Salvador echoed the concerns raised by  the previous two speakers, and posed two 
questions to the Dominican Republic: First, would the safeguard measure be eliminated by April 
2012, as originally planned? Second, how would the Dominican Republic reconcile its latest decision 
to stop the liberalization of the existing measu re with its obligation under Article 7.4 of the 
Agreement?  
114. Honduras echoed the concerns raised by the previous  two speakers, and stated that in the view 
of Honduras, the course of action taken by the Dominican Republic was in consistent with its 
obligations under Article 7.2 of the Agreement.  Honduras requested that the Dominican Republic 
clarify whether the measure would be terminated on 20 April 2012.  
115. The Dominican Republic requested that the questions be submitted in writing.  
116. The Committee took note of the statements made. 
2. Statement by the Chairperson 
117. The Chairperson stated that the first issue whic h she wanted to draw the attention of Members 
concerned notifications in a situation where the inv estigating authority came to the view that a final 
safeguard measure was warranted, but needed to wa it for some kind of official decision of other 
bodies. For many Members this wa s a stage where a r ecommendation for the imposition of a measure 
was made. Up to now, most Members have no tified a recommendation to impose a measure under 
Article 12.1(c).  Article 12.1 (c) refers to "taking a decision to apply ... a measure".  However, some 
Members have recently chosen to notify a r ecommendation for the imposition of a measure as a 
notification under Article 12.1 (b), rather than und er Article 12.1(c).  Article 12.1(b) refers to 
"findings of serious injury". This choice had a pr actical bearing on how documents are circulated. The 
Secretariat assigned one document symbol – name ly, the G/SG/N/8 series – to notifications 
concerning findings of serious injury, and anothe r symbol – namely, the G/SG/N/10 series – to 
notifications concerning imposition of final measur es. These symbols in turn become the means under 
which Members searched for particular actions, an d are also the basis under which statistics were 
maintained. The second issue concerned notifications  of initiation of a procedure to determine 
whether an existing measure should be extended. Item F of the compilation of standard formats 
provided the format to be used where a Member notified an "initia tion of a review pursuant to 
Article 7.2." Some Members have however chosen to notify a decision to in itiate such a procedure 
under Article 12.1(a) (i.e. "initiation of an investigat ory process"), rather than under Article 7.2.  The 
Chairperson pointed out that it was important that  there was consistency in the document series under 
which notifications of particular actions were circulated, especially  taking into account the importance 
of the symbols for the maintenance of reliable sta tistics.  She wished to examine the best way to 
achieve such consistency.  Possible approaches might be to clarify this matter through: (i) changes to 
the notification templates, (ii) through taking a d ecision regarding the document symbol under which 
particular actions should be circulated, or (iii) by authorizing the Secretariat to decide what document 
symbol to assign to particular notifications. She emphasised that she was not proposing that the 
Committee decide the legal coverage of the various notification requirements of the Agreement.  She 
was simply suggesting that the Committee should try to  find a pragmatic way to ensure that measures  G/SG/M/40 
 Page 19 
 
 
  of a particular type were consistently circulated  under the same document symbol. She stated that her 
intention was to hold informal discussions on th is issue in due course, after the Committee had 
completed other more urgent matters such as the Article 13.1(b) issue discussed earlier. 
118. The Committee took note of the statement made. 
G. ANNUAL REPORT  
119. The Chairperson noted that pursuant to Article  13.1(a) of the Agreement, the Committee was 
to monitor the general implementation of the Ag reement and report on this annually, making any 
recommendations towards its improvement to th e Council for Trade in Goods. She reminded the 
Committee that a draft of the report had been prepared  by the Secretariat, and was made available to 
Members by fax on 18 October 2011. 
120. The Chairperson suggested that the Committe e consider the draft report paragraph by 
paragraph and then review the Annexes.  She furt her suggested that the Committee proceed with this 
work in informal mode. 
121. After adjusting several factual matters, th e Committee adopted its annual report to the 
Council for Trade in Goods for 2011 (see document G/L/972). 
H. DATE OF NEXT REGULAR MEETING  
122. The Chairperson suggested that the Committee meet in the week of 23 April 2012.  She stated 
that the exact date would be confirmed in due course.  
123. The Committee so decided. 
__________