WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION   
G/SG/N/8/TUR/13 
G/SG/N/10/TUR/13 G/SG/N/11/TUR/16 
24 June 2011 
 
(11-3121) 
Committee on Safeguards Original:   English 
 
 
 
NOTIFICATION UNDER ARTICLE 12.1(B) OF THE  
AGREEMENT ON SAFEGUARDS ON FINDING  
A SERIOUS INJURY OR THREAT THEREOF  
CAUSED BY INCREASED IMPORTS 
 
NOTIFICATION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 12.1(C) 
OF THE AGREEMENT ON SAFEGUARDS 
 
NOTIFICATION PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 9, FOOTNOTE 2  
OF THE AGREEMENT ON SAFEGUARDS 
 
TURKEY 
 
(Polyethylene terephthalate) 
 
 
 The following notification, dated 23 June 2011,  is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of Turkey. 
 
_______________ 
 
 Concerning imports of Polyethylene terephtha late, Turkey had notified the initiation of a 
safeguard investigation with WTO Document  G/SG/N/6/TUR/16, dated 28 March 2011.  
 
 Turkey hereby provides notification to the Committee on Safeguards of findings of serious injury or threat thereof caused by increased imports and notification of a proposed definitive 
safeguard measure. 
  Consistent with Article 12.3 of the Agreement on Safeguards , Turkey is prepared to consult 
with those Members having a substantial inte rest as exporters of the products concerned. 
 
I. EVIDENCE OF SERIOUS INJURY OR THREAT THEREOF CAUSED BY 
INCREASED IMPORTS 
A. 
EVIDENCE OF THREAT OF SERIOUS INJURY  
 In order to make a determination of serious in jury or threat thereof to the domestic producer 
of the like product, an evaluation of all relevant fa ctors of an objective and quantifiable nature having 
a bearing on the situation of the domestic industr y has been undertaken. In  this analysis, data 
submitted by the applicant company, which constitu tes major proportion of domestic production, were 
used. Therefore, the figures in this section are shown by indexes to maintain the confidentiality of the 
information provided by the applicant company. Information below covers the 5-year period from 
2006 to 2010 and the first 3-month period of the years 2010 and 2011, where necessary. 
 G/SG/N/8/TUR/13 
G/SG/N/10/TUR/13 
G/SG/N/11/TUR/16 
Page 2  
 
  1. Production 
Production   
(Tons – Index)  2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2010 
(1-3) 2011 
(1-3) 
100 109 93 114 112 100 73 
  The production index, which has increased by  9 points in 2007 displayed a decrease of 7 
points in 2008 and an increase of 14 points in 2009 and stood at 112 at the end of the investigation 
period. The index displayed a decrease of 27 point s in the first 3 months of 2011 compared to its 
value in the same period of 2010. 
 
2. Domestic Sales 
Domestic Sales  
(Tons – Index)  2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2010 
(1-3) 2011 
(1-3) 
100 109 93 114 110 100 67 
  Domestic sales index of the applicant comp any fluctuated between 2006 and 2010, reaching 
to the lowest point with 93 in 2008 and to its highest point in 2009 with 114 points. Domestic sales 
index remained at 110 in 2010. The domestic sales i ndex displayed a significant decrease in the first 3 
months of 2011 compared to the same period of 2010 with a decrease of 33 points.   3. Capacity and Capacity Utilization Ratio (CUR) 
 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2010 
(1-3) 2011 
(1-3) 
Capacity  
(Tons – Index)  100 100 100 107 107 100 100 
CUR 
(% - Index)  100 109 93 106 105 100 73 
 
 Production capacity of the applicant compan y increased 7 points in 2009. The production 
capacity remained at the same level in the first 3 months of 2010 and 2011. 
 
 Capacity utilization ratio fluctuated during the investigation period and was 5 points higher in 
2010 that its level in 2006. On the other hand, CU R displayed a major decrease of 27 points in the 
first 3 months of 2011 compared to the same period in 2010.   4. End of Period Inventories 
Inventories  
(Tons – Index)  2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2010 
(1-3) 2011 
(1-3) 
100 243 74 103 180 100 1065 
 
 The end of period inventories reached its peak  in 2007, and shrank to its lowest in 2008. 
Inventories reached to their 2006 levels in 2009 a nd increased once again about 80% in 2010. There 
has been more than a 10-fold incr ease in the inventories in the first 3 months 2011 compared to the 
same period of 2010.   G/SG/N/8/TUR/13 
 G/SG/N/10/TUR/13 
 G/SG/N/11/TUR/16 
 Page 3 
 
 
  5. Employment 
Employment  (Workers – Index) 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2010 
(1-3) 2011 
(1-3) 
100 102 95 84 83 100 100 
 
 The employment has been decreasing gradually since 2007. The employment index was 83 in 
2010 with a decrease of 17% from its level in 2006 . The employment remained stable during the first 
3 months of 2011 compared with the same period of 2010.    6. Labor Productivity 
Productivity  
(Tons/Worker – Index)2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2010 
(1-3) 2011 
(1-3) 
100 107 98 135 134 100 73 
 
 Labor productivity displayed an increase in 2007 followed by a decrease in 2008. The index 
rose by 37 points in 2009 and remained at the same  level in 2010. A decrease of 27 points can be seen 
when the productivity in the first 3 months of 2010 and 2011 is compared. 
 
7. Profits 
Profitability 
(% – Index)  2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 
100 99 96 102 107 
 
 Profitability remained negative throughout the period under investigation. However, there has 
been a gradual improvement in the profitability of the domestic producer.  
 
8. Consumption  
Consumption  
(Tons– Index) 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2010 
(1-3) 2011 
(1-3) 
100 119 119 145 160 100 95 
  
 The consumption index has been rising cons tantly during the period of investigation, 
increasing by 60 points from 2006 to 2011. The index displayed a slight decrease in the first 3 months 
of 2011.   9. Conclusion 
 Polyethylene terephthalate production in Turkey has been increasing from 2006 to 2009, but 
the production decreased 2% in 2010 and the decr ease in the production deteriorated in the first 
3 months of 2011 with a decrease of 27% compared to its level during the same period of 2010. The 
domestic sales of the domestic producer also decrea sed 33% in the same period. Furthermore, the 
capacity utilization ratio deteriorated and inventories increased. 
 G/SG/N/8/TUR/13 
G/SG/N/10/TUR/13 
G/SG/N/11/TUR/16 
Page 4  
 
   Taking account of all of these factors, inves tigating authority concludes that the domestic 
industry is exposed to threat of serious injury fo r all four products subject to investigation.   
 
B. C
AUSATION ANALYSIS  
 In order to examine the existence of a causal link between increased imports and the threat of 
serious injury, and in order to ensure that injury cau sed by other factors is not attributed to increased 
imports, the investigating authority analy zed the effects of the following factors: 
 
1. Analysis of Causation Factors 
(a) Effect of Increased Imports 
 The imports of the product concerned incr eased constantly between 2006 and 2010 and the 
overall increase during this period is more than 2-fold s. Besides, market share of imports increased 
almost 50% between 2006 and 2010. Therefore, it is  concluded that the increase in imports and the 
deterioration in the economic indicators of the domestic industry followed a similar pattern 
throughout the period analyzed.  
 The unit prices of imported and domestic products  are compared in the table below. In the 
table, IP shows the weighted average unit price of the imported product whose customs procedures 
are completed. DP-1 indicates the weighted averag e domestic sales price of the applicant company. 
Taking into account that the domestic producer had negative profitability throughout the investigation 
period, DP-2 was constructed, by adding a reasonabl e level of profit to the industrial cost of the 
domestic product.  
 
Price/Cost Unit 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 
Imported Product USD/Kg 1,36 1,46 1,57 1,09 1,37 
Domestic Product 1 USD/Kg 1,49 1,48 1,57 1,25 1,41 
Domestic Product 2 USD/Kg 1,72 1,70 1,85 1,39 1,48 
Price Undercutting 1 % 13 2 0 16 7 
Price Undercutting 2 % 36 24 28 30 11 
 
 As seen from the table above the imported product undercut the actual sales price of the 
domestic product except for 2008. The imported produc t undercut the constructed domestic price by 
larger margins. Therefore, an evaluation of th ese figures reveals that the imported product has caused 
price undercutting and price suppression on the domes tic product during the period concerned.    
 
 For the foregoing reasons, the investigating au thority concludes that there is a correlation 
between the increase in imports and the threat of ser ious injury that the domestic industry is exposed 
to. 
  G/SG/N/8/TUR/13 
 G/SG/N/10/TUR/13 
 G/SG/N/11/TUR/16 
 Page 5 
 
 
  (b) Coinciding trends 
 It is understood that there is parallelism between the decline in  the production, domestic sales, 
capacity utilization ratio, productivity, and the increase in the stocks of the domestic producer and the 
recent increase in the imports of the product concer ned in absolute and relative terms and the increase 
in the market share of the imports. The fact that this outcome followed the abolishment of the measure 
against unfair trade practices, and the expectati on that the imports will increase in the following 
period exhibits the existence of the threat of ser ious injury. Moreover, the other domestic producer 
stated in its application that due to the constrai ning imports the firm could not increase its capacity. 
For instance, in the last period while, the productio n and capacity utilization ratio was decreasing the 
imports increased by 88% only in March 2011. Becau se of these evaluations, it is concluded that the 
surge in the imports of the concerned product a nd the threat of serious injury on its domestic 
producers are simultaneous.    
(c) Other Factors 
 During the investigation, it is understood that factors other than the increase in imports do not 
have a quantifiable effect on the threat of serious injury that the domestic producers are exposed to.  
 
2. Conclusion on Causation 
 Having examined the injurious effects of other known factors, the investigating authority 
reached the conclusion that there is a genuine and substantial causal link between increased imports 
and threat of serious injury that the domestic industry is exposed to.  II. INFORMATION ON WHETHER THERE IS AN ABSOLUTE INCREASE IN 
IMPORTS OR AN INCREASE IN IMPORTS RELATIVE TO DOMESTIC 
PRODUCTION  
A. 
UNFORESEEN DEVELOPMENTS  
 The investigation was conducted in accordance with the requirements of Turkish Legislation 
on Safeguard Measures and the procedures prescrib ed by the WTO Agreement on Safeguards and 
Article XIX of GATT 1994, i.e. determination of the existence of unforeseen developments and effect 
of obligations, including tariff concessions, which led to an increase in imports. 
 
 This analysis on unforeseen development is carri ed out during the investigation to find out 
which issues, that were unforeseen while the concessi ons at the WTO were made, have caused a sharp 
and significant increase in the imports. The bound tariffs of the product concerned are 33.2% for 
Turkey and the maximum applied rate of Turkey is 6.5%. The applied tariffs on this product are 
significantly low and will be lower than the bound tariffs even with the imposition of the proposed 
measure.  
  The European Union started to impose count ervailing duties against the imports of the 
polyethylene terephthalate coming from Iran, Pa kistan, and United Arab Emirates starting from 
27/9/2010. The EU initiated another investigation against the polyeth ylene terephthalate imports from 
Oman and Saudi Arabia on 16/02/2011. It is envisag ed that the low-priced exports especially from 
Iran and Pakistan, that are subsidized by their govern ments will seek to enter into the Turkish market 
to some extent after the barriers in front of the entrance to the European markets are raised. This 
situation is supported by the import statistics of Turk ey. It is also envisaged that the countries whose 
imports are subject to the new investigation of the EU will also seek to enter into the Turkish market. G/SG/N/8/TUR/13 
G/SG/N/10/TUR/13 
G/SG/N/11/TUR/16 
Page 6  
 
  On the other hand, it is foreseen that the expor ts from the abovementioned countries would have 
poured into the Turkish market even without any measure by the EU since their governments 
subsidize them, which in fact can be understood by the countervailing measure taken by the EU.  
 
 As a result, the measures taken and investigati ons initiated by the EU against the imports of 
polyethylene terephthalate from certain countries are deemed the unforeseen developments, which 
caused the sudden surge of imports into the Turkish market.  
 
B. 
INCREASE IN IMPORTS  
 An analysis of the increase in imports to Turk ey of the product concerned both in absolute 
and relative terms has been carried out over the period from 2006 to January-March period of 2011. 
Imports of the product concerned increased consid erably, both in absolute terms and relative to 
domestic production, during the period of investigation. 
 
1. Absolute Imports 
Imports  
(Tons)  2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2010 
(1-3) 2011 
(1-3) 
64.785 87.396 104.761 127.912 156.405 35.140 41.600 
  Imports of the product subject to investiga tion increased constantly during the period 
analyzed and the total increase in imports reached to  241%. Imports grew by 18% in the first 3-month 
period of 2011 compared with the same period of 2010. 
 2. Relative Imports 
Imports/Production  
(% – Index)  2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2010 
(1-3) 2011 
(1-3) 
100 124 174 174 216 100 162 
 
 Similar to imports in absolute terms, th e ratio of imports to domestic production rose 
dramatically throughout the peri od of investigation with a 116 point total increase from 2006 to 2010. 
 3. Market Share of Imports 
Market Share 
of Imports  
(% – Index)  2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2010 
(1-3) 2011 
(1-3) 
100 114 136 136 151 100 125 
 
 The imports of the product subject to investiga tion increased its market share significantly in 
the last 5-year period. Compared with its value in 2006, the market share index of imports rose almost 
50 points in 5 years. 
  G/SG/N/8/TUR/13 
 G/SG/N/10/TUR/13 
 G/SG/N/11/TUR/16 
 Page 7 
 
 
  4. Monthly Absolute Imports 
 Monthly absolute imports to Turkey in the first three months of 2006 to 2011 is shown at the 
table below.  
 
 Imports  
(Tons) 2006 2007 2008 
Jan. Feb. Mar. Jan. Feb. Mar. Jan. Feb. Mar. 
4.967 5.531 7.187 6.404 4.384 5.125 8.502 7.809 7.329
2009 2010 2011 
Jan. Feb. Mar. Jan. Feb. Mar. Jan. Feb. Mar. 
6.722 9.094 8.250 10.277 13.437 11.426 9.153 11.022 21.425
 
 As it can be seen from the figures, the imports have risen significantly in March 2011 after 
the abolishment of the domestic anti-damping measur e, which was in force from January 27, 2006 to 
January 27, 2011. The rise in imports was 88% in Marc h, and it is envisaged that this trend in imports 
will continue to rise.  
 
5. Share of Main Exporters 
 The share of imports from the main exporters to the Turkish market is shown at the table 
below. The countries are sorted according to their share in imports in 2010.  
 
Countries (%) 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 (1-3)
Pakistan 21,9 22,0 14,9 19,4 35,4 32,8 
Iran 13,9 15,9 4,8 14,5 28,7 42,2 
UAE 0,0 1,5 22,1 14,8 7,2 7,8 
Oman 0,0 0,0 0,0 9,9 7,1 2,7 
Malaysia 0,0 0,0 5,7 6,9 5,0 1,6 
China 3,6 7,4 5,1 6,5 4,1 0,0 
India 3,0 1,6 7,1 5,5 3,4 2,4 
Kingdom of 
Saudi Arabia 2,0 2,5 0,4 3,2 2,6 3,7 
Spain 9,9 6,5 10,6 0,3 2,1 0,7 
South Korea 0,0 0,6 0,5 2,3 1,4 2,4 
Vietnam  36,0 28,0 24,6 16,0 1,4 0,0 
Other Countries 6,0 3,3 0,4 0,5 1,1 0,1 
Greece 2,7 3,4 0,0 0,0 0,5 1,9 
Italy 1,0 7,4 3,9 0,2 0,2 1,5 
  The market share of the main exporters ha s changed considerably during the period of 
investigation. Iran who had a market share of 14% in 2006, increased its share to 29% in 2010; 
Pakistan whose market share was 22% in 2006 in creased its share to 35% in 2010, and these two 
countries had the largest increase in their shares  among exporters. However, during the same period 
the market share of Vietnam dropped from 36% to 1% and Spain’s share dropped to 2% in 2010 from 
its level of 10% in 2006. The largest shares among e xporters were of Iran with 42%, Pakistan with 
33% and United Arab Emirates with 8% in the first 3 months of the 2011. 
   G/SG/N/8/TUR/13 
G/SG/N/10/TUR/13 
G/SG/N/11/TUR/16 
Page 8  
 
  III. PRECISE DESCRIPTION OF THE PRODUCT INVOLVED 
 The product involved is “poly(ethylene terephtha late), having a viscosity number of 78 ml/g 
or higher.” The product subject to measure is cu rrently classified under 3907 .60.20.00.00 within the 
Turkish Customs Tariff Schedule. 
 
IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED MEASURE 
 The imposition of a definitive safeguard measure is proposed in the form of a variable duty, 
which will be implemented as shown in the table below.  
 
Turkish Customs 
Tariff Code DESCRIPTION OF THE 
PRODUCT 1
st Period 
(%) 2nd Period 
(%) 3rd Period 
(%) 
3907.60.20.00.00 Having a viscosity number of 
78 ml/g or higher 8 7,5 7 
 
 Below is the list of Developing Countries ex cluded from the measures as they export less 
than 3% of imports to Turkey (Article 9.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards ) 
 
  Afghanistan; Albania; Algeria; Antigua and Barbuda; Angola; Argentina; American Samoa; 
Anguilla; Antarctica; Aruba; Azerbaija n; Barbados; Bangladesh;  Burkina Faso;  Bahrain;  Burundi;  
Benin;  Belarus;  Bolivarian Republic of Venezuel a;  Brunei Darussalam;  Bolivia, Plurinational State 
of;  Brazil;  Bahamas;  Bhutan;  Botswana;  Belize;  Bermuda;  Bouvet Island;  British Virgin Islands;  
British Indian Ocean Territory;  Cambodia;  Demo cratic Republic of Congo;  Central African 
Republic;  Congo;  Côte d'Ivoire;  Cameroon;  Chad;  Colombia;  Comoros;  Costa Rica;  Cuba;  Cape 
Verde;  Cayman Islands;  Chile;  Christmas Isla nds;  Cocos Islands;  Cook Islands;  Djibouti;  
Dominica;  Dominican Republic;  Ecuador;  Egypt;  Eritrea;  Ethiopia;  Fiji;  Federated States of 
Micronesia;  Falkland Islands;  French Polynesia;  French Southern Territories;  Gabon;  Grenada;  
Ghana;  Gambia;  Georgia;  Greenland;  Guinea;  Equatorial Guinea;  Guatemala;  Guinea-Bissau;  
Guyana;  Gibraltar;  Guam;  Honduras;  Haiti;  Hear d Island and McDonald Isla nds; Indonesia;  Iraq;  
Jamaica;  Jordan;  Kazakhstan;  Kenya,  Kingdom of  Saudi Arabia;  Kiribati;  St Kitts and Nevis;  
Kuwait;  Kyrgyzstan;  Laos;  Lebanon;  St Lucia;  Sri Lanka;  Liberia;  Lesotho;  Libyan Arab 
Jamahiriya;  Morocco;  Madagascar;  Marshall Is lands;  Mali;  Moldova;  Mongolia;  Mauritania;  
Mauritius;  Maldives;  Malawi;  Mozambique;  Macao;  Mayotte;  Mexico;  Montserrat; Myanmar; 
Namibia;  Niger;  Nigeria;  Nicaragua;  Nepal;  Nauru;  Netherlands Antilles;  New Caledonia;  Niue 
Island;  Norfolk Island;  Northern Mariana Islands; Panama;  Peru;  Papua New Guinea;  Philippines;  
Palau;  Paraguay;  Pitcairn;  Qatar;  Russian Federation;  Rwanda;  Sa moa;  Solomon Islands;  
Seychelles;  Sudan;  Sierra Leone ;  Senegal;  Somalia;  South African Republic; Suriname;  Sao Tomé 
and Principe;  El Salvador;  Syrian Arab Repub lic; Swaziland;  South Ge orgia and South Sandwich 
Islands;  St Helena and dependencies;   St Pierre and Miquelon;  Tajikis tan; Thailand; Togo;  Tunisia;  
Tonga;  East Timor;  Trinidad and Tobago;  Turkme nistan;  Tuvalu;  Tanzania;  Tokelau;  Turks and 
Caicos Islands;  Ukraine; United States Minor out lying islands;  Uganda;  Uruguay;  Uzbekistan;  
St Vincent;  Vietnam;  Vanuatu;  Virgin Islands of USA;  Wallis and Futuna Islands;  Yemen;  
Zambia;  and Zimbabwe. 
  G/SG/N/8/TUR/13 
 G/SG/N/10/TUR/13 
 G/SG/N/11/TUR/16 
 Page 9 
 
 
  V. PROPOSED DATE OF INTRODUCTION OF THE MEASURE 
 The measure will come into effect with the publication of the approval of the Council of 
Ministers after all legal procedures are completed.  
 VI. EXPECTED DURATION OF THE MEASURE 
 The expected duration of the proposed measure is three years. 
 VII. PROPOSED DATE FOR THE REVIEW  
 Not applicable. 
 VIII.  EXPECTED TIMETABLE FOR PROGRESSIVE LIBERALIZATION OF THE 
MEASURE 
 In order to induce adjustment, the proposed m easure will be subject to liberalization on a 
regular basis following its imposition, thereby ensuri ng that there is a strong incentive for domestic 
producers to undertake progressively the necessary restructuring and adjustment programs. The proposed measure is to be progressively liberalized as indicated in item IV above. 
 
IX. INFORMATION RELATING TO THE EXTENSION OF A SAFEGUARD MEASURE 
 Not applicable. 
 
 
__________